Circumcision and lubrication
User91283
wadi
User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991213111526...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> A circumcised penis does not lubricate as well as an uncut penis.
We have been through this recently as well.
You going to leave this at soundbite level or are you going to take it
further.
This is a catch 22 situation for the uncircumcised.
If they allow a build up of smegma to the extent that it would assist with
lubrication to any meaningful extent the stench would be disgusting and a
passion killer to say the least.
If they wash everyday, as they claim, then they would have too little slime
under the 4skin to assist in anyway.
So what's it to be skin freaks?
The benefits of the slime outweigh the negatives of the disgusting stench.
Or do you wash, wash and keep washing to avoid that anti-social olfactory
phenomenon and end up with little or no slime?
CiberCrooz
>From: "wadi" wa...@bigfoot.com
>Date: Tue, 14 December 1999 12:07 AM EST
>Message-id: <834m31$ocd$4...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>
Shows your complete lack of knowledge of the intact penis.One does not need a
build-up of smegma, as you put it,to lubricate.The penis,as you know, produces
pre-seminal fluids which the prepuce helps keep inside keeping the glans and
inner foreskin moist.
coonie
Its amazing to me that Wadi, a confessed Jew, needs to demean the
normal penis to justify and "live with" his circumcision.
Yes the circumcision obessed never fail to amaze me.
I've told this fool numerous times hygiene is no big deal, that odor
takes place usually only after sex where semen decomposes under the
foreskin. The decomposition in part needs normal skin bacteria and
moisture. The moisture does serve as a penis lubricant.
--
Circumcision is not a debate, it is a battle for a boy
to remain genitally whole.
http://homestead.deja.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
User91283
issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
Your lack of knowledge of how a working foreskin can function is elementary.
wadi
coonie <coon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:835fpm$mr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Its amazing to me that Wadi, a confessed Jew, needs to demean the
> normal penis to justify and "live with" his circumcision.
"confessed Jew"?
You have a site for that?
> Yes the circumcision obessed never fail to amaze me.
> I've told this fool numerous times hygiene is no big deal,
Yea
I am always left wondering just who you are trying to convince.
> that odor
> takes place usually only after sex where semen decomposes under the
> foreskin. The decomposition in part needs normal skin bacteria and
> moisture. The moisture does serve as a penis lubricant.
>
Nah.
Nice try connie.
But just your usual load of hot steaming camel crap.
wadi
Yea, yea, yea
Been through all this before.
====================
wadi <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> Roe <gidget...@idx.com.au> wrote in message
> news:381d...@news1.idx.com.au...
> > Jeesh, Wadi -
> > the buildup of smegma is a normal physical process, much the same as
> dead
> > cells are sloughed off the skin all over the body, there are also skin
> cells
> > in the penile area ( duh) and the dead skin cells accumulate under the
> > foreskin.These are usually removed by routine bathing. An uncircumcised
> > penis will also lose dead skin cells, in fact, you are probably wearing
> some
> > on your undies right now. The difference is that because it is not
> apparent
> > due to lack of foreskin, there is no name given to it, but the process
is
> > the same.
>
> Of course smegma production is a normal physical process.
> In the context of this thread, however, we were discussing it's value as a
> natural lubricant.
> All men produce pre-cum.
> So therefore if the uncircumcised, as Alan and Grace assert, are more able
> to assist with lubrication during intercourse it must be through these
under
> foreskin secreations.
> I would agree that with routine bathing smegma is removed.
> I would also agree that whatever secreations I produce would either be
> washed off (during bathing) or rub off on my underwear.
> So we come back to my question to Grace.
>
> If the smegma build up is washed off during daily bathing how much is
> available to assist with lubrication during intercourse?
> In another thread Grace alluded to the higher "moisture level" on the
glans
> of an uncircumcised penis.
>
> So I notice that the the claim has been reduced from the presence of
> lubrication to make a significant contribution to lubrication during
> intercourse to stating the obvious in respect of relative moisture levels.
> The contribution of a damp glans to lubrication during intercourse is
indeed
> marginal given the amount of lubrication the majority of women produce.
>
> So in summary I challenged one of the supposed "functions" of the foreskin
> as promoted by the 4skincentric.
>
>
> > Smegma is NOT lubrication. If it is at a stage where one would call it
> > slime, then it is surely well past time for the man to bathe.
>
> That was my point exactly.
>
>
> > I have known friends who have been with men with some fairly 'nasty
> > smelling' penises that WERE circumcised. This comes down to personal
> > hygiene, and unhealthy in this area can be attributed to both
> uncircumcised
> > AND circumcised.
>
> I bow to your superior experience (or that of your friends).
> Perhaps then we should differentiate between the area of origin of the
> smell.
> In this context we were talking about under the foreskin in an
uncircumcised
> man so we need to confine the comparison the the glans/upper shaft of the
> circumcised man.
> The smell if any from the area of the scrotum due to sweat etc is constant
> regardles of circumcision status and varies from person to person.
>
>
> >
> > Lubrication is provided from inside the body, not outside the body under
> the
> > foreskin.
>
> Thats what I stated.
>
>
> > The same as for a woman, where lubrication is produced ALL the time,
with
> > more at sexual arousal. As for women not walking around lubricated,
there
> is
> > some form of moisture there at all times ( although again , there are
> > variations to what is normal ), due to normal body processes . For some
> > women this is a small, negligible amount, and they are not concerned
with
> > it. Others may have excessive lubrication, and this is also normal.
>
> That is consistent with what Mary Jane Minkin M.D. (whom I quoted) stated.
> So I am not sure where we are in disagreement on all this.
>
>
> > If we want to continue along your particular line of logic, when are you
> > going to remove your ears ? they can get a nasty buildup of ear wax.
> > Some men don't need a smelly penis to turn a woman off, some can just
use
> > their personality.
>
> Ok
> Nice one there :-)
>
> I don't know if anyone promotes circumcision purely on the basis of
removing
> the the potential for the regretable smegma related olfactory phenomena.
> There are numerous benefits accruing through neonatal circumcision.
> These should be viewed in the context of the combined benefit that accrues
> (IMO).
>
>
>
>
>
wadi
CiberCrooz <ciber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991214034131...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
>
> Shows your complete lack of knowledge of the intact penis.One does not
need a
> build-up of smegma, as you put it,to lubricate.The penis,as you know,
produces
> pre-seminal fluids which the prepuce helps keep inside keeping the glans
and
> inner foreskin moist.
Yea, yea, yea.
Same old shit.
Been through this recently.
=====================
----- Original Message -----
From: wadi <wa...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy
Sent: 31 October 1999 07:37
Subject: Re: I hate to bring up the circ issue....
>
> AlanKngsly <alank...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991030191247...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> > >From: "wadi" wa...@bigfoot.com
> > >> Since both men produce this, but the intact male's glans
> > >> is also moist, it is reasonable to assert that intact men
> > >> produce more lubrication.
> > >>
> > >
> > >No Grace that is not a reasonable conclusion.
> > >But in the absence of any facts I suppose all we can expect is a
foreskin
> > >friendly guess.
> >
> > Let me ask you something, Wadi: have you had sex with both circumcised
and
> > intact men? If not, where the hell do you get off telling women their
> > experiences are invalid?
> >
>
> Grace made an assertion.
> The gist of it was:
> That slime and pre-cum is more lubrication than pre-cum alone.
>
> Lets deal with this "natural" lubrication that the uncircumcised claim to
> have then.
>
> The secretion is known as smegma.
> It is described by the foreskin friendly Joyce Wright, M. D as follows:
>
> "The process is a continuous one: living cells are constantly growing
toward
> the surface, only to undergo fatty degeneration in their turn and separate
> off as freshly formed smegma."
>
> So how much of this stuff collects under the foreskin to significantly
> assist with 'lubrication" during intercourse?
>
> Joyce Wright, M. D again says:
>
> ".... we find a sizeable portion of men are still in possession of
> foreskins. Hence, from the practical point of view, it is important that
> they should realize the need for cleanliness of the foreskin cavity. This
> means, in effect keeping it free from an undesirable collection of smegma.
> In its fresh state, smegma is a wholesome and functional lubricant. But,
if
> allowed to accumulate in the foreskin cavity, it becomes changed into an
> unpleasant, unhealthy, and bad-smelling substance."
>
> OK
> So how much is enough?
> How long is it before the "wholesome and functional" becomes the
> "unpleasant, unhealthy, and bad-smelling"?
>
> Presumably the penis is washed at least once daily (during routine
bathing).
> How long after cleaning does it take for the optimum level of smegma to be
> produced (for it to make any meaningful contribution to lubrication during
> intercourse)?
>
> My best guess is that there is a trade off between presenting a
"unpleasant,
> unhealthy, and bad-smelling" penis to your partner and retaining a
facility
> to assist with lubrication during intercourse.
>
> This is of course no contest.
> How many women do you think would choose this limited assistance with
> lubrication at the expense of having to deal with the "unpleasant,
> unhealthy, and bad-smelling"?
>
>
>
>
Geoffrey T. Falk
User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
>Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
>issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
>the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
>to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
less need for lubrication. Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
drying.
The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
can dry up.
When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
sexual intimacy in many different ways.
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/
John Pritchard
>
> In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
>
> Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> less need for lubrication. Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
> the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
> drying.
>
> The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
> vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
> can dry up.
>
> When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
> often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
> sexual intimacy in many different ways.
>
> g.
Geoffrey, I won't go into detail but simply say that this is utterly
ridiculous. Where are on earth to you get your fanciful notions?
wadi
John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote in message
news:3878A5...@escape.ca...
Yes indeed.
Isn't Geoffrey turning into a pathetic caricature.
Take pity on the prick.
All he has left is the same old exaggerations, misinformation, lies and
deceit.
Geoffrey T. Falk
In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
>Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
>issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
>the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
>to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
less need for lubrication. Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
drying.
The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
can dry up.
When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
sexual intimacy in many different ways.
g.
--
John Pritchard
>
> [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
>
> In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
>
> Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> less need for lubrication.
Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
*all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
is really just vaginal masturbation.
Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
> the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
> drying.
>
> The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
> vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
> can dry up.
> When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
> often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
> sexual intimacy in many different ways.
The female supplies the lubrication. If she does not any possible
physical problem should be addressed - or perhaps she is simply not
sufficiently interested.
Circumcision can improve intimacy by giving the man greater control and
letting him be more attentive to his partner's needs than to his own.
craig wagner
>Circumcision can improve intimacy by giving the man greater control and
>letting him be more attentive to his partner's needs than to his own.
Or, it can have the opposite effect, with the frenulum constantly exposed
to direct stimulation.
Leif Thompson
You got a point or what? Make it. Calling something "utterly ridiculous" is
really no arguement at all.
Kind of like a fart, makes a nose but doesn't say much.
Leif
John Pritchard wrote:
> Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> >
> > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> >
> > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> > less need for lubrication. Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
> > the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
> > drying.
> >
> > The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
> > vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
> > can dry up.
> >
> > When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
> > often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
> > sexual intimacy in many different ways.
> >
> > g.
>
> Geoffrey, I won't go into detail but simply say that this is utterly
> ridiculous. Where are on earth to you get your fanciful notions?
>
Ice Man
John Pritchard wrote:
> Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> >
> > [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
> >
> > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> >
> > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> > less need for lubrication.
>
> Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
> occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
> *all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
> remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
> during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
> is really just vaginal masturbation.
This is just nonsense, first of all, what are you trying to say, do you believe that a
"short foreskin" is somehow less mobile than a circumcised penis, ridiculous!
Secondly "vaginal masturbation", has to be the most foolish thing I have read on this
NG. Really what were you thinking, it is just so ridiculous masturbation is a single
player sport, as soon as another person is involved it is no longer masturbation, even
given that, by your definition all circumcised men therefore engage in "vaginal
masturbation", patent nonsense.
> Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
> > the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
> > drying.
> >
> > The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
> > vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
> > can dry up.
>
>
> > When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
> > often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
> > sexual intimacy in many different ways.
>
> The female supplies the lubrication. If she does not any possible
> physical problem should be addressed - or perhaps she is simply not
> sufficiently interested.
This is another silly and false notion, a woman can be perfectly healthy and very
interested and yet still be unable to produce the copious amounts of lubrication
required for sexual intercourse with a circumcised man, (that is still yet another
reason why circumcision is not a good idea).
> Circumcision can improve intimacy by giving the man greater control and
> letting him be more attentive to his partner's needs than to his own.
Yeah, so much control that they often can't climax at all, especially as they age and
the long term effects of circumcision accumulate further dulling what little sensitive
tissue the circumcisor left them.
Lockdown
John Pritchard wrote:
> Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> >
> > [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
> >
> > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> >
> > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> > less need for lubrication.
>
> Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
> occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
> *all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
> remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
> during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
> is really just vaginal masturbation.
You keep bringing up short foreskins... what's up with that? You think
that you're discrediting someone's argument by saying that for X percent of
intact males, something isn't true? It doesn't impress anyone.
> Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
> > the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
> > drying.
> >
> > The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
> > vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
> > can dry up.
>
>
> > When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
> > often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
> > sexual intimacy in many different ways.
>
> The female supplies the lubrication. If she does not any possible
> physical problem should be addressed - or perhaps she is simply not
> sufficiently interested.
Again, not entirely true. Both partners supply lubrication. The men provide
it as "pre-cum", as it's known and a foreskin.
> Circumcision can improve intimacy by giving the man greater control and
> letting him be more attentive to his partner's needs than to his own.
yeah... "to hell with my sex life... let's cut our losses and try to make yours
good".
No wonder I have such a fetish of pleasuring women...
John Pritchard
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> > >
> > > [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
> > >
> > > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> > > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> > > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> > > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> > >
> > > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> > > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> > > less need for lubrication.
> >
> > Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
> > occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
> > *all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
> > remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
> > during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
> > is really just vaginal masturbation.
>
> You keep bringing up short foreskins... what's up with that? You think
> that you're discrediting someone's argument by saying that for X percent of
> intact males, something isn't true? It doesn't impress anyone.
Impress anyone or not, I believe it to be true and it certainly was for
me: the 'roller action' does not apply to all intact men.
If I appear to bring up 'short foreskins' frequently and it is only
brought up in response to the 'roller action', then the 'roller action',
which is not true in the general case, continues to be brought up
frequently.
I *know* that the 'roller action' does not apply in all cases and when
it does, it is not IMO the preferred way to go.
deletion
Hugh Young
said:
>Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
>> Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
>> the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
>> less need for lubrication.
>
>Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
>occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
>*all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
>remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
>during erection.
By JP's own oft-quoted statistics, that happens in only a few percent
of cases.
> And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
>is really just vaginal masturbation.
And masturbation is a bad thing, right? Seems like JP wants to take us
Back to the Future, to the time of J H Kellogg, and circumcision to
prevent self-abuse and all its ill-effects.
This is pathetic. The way the vast majority of men have been having
intercourse for hundreds of thousands of years should be surgically
modified because it is "vaginal masturbation"? Whereas sliding a cut
ramrod in and out is not?
Come on, JP is saying that one man uses his partner's vagina to move
the moving part of his penis, another, lacking a moving part, uses his
partner's vagina to rub the only part of his penis, and the first is
"just vaginal masturbation" (bad!) and the second is "real sex"
(good!)? Get off the grass!
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
John Pritchard
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:44:22 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
> said:
>
> >Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
>
> >> Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> >> the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> >> less need for lubrication.
> >
> >Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
> >occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
> >*all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
> >remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
> >during erection.
>
> By JP's own oft-quoted statistics, that happens in only a few percent
> of cases.
The point it, Hugh, it *happens* - therefore the 'roller action' cannot
be generalized to all intact men.
> > And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
> >is really just vaginal masturbation.
>
> And masturbation is a bad thing, right? Seems like JP wants to take us
> Back to the Future, to the time of J H Kellogg, and circumcision to
> prevent self-abuse and all its ill-effects.
I didn't say any of those things. But they sound so much like you, Hugh.
> This is pathetic. The way the vast majority of men have been having
> intercourse for hundreds of thousands of years should be surgically
> modified because it is "vaginal masturbation"? Whereas sliding a cut
> ramrod in and out is not?
You are digressing. We were not discussinig who should or who should not
be 'surgically modified'. I said "the 'roller action' cannot be
generalized to all intact men." And you obviously agree.
> Come on, JP is saying that one man uses his partner's vagina to move
> the moving part of his penis, another, lacking a moving part, uses his
> partner's vagina to rub the only part of his penis, and the first is
> "just vaginal masturbation" (bad!) and the second is "real sex"
> (good!)? Get off the grass!
Yes, I find the latter, 'direct vaginal stimulation' better - my opinion
based upon my experience. Upon what do you base your opinion?
Lockdown
John Pritchard wrote:
> Lockdown wrote:
> >
> > John Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > > Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
> > > >
> > > > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > > > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> > > > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> > > > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> > > > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> > > > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> > > > less need for lubrication.
> > >
> > > Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
> > > occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
> > > *all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
> > > remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
> > > during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
> > > is really just vaginal masturbation.
> >
> > You keep bringing up short foreskins... what's up with that? You think
> > that you're discrediting someone's argument by saying that for X percent of
> > intact males, something isn't true? It doesn't impress anyone.
>
> Impress anyone or not, I believe it to be true and it certainly was for
> me: the 'roller action' does not apply to all intact men.
>
> If I appear to bring up 'short foreskins' frequently and it is only
> brought up in response to the 'roller action', then the 'roller action',
> which is not true in the general case, continues to be brought up
> frequently.
Just because it is not true in your case, or all cases does not mean
it's not generally true. Ever consider that the reasons you like your circ'ed
dick better is cuz you had a short foreskin?
> I *know* that the 'roller action' does not apply in all cases and when
> it does, it is not IMO the preferred way to go.
That's totally rou opinion as for the "way to go", but does not justify
circumcision, because certainly not all babies will have that same ideal in
mind.
>
>
> deletion
wadi
Geoffrey T. Falk <"gtf["@]cirp.org> wrote in message
news:XJye4.17044$G55.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
>
>
> In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the
circumcision
> >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture
content of
> >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is
high
> >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
>
> Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls
within
> the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction,
hence
> the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
> drying.
>
> The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of
the
> vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where
they
> can dry up.
>
> When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The
woman
> often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to
destroy
> sexual intimacy in many different ways.
>
And once again a lot of crap from Geoffrey.
But who really cares what this caricature says these days anyway.
===========================
----- Original Message -----
From: wadi <wa...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy
Sent: 31 October 1999 07:37
Subject: Re: I hate to bring up the circ issue....
>
> AlanKngsly <alank...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991030191247...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> > >From: "wadi" wa...@bigfoot.com
> > >> Since both men produce this, but the intact male's glans
> > >> is also moist, it is reasonable to assert that intact men
> > >> produce more lubrication.
> > >>
[snip]
===========================
John Pritchard
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Lockdown wrote:
> > >
> > > John Pritchard wrote:
> > >
> > > > Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > > > > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> > > > > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> > > > > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> > > > > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> > > > > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> > > > > less need for lubrication.
> > > >
> > > > occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
> > > > *all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
> > > > remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
> > > > during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
> > > > is really just vaginal masturbation.
> > >
> > > You keep bringing up short foreskins... what's up with that? You think
> > > that you're discrediting someone's argument by saying that for X percent of
> > > intact males, something isn't true? It doesn't impress anyone.
> >
> > Impress anyone or not, I believe it to be true and it certainly was for
> > me: the 'roller action' does not apply to all intact men.
> >
> > If I appear to bring up 'short foreskins' frequently and it is only
> > brought up in response to the 'roller action', then the 'roller action',
> > which is not true in the general case, continues to be brought up
> > frequently.
>
> Just because it is not true in your case, or all cases does not mean
> it's not generally true.
The issue was Geoffrey's statement: "Actually, it is a question of
mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within the foreskin
roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence less need
for lubrication." As it stands, that statement is at best a half-truth.
In addition, presupposes that that condition when it occurs is better.
Ever consider that the reasons you like your circ'ed
> dick better is cuz you had a short foreskin?
No, because I didn't have one.
> > I *know* that the 'roller action' does not apply in all cases and when
> > it does, it is not IMO the preferred way to go.
>
> That's totally rou opinion as for the "way to go",
Yes, my opinion. I said just that.
but does not justify
> circumcision, because certainly not all babies will have that same ideal in
> mind.
Then don't do it. Does the possibility that the kid when an adult
*might* experience 'roller action' and if he does *might* like it
outweigh all medical, religious and family considers (and as an added
bonus the fact that he just *might*, (or more likely) have a better
sexual experience, too)?
> >
> >
> > deletion
MancuzoL
>Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
>occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
>*all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
>remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
>during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
>is really just vaginal masturbation.
As a woman with experience with both intact and circ'd men, I can't but laugh
out loud at this nonsense.
First off I wonder just how many naked men you've seen in your life. The
majority do have full coverage when flaccid, maybe 1 out of 1,000 doesn't. Thus
barely relevant. And not being a woman I doubt you can even begin to judge how
different a cut penis feels when compared to intact (regardless of length of
the foreskin).
What is your problem, btw? Vaginal masturbation???
>The female supplies the lubrication. If she does not any possible
>physical problem should be addressed - or perhaps she is simply not
>sufficiently interested.
Nonsense, but a neat excuse.
Females supply *part* of the lubrication. The female body has adapted over
millennia to the male genital, which of course means a natural, intact penis.
There's a large variation in the female amount of lubrication as produced by
different women -- this ranges from those naturally extremely wet, to others
who are exactly sufficiently wet for normal intercourse (normal = with an
intact man). If the man fails to share his amount of the lubrication you can't
shove the fault over to the female, dear, much as you'd like to.
I can confirm however that I sure wouldn't be 'sufficiently interested' in such
a self-centered sexual egotist. Maybe that was your problem.
MancuzoL
>The point it, Hugh, it *happens* - therefore the 'roller action' cannot
>be generalized to all intact men.
And again, you obviously haven't experienced insertion of circ'd vs. intact
penises (even such with short foreskins). The difference is marked, including
the absence of the gliding with cut men and the presence of it even with men
with short foreskins.
>Yes, I find the latter, 'direct vaginal stimulation' better - my opinion
>based upon my experience. Upon what do you base your opinion?
Hmm, *you* find it better. Good for you and so on.
Bud, just how self-centered can you get? I suggest an artificial vagina, at
least you're not chafing a woman that way or telling her to lube up for your
pleasure, giving her a bad conscience if she can't go to the excess a cut penis
needs.
Thank God my (intact) DH shows a bit more concern for the pleasure and
interests of his wife.
craig wagner
>The point of greater control, which is more easily achieved after
>circumcision...
In YOUR opinion.
In YOUR experience.
>A cut penis does not require 'excess'. Depending upon the circumstances,
>a 'cut' man may have to exert some control - but it is likely to be
>easier for him than for the intact.
In YOUR opinion.
In YOUR experience.
Dave
>
> Lockdown wrote:
[massive snippage]
> but does not justify
> > circumcision, because certainly not all babies will have that same ideal in
> > mind.
>
> Then don't do it.
Practice what you preach lately?
> Does the possibility that the kid when an adult
> *might* experience 'roller action' and if he does *might* like it
> outweigh all medical, religious and family considers (and as an added
> bonus the fact that he just *might*, (or more likely) have a better
> sexual experience, too)?
A study that just came out studing just medical benefits taking from
highly biased sources said the medically it pretty much didn't matter.
That's what everyone is telling me, I haven't had time to go ahead and
confirm this for myself yet though, so let's just leave medical issues
alone for right now.
The point here is not about medical issues, it is about ethics, and
right to choice. Does a child automatically get the religion of the
parent, and where does the parents right, and the rights of said parents
religion end? I would say they end when one wishes to violate the
sanctitiy of the other.
John, you don't seem to like to answer direct questions(from what I've
seen), but do try and answer this one:
Do *I* have the right to NOT be circumcised at birth?
I think we both know the answer. if it's not medical, then why do I not
have this right?
- Dave
Hugh Young
said:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>> Come on, JP is saying that one man uses his partner's vagina to move
>> the moving part of his penis, another, lacking a moving part, uses his
>> partner's vagina to rub the only part of his penis, and the first is
>> "just vaginal masturbation" (bad!) and the second is "real sex"
>> (good!)? Get off the grass!
>
>Yes, I find the latter, 'direct vaginal stimulation' better - my opinion
>based upon my experience. Upon what do you base your opinion?
JP seems to think that because I am now gay, out and proud, I have no
heterosexual experience. This is an incorrect assumption.
I can assure JP that some of us intact guys find (or found) the
stimulation of a(n intact vulva and labia and) vagina on our foreskins
and glanses working together to be much better than that on our
(intact) glanses alone (for example by holding the skin back), let
alone what they would be like after being desensitised and reduced by
circumcision.
Hugh Young
said:
>The issue was Geoffrey's statement: "Actually, it is a question of
>mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within the foreskin
>roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence less need
>for lubrication." As it stands, that statement is at best a half-truth.
If JP is referring to the 4% with short foreskins, its a 96% truth.
>In addition, presupposes that that condition when it occurs is better.
Whatever, an intact penis is intact; it is all he was given. If he
wants less he can choose less, as JP did.
>but does not justify
>> circumcision, because certainly not all babies will have that same ideal in
>> mind.
>
>Then don't
anybody
> do it
to a baby
>.
> Does the possibility that the kid when an adult
>*might* experience 'roller action' and if he does *might* like it
^very probably almost certainly^
>outweigh all medical,
now considered by a very pro-circ biassed study to just balance the
risks
> religious
babies do not have religions
> and family considers
^ations
Yes. an expression JP often uses but which doesn't mean a damn thing
except "cutting part of his genitals off to make him look like us".
> (and as an added
>bonus the fact that he just *might*, (or more likely) have a better
>sexual experience, too)?
Yes, because that's something he can choose for himself (as JP did),
but only if he was left intact (as JP was).
John Pritchard
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:10:56 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
> said:
>
> >Hugh Young wrote:
>
> >> Come on, JP is saying that one man uses his partner's vagina to move
> >> the moving part of his penis, another, lacking a moving part, uses his
> >> partner's vagina to rub the only part of his penis, and the first is
> >> "just vaginal masturbation" (bad!) and the second is "real sex"
> >> (good!)? Get off the grass!
> >
> >Yes, I find the latter, 'direct vaginal stimulation' better - my opinion
> >based upon my experience. Upon what do you base your opinion?
>
> JP seems to think that because I am now gay, out and proud, I have no
> heterosexual experience. This is an incorrect assumption.
Okay. Your sexual orientation is really of no interest to me. As they
say, some of my best friends are .............
> I can assure JP that some of us intact guys find (or found) the
> stimulation of a(n intact vulva and labia and) vagina on our foreskins
> and glanses working together to be much better than that on our
> (intact) glanses alone (for example by holding the skin back), let
> alone what they would be like after being desensitised and reduced by
> circumcision.
I have no problem with that.
My points remain: the 'gliding action' does not occur for all intact
men; and from my experience and from what I have read on these
newsgroups and elsewhere there are many men circumcised as adults and
are happy with the results.
Geoffrey T. Falk
John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>> I can assure JP that some of us intact guys find (or found) the
>> stimulation of a(n intact vulva and labia and) vagina on our foreskins
>> and glanses working together to be much better than that on our
>> (intact) glanses alone (for example by holding the skin back), let
>> alone what they would be like after being desensitised and reduced by
>> circumcision.
>
>I have no problem with that.
>
>My points remain: the 'gliding action' does not occur for all intact
>men; and from my experience and from what I have read on these
>newsgroups and elsewhere there are many men circumcised as adults and
>are happy with the results.
Sure. They are the ones who chose it for themselves. Given this, it is not
surprising that they were happy with their decision. It is for them to
explain their particular motivations, whatever they may be.
The gliding action was developed and refined by the process of evolution
of our species. Whether this occurs for each and every intact man is neither
here nor there. The gliding action is the normal mechanism of human sexual
intercourse.
g.
John Pritchard
>
> In article <387EB3...@escape.ca>,
> John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote:
> >Hugh Young wrote:
> >> I can assure JP that some of us intact guys find (or found) the
> >> stimulation of a(n intact vulva and labia and) vagina on our foreskins
> >> and glanses working together to be much better than that on our
> >> (intact) glanses alone (for example by holding the skin back), let
> >> alone what they would be like after being desensitised and reduced by
> >> circumcision.
> >
> >I have no problem with that.
> >
> >My points remain: the 'gliding action' does not occur for all intact
> >men; and from my experience and from what I have read on these
> >newsgroups and elsewhere there are many men circumcised as adults and
> >are happy with the results.
>
> Sure. They are the ones who chose it for themselves. Given this, it is not
> surprising that they were happy with their decision. It is for them to
> explain their particular motivations, whatever they may be.
It should be surprising to you since, according to the anticirc credo,
they should be complaining of a degraded sexual experience and should
be mad as hell about it.
Unless, of course, they are in denial.
You dismiss the happy men as experiencing a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Yet, articles like 'Sight Without Color' relate the experience of men
who 'chose for themselves' yet purport to be miserable.
So much for the self-fulfilling prophesy. (Unless, of course, the
*correct* answer results.)
The evolution is interesting. Back in 1996, the line was "the only men
who know what they're talking about are the ones who were circed as
adults,
after getting some sexual experience." (1) Unless, of course, the
*correct* answer results. If not, then their experience is dismissed and
their credibility is attacked.
> The gliding action was developed and refined by the process of evolution of our species.
Pure guesswork - and you should say 'for some members of our species.'
Whether this occurs for each and every intact man is neither
> here nor there.
It is if you are using it as a major selling point.
The gliding action is the normal mechanism of human sexual
> intercourse.
And the lack thereof is equally normal.
> 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/
(1)
The format is a bit different from what I use now because then I was
using UNIX, an art-form I obviously never mastered. Thank goodness for
Netscape.
From: jpri...@escape.ca (John Pritchard)
Newsgroups:
soc.men,sci.med,misc.kids.pregnancy,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Pro-circ delusions
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:14:58 -0500
Organization: escape communications corp.
grace...@aol.com (GraceBoock) writes
In article 4D...@primenet.com, "D. C. Sessions"
<sess...@primenet.com>
writes:
DS - Just a while back (unfortunately before the heavy-duty archive
services got going) it was SOP for the anti-circ Crusaders to deny that
anyone who was circed as a child could know what they were talking
about, and several had a common refrain to the effect of "the only men
who know what they're talking about are the ones who were circed as
adults, after getting some sexual experience." (When we quoted Julius
Lester, they added a disclaimer for religious conversion as involving
prejudice.)
DS - Another popular refrain was how anyone who disagreed with them was
being insensitive and invalidating their feelings and experiences.
DS - Now we have JP and SD, both circumcised as men without religion
entering the picture, and there's this intense effort to undercut not
only
the *implications* of what they bring to the table but their sanity,
honesty, intelligence, etc.
GB - No...we don't question their sanity, honesty or intelligence...IF
they were to leave their anecdotal posts to focus on themselves.
JP- But since, according to you, we do not confine
our posts to our anedotal personal experience, does that then mean that
you are in fact saying that you DO question our sanity, honesty or
intelligence?
GB - They say, "I got cut...and I like it that way". That's fine. I
have no problem with that. But when they start to infer that this is
the reason that *infant* circumcision is/will be beneficial to those
who are cut, then they are making subjective statements about something
that someone *else* will feel.
JP- Your response exemplifies exactly what I think DCSessions was
getting at. To the best of my knowledge neither I, nor Steve Daniel,
has used our experience to tout universal male neonatal circumcision.
We have implied no such thing. Yet, from our statements you make
inferences, which in my view are totally unjustified, and then use
these
inferences to describe our position. I try to make my position quite
clear. I do not need you to interpret, filter and misrepresent my
views.
DS - At least we haven't heard lately how only men who were cut as
adults can judge the consequences of circumcision.
GB- Ok...so here you go: Men who are cut as adults can judge the
consequences or benefits of their decision to circumcise. Some feel no
change. Some like it just fine. Others regret their decision and wish
they had remained intact.
JP - That is correct. Expectant parents should be aware of the
possibility, perhaps even likelihood, of a neutral or positive outcome
to neonatal
circumcision when making their decision - when weighing ALL the
factors.
The article to which above I was responding in it's original format:
From: grace...@aol.com (GraceBoock)
Newsgroups:
soc.men,sci.med,misc.kids.pregnancy,misc.kids.health,misc.kids,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Pro-circ delusions
Date: 21 Apr 1996 02:02:20 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article 4D...@primenet.com, "D. C. Sessions" <sess...@primenet.com>
writes:
}Tom Stempler wrote:
}> It is kind of interesting to follow the "logic" in this debate.
}Sadly true. For instance:
}> One guy here on this thread, says he was circed as an adult. But
based on the way he argues and jumps from one issue to another without
saying much of anything--I secretly suspect that he actually had a
lobotomy and the doctors have convinced him it was an adult
circumcision.
}Just a while back (unfortunately before the heavy-duty archive services
got going) it was SOP for the anti-circ Crusaders to deny that anyone
who was circed as a child could know what they were talking about, and
several had a common refrain to the effect of "the only men who know
what they're talking about are the ones who were circed as adults, after
getting some sexual experience." (When we quoted Julius Lester, they
added a disclaimer for religious conversion as involving
predjudice.)
}Another popular refrain was how anyone who disagreed with them was
being insensitive and invalidating their feelings and experiences.
}Now we have JP and SD, both circumcised as men without religion
entering the picture, and there's this intense effort to undercut not
only the *implications* of what they bring to the table but their
sanity, honesty, intelligence, etc.
No...we don't question their sanity, honesty or intelligence...IF they
were to leave their anectdotal posts to focus on themselves. They say,
"I got
cut...and I like it that way". That's fine. I have no problem with
that. But when they start to infer that this is the reason that
*infant* circumcision is/will be beneficial to those who are cut, then
they are making subjective statements about something that someone
*else* will feel.
}At least we haven't heard lately how only men who were cut as adults
can
judge the consequences of circumcision.
Ok...so here you go: Men who are cut as adults can judge the
consequences or benefits of their decision to circumcise. Some feel no
change. Some like it just fine. Others regret their decision and wish
they had remained intact.
}> The analogies are incredible. Yes! Now there are groups of people
"vaccinated" or "educated" against their will as children who have
come forward as adults to protest the vaccination and forced education
they endured and are proposing that parents today not make the same
mistake.
}Someday people around here are going to learn the principles of formal
logic and the shock will kill half the Usenet readership.
Since we haven't learned it from anything you've
posted, when you learn it yourself, the shock will
kill the other half of the Usenet readership. :)
Grace Boockholdt
Hugh Young
said:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:10:56 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
>> said:
>>
>> >Hugh Young wrote:
>> >Yes, I find the latter, 'direct vaginal stimulation' better - my opinion
>> >based upon my experience. Upon what do you base your opinion?
>>
>> JP seems to think that because I am now gay, out and proud, I have no
>> heterosexual experience. This is an incorrect assumption.
>
>Okay. Your sexual orientation is really of no interest to me.
But my experience was, until it proved to be as good as his.
>As they
>say, some of my best friends are .............
And when they say that, I wonder just how close those friendships are.
Who uses their real friends as debating points? (They often go on
"but..." and stab their "friends" in the back.)
>> I can assure JP that some of us intact guys find (or found) the
>> stimulation of a(n intact vulva and labia and) vagina on our foreskins
>> and glanses working together to be much better than that on our
>> (intact) glanses alone (for example by holding the skin back), let
>> alone what they would be like after being desensitised and reduced by
>> circumcision.
>
>I have no problem with that.
>
>My points remain: the 'gliding action' does not occur for all intact
>men;
But for the great majority.
>and from my experience and from what I have read on these
>newsgroups and elsewhere there are many men circumcised as adults and
>are happy with the results.
Yes, as PH repeatedly points out, people who wanted to be circumcised.
Seems to me their motivations are various and have to do with
circumcision rather than real problems with their foreskins. Whatever,
that's their choice. Cutting babies deprives them of that choice.
--
Lockdown
John Pritchard wrote:
> Lockdown wrote:
> >
> > John Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > > Lockdown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Pritchard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > > > > > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> > > > > > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> > > > > > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> > > > > > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> > > > > > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> > > > > > less need for lubrication.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
> > > > > occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
> > > > > *all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
> > > > > remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
> > > > > during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
> > > > > is really just vaginal masturbation.
> > > >
> > > > You keep bringing up short foreskins... what's up with that? You think
> > > > that you're discrediting someone's argument by saying that for X percent of
> > > > intact males, something isn't true? It doesn't impress anyone.
> > >
> > > Impress anyone or not, I believe it to be true and it certainly was for
> > > me: the 'roller action' does not apply to all intact men.
> > >
> > > If I appear to bring up 'short foreskins' frequently and it is only
> > > brought up in response to the 'roller action', then the 'roller action',
> > > which is not true in the general case, continues to be brought up
> > > frequently.
> >
> > Just because it is not true in your case, or all cases does not mean
> > it's not generally true.
>
> The issue was Geoffrey's statement: "Actually, it is a question of
> mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within the foreskin
> roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence less need
> for lubrication." As it stands, that statement is at best a half-truth.
> In addition, presupposes that that condition when it occurs is better.
yes, it does. Most people would think "natural" lubrication is best.
Of course, it's a matter of opinion, but who are we gonna trust? MD's
and perverts or Nature?
>
>
> Ever consider that the reasons you like your circ'ed
> > dick better is cuz you had a short foreskin?
>
> No, because I didn't have one.
>
> > > I *know* that the 'roller action' does not apply in all cases and when
> > > it does, it is not IMO the preferred way to go.
> >
> > That's totally rou opinion as for the "way to go",
>
> Yes, my opinion. I said just that.
>
> but does not justify
> > circumcision, because certainly not all babies will have that same ideal in
> > mind.
>
> Then don't do it. Does the possibility that the kid when an adult
> *might* experience 'roller action' and if he does *might* like it
> outweigh all medical, religious and family considers (and as an added
> bonus the fact that he just *might*, (or more likely) have a better
> sexual experience, too)?
Because with most foreskins, you will experience that roller
action. If we're gonna talk about low percentages here, what abou
the fact his penis *might* be ugly, scarred and mutilated? I think
that's a little more likely.
Umm... there are no medical considerations, really. Religious
considerations are irrelevant and family considerations, well.. those
are just "daddy has one so junior will get it too". Clearly not leverage
or a "reason" for circing.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > deletion
wadi
Dave <wal...@Pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:387E8343...@Pacbell.net...
>
> A study that just came out studing just medical benefits taking from
> highly biased sources said the medically it pretty much didn't matter.
> That's what everyone is telling me, I haven't had time to go ahead and
> confirm this for myself yet though, so let's just leave medical issues
> alone for right now.
>
Thats pretty fucking dumb Dave.
But I can understand where you are coming from here.
You certainly don't want the facts to get in the way of some good old
imaginative speculation do you?
LOL
> The point here is not about medical issues, it is about ethics, and
> right to choice. Does a child automatically get the religion of the
> parent, and where does the parents right, and the rights of said parents
> religion end? I would say they end when one wishes to violate the
> sanctitiy of the other.
>
More of the same stupidity.
It is these very medical issues that have a material effect on the any
discussion on "ethics" and "choice".
But as I already said.
Don't go and let the facts go and spoil your case built on pure speculation.
It appears that the problem you have with the child being brought up within
the religion of his parents is purely as it relates to the fate of the
foreskin.
Would it be too much to ask for you to apply your mind to the question where
the foreskin is not "at risk" from a particular religion?
See ... your position is pretty foolish.
> John, you don't seem to like to answer direct questions(from what I've
> seen), but do try and answer this one:
>
> Do *I* have the right to NOT be circumcised at birth?
>
> I think we both know the answer. if it's not medical, then why do I not
> have this right?
>
Mainly I suppose because the foreskin isn't worthy of consideration.
You really believe that the foreskin is worth the vociferous challenge to
circumcising religions and cultures?
Does the hideous thing really mean that much to you that you and your ilk
find the need to resort to the shameless use of lies, deceit, misinformation
and speculative innuendo to make your case?
wadi
Lockdown <"Lockdown102"@hotmail.com [actually 101]> wrote in message
news:bKPf4.70375$_E6.5...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
John wrote:
> >
> > Then don't do it. Does the possibility that the kid when an adult
> > *might* experience 'roller action' and if he does *might* like it
> > outweigh all medical, religious and family considers (and as an added
> > bonus the fact that he just *might*, (or more likely) have a better
> > sexual experience, too)?
>
> Because with most foreskins, you will experience that roller
> action.
There is no guarantee of that.
There are just too many variables.
But the theory makes for a good fairy tale.
> If we're gonna talk about low percentages here, what abou
> the fact his penis *might* be ugly, scarred and mutilated? I think
> that's a little more likely.
Speaking for yourself?
LOL
> Umm... there are no medical considerations, really.
You being serious?
Or just seriously dumb?
> Religious
> considerations are irrelevant
Yea sure.
I would suggest that it is the 4skincentric are are rapidly becoming
irrelevant.
> and family considerations, well.. those
> are just "daddy has one so junior will get it too". Clearly not leverage
> or a "reason" for circing.
>
Or for not "circing"?
wadi
John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote in message
news:387C37...@escape.ca...
John I see you have picked up an apparent "female" shadow.
Funny since Wilg started posting again we have picked up another two female
skin freaks.
You think it's their turn on the alt.circumcision duty roster?
MancuzoL
>I have experienced both. Aa sexual active adult, I did not find the
>difference to be great but I do prefer the circumcised.
Do you try to tell me you're a gay man assigned the female role?
In this case please explain to me how you think you can compare anal
intercourse to vaginal intercourse in any relevant manner.
While I'm sure that anal sex is producing less friction with an intact man
inserting, than with a cut man, this practice does need artificial lubrication
to start with -- regardless. The male member didn't evolve to be inserted
anally, nevermind that this is a sexually pleasant practice.
The rolling/sliding mechanism we talk about here is however something which
bears on the FEMALE, not on the male. Whether or not you prefer circ'd penises
to intact ones when inserted into *your* rectum has no relevance to females
preferring intact penises inserted into *their* vaginas.
Nor has the preference of you as a cut man for friction any relevance on what
the female prefers.
>I am reporting my experience
You're not just reporting it, you told me -- a female -- and anyone else on
this NG that intercourse with an intact man is vaginal masturbation of said
man.
And I tell you I take exception to this definition. Next we hear is that you
tell us rape of a woman by an intact man is no rape -- the guy's just vaginally
masturbating. Get real!
>The point of greater control, which is more easily achieved after
>circumcision, is to permit greater attention to the partner's needs.
I'm sorry to hear you had a control problem (did you have your MD check on your
premature ejaculation problems?) and never learned just how an intact man can
achieve great control.
My experience however tells me different, the cut men I've been with had little
control, I wouldn't call a penis explicitly deadened to sensation a means of
proper control. The intact men I've been with, including DH, all had a superior
control on their own and knew enough methods how the female could exert control
physically to help them. I was delighted to learn about these and the average
duration of *one* intercourse from insertion to orgasm of the male with intact
men I experienced was at least 1/3 longer than with a cut man.
As to the needs of the sexual partner, namely me the female in this case, I do
prefer repeated intercourse, up to 4-5 times, which I could engage in only with
intact men. The cut men I've lived with left me chafed beyond erotic sensations
on insertion within one or two intercourses.
Of course -- if you can't go several times a night, which might be the case
with you, that is irrelevant. But just as irrelevant then as saying only cut
men have the ability to provide well for their partners' needs.
MancuzoL
>I have experience *inserting* not *insertion of*. Hasty reading.
In this case your ramblings indeed are *entirely* irrelevant.
MancuzoL
>My points remain: the 'gliding action' does not occur for all intact
>newsgroups and elsewhere there are many men circumcised as adults >and are
happy with the results.
The length or rather as you claim shortness of an intact foreskin in flaccid
state of the penis doesn't preclude the sliding mechanism when it is erect in
the automatic manner you so readily assume.
This depends on the length to which the penis extends *when* erect, and as is
well enough known not every penis extends to a set, same length, this varies
quite some between 4 and 8 inches as the widest range still commonly found and
not exceptional.
Nor does the fact that for some men the glans isn't completely or covered at
all in flaccid state any pointer of how much skin was found behind the glans,
how loose it is and how easily it can stretch. Scar tissue -- as can be found
on circ'd penises -- is known to not stretch at all or to not stretch well,
while intact skin stretches with ease.
Hands-on experience with both, loosely cut men and intact men with shorter
foreskins, showed me that this makes for a noticable difference.
MancuzoL
>It should be surprising to you since, according to the anticirc credo,
>they should be complaining of a degraded sexual experience and
>should be mad as hell about it.
There are men and women who expressly infringe on the functionality of their
sexual (or other) organs. It's commonly called self-mutilation. Some circ, some
slit their penises, some castrate themselves. In every case it is the
fulfilment of their personal (sexual) fetishes and as such of course just as
successful and exactly what they want as is cross-dressing for the transvestite
or licking the soles of feet and shoes for the foot-fetishist.
That these fetishists, with their specialised alteration according to their
predilections, show satisfaction with these alterations, can't be cited as
proof that men forcefully mutilated or mutilated without fully informed consent
can be disregarded as making an equally valid statement when saying they are
dissatisfied.
>You dismiss the happy men as experiencing a self-fulfilling prophesy.
>Yet, articles like 'Sight Without Color' relate the experience of men
>who 'chose for themselves' yet purport to be miserable.
Men who decide on false or skewed 'facts' and experience dissatisfaction can't
be placed on par with men who decide to satisfy a fetish. As one of the facts
often hidden from men during the decision-making process is the long-term
effect of circumcision, their dissatisfaction with results *when* this effect
is achieved, is also a valid statement.
>Pure guesswork - and you should say 'for some members of our species.'
Negating the evolutionary theory?
And again, penises with short foreskins, and 4% only -- if as much, can't be
decided as per se having no sliding mechanism as an end result. If there are a
few men among those 4% with a short foreskin who in fact have no sliding
mechanism, they belong into the same category of people born with a birth
defect, as e.g. those with a cleft palate, born without sight or one finger
missing or too much. These birth defects also happen, but I've never seen them
cited as a claim that mankind wasn't meant to have an intact palate, full sight
or five fingered hands.
>And the lack thereof is equally normal.
No, it has to be considered a birth defect.
MancuzoL
>This is another silly and false notion, a woman can be perfectly healthy and
>very
>interested and yet still be unable to produce the copious amounts of
>lubrication
>required for sexual intercourse with a circumcised man, (that is still yet
>another
>reason why circumcision is not a good idea).
Exactly. And especially as women having sexual problems as a result of lacking
normal mechanism in the cut penis, whether chafing, soreness, painful
intercourse or dryness, are subjected to anything from being forced to
introduce artificial lubricants into their vaginas, up to having to take
artificial hormones to 'cure' what isn't their own problem to begin with and
being sent off to shrinks for alleged mental problems.
My French ob gyn, whom I visited after discovering that intercourse with an
intact man didn't generate the amount of discomfort intercourse with a cut man
produced, when faced with my question whether I could (at then barely 30) cease
to take my estrogen supplement, was horrified to learn I had been subjected to
such idiotic medical advice for more than a decade, and suggested a malpractice
suit against my US physician.
He detailed that one of the first questions also asked should have been whether
or not my sexual partner was circ'd.
Since back in the US I've informed a variety of ob gyns, including my former
one, what their lack of knowledge can and often does cause. Artificial
hormones, especially when given in cases where not warranted, can cause and
often do cause major health problems.
John Pritchard
>
> >I have experience *inserting* not *insertion of*. Hasty reading.
>
> In this case your ramblings indeed are *entirely* irrelevant.
Since the topic was Geoffrey Falk's statement "Actually, it is a
question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within the foreskin
roller-bearing" etc. my comment that the 'roller action' does not occur
for all men is entirely on topic.
When the anatomy is such that the foreskin remains 'locked' behind the
glans during erection, the 'roller acton' does *not* occur
And one does not have to have to inspect 10,000 penises to know that
when the foreskin does not reach the glans during erection, the 'roller
action' simply *cannot* occur.
Short and to the point. No rambling needed.
John Pritchard
Probably. It's kind of like a revolving door.
The shadowy world of anticirc reminds me of a masked ball or Hallowe'en
party - an endless succession of masks - all of which are less than
attractive .
craig wagner
And yet, completely irrelevant to the human rights issue.
wadi
>
>
> Probably. It's kind of like a revolving door.
>
> The shadowy world of anticirc reminds me of a masked ball or Hallowe'en
> party - an endless succession of masks - all of which are less than
> attractive .
That is true.
Any idea who this one is?
Not sure it is a female at all.
But no doubt it will all come out in the wash.
John Pritchard
Not surprising since the topic was Geoffrey Falk's statement "Actually,
Lockdown
wadi wrote:
> Lockdown <"Lockdown102"@hotmail.com [actually 101]> wrote in message
> news:bKPf4.70375$_E6.5...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> John wrote:
> > >
> > > Then don't do it. Does the possibility that the kid when an adult
> > > *might* experience 'roller action' and if he does *might* like it
> > > outweigh all medical, religious and family considers (and as an added
> > > bonus the fact that he just *might*, (or more likely) have a better
> > > sexual experience, too)?
> >
> > Because with most foreskins, you will experience that roller
> > action.
>
> There is no guarantee of that.
> There are just too many variables.
> But the theory makes for a good fairy tale.
riiiight... tell me of these "variables". I never said there
was a guarantee of getting the "perfect" foreskin.
> > If we're gonna talk about low percentages here, what abou
> > the fact his penis *might* be ugly, scarred and mutilated? I think
> > that's a little more likely.
>
> Speaking for yourself?
> LOL
go to http://www.circumstitions.com and you tell me.
better yet, why not take a picture of your jewish penis
and post it so we can identify all the "bothches" for you.
> > Umm... there are no medical considerations, really.
>
> You being serious?
> Or just seriously dumb?
Very serious.
> > Religious
> > considerations are irrelevant
>
> Yea sure.
> I would suggest that it is the 4skincentric are are rapidly becoming
> irrelevant.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's generally accepted that
anti-circ
continues to gain momentum.
> > and family considerations, well.. those
> > are just "daddy has one so junior will get it too". Clearly not leverage
> > or a "reason" for circing.
> >
>
> Or for not "circing"?
Not circing is not a decision, it's leaving them alone. If I had a
daughter,
I wouldn't make the "decision not to cut off her nose", or "the decision not
to cut off her clit". -- that's just leaving her alone, as she came, which is
default. Stop comparing the decision making process to circ, which is totally
different.
Lockdown
John Pritchard wrote:
> wadi wrote:
> >
> > John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> wrote in message
> > news:387C37...@escape.ca...
> >
> > John I see you have picked up an apparent "female" shadow.
> > Funny since Wilg started posting again we have picked up another two female
> > skin freaks.
> > You think it's their turn on the alt.circumcision duty roster?
duty roster? heeheheheh... oh that reminds me, all inactivists show up for
a meeting 1000 hours tomorrow morning, codeword "betamethasome". Anyone
who gets the codeword wrong will be shot on sight be our full complement
of inactivists militants.
> Probably. It's kind of like a revolving door.
>
> The shadowy world of anticirc reminds me of a masked ball or Hallowe'en
> party - an endless succession of masks - all of which are less than
> attractive .
Riiight... usual tactic... cast doubt over an loose organisation.
wadi
craig wagner <cwa...@his.com> wrote in message
news:cwagner-1501...@pm8-222.his.com...
John wrote:
> >
> >Short and to the point. No rambling needed.
>
> And yet, completely irrelevant to the human rights issue.
Now which human rights issue would that be?
MancuzoL
>When the anatomy is such that the foreskin remains 'locked' behind the
>glans during erection, the 'roller acton' does *not* occur
The study you cited does not tell whether or not the men having short foreskins
naturally do have foreskins 'locked' behind the glans. It simply states that
roughly 4% have foreskins which do not extent as far as the glans in flaccid
state.
There is nothing conclusive to your assumption that if they have short
foreskins these shorter foreskins also preclude the sliding mechanism per se.
You picked that out of your own fantasies about the workings of foreskins,
especially the short ones. *YOU* have only experience with a cut member where
it comes to short.
Once more, if among these 4% men with short foreskins there *maybe* are .5%
whose skin is locked behind the glans and entirely unmovable, this is hardly an
argument against the gliding mechanism, it's proof that there can be birth
defects bearing on any and every human organ or limb. It's very simply a birth
defect then.
To however argue that a birth defect is proof of falsity of an established
physical attribute of the normal human male, is like arguing that because .5%
of the human race is born blind eyesight is not necessary or simply optional.
Tell that to someone blind from birth and I'm sure he or she will quickly
disabuse you of such ideas!
>And one does not have to have to inspect 10,000 penises to know that
>when the foreskin does not reach the glans during erection, the 'roller
>action' simply *cannot* occur.
Wrong again. Also, just how many erect men have you seen in action? How many
have inserted their intact penises with those soi-disant non-sliding penises
into your vagina?
John, that you have a sexual fetish, that's perfectly okay by me. I couldn't
care less, you can have a fetish to have a cut penis, or a fetish for tattoos
or licking feet, for all that it matters. You're absolutely free to engage in
this fetish. The only fetishes *I* would be against are those which bear on
unconsenting thrid parties.
But to attempt to pawn off your PERSONAL fetish (and that's what circumcising
adults for mainly sexual own reasons is looked at in all societies to which
circumcision is a sexual mutilation or amputation of a normal tissue/organ) as
in any way relevant to a normal human male without any aberrant tendencies, or
to argue that unconsenting infants be subjected to your personal fetish, that
borders on criminal behavior.
To make it clear, you can cut off your penis, slit it, castrate yourself, make
sex only in bondage, whatever -- you're adult and free to live out your fetish.
Just don't try to argue that *your* fetish should be regarded as normal and
something others should do too. Nor is there any logic and normalcy in trying
to clothe your fetish as anything but what it is -- a sexual anomality.
If you feel so uncomfortable with your personal sexual fetish, that you seek to
pawn yourself off as being normal, then maybe you should seek professional
help.
John Pritchard
>
> >When the anatomy is such that the foreskin remains 'locked' behind the
> >glans during erection, the 'roller acton' does *not* occur
>
> The study you cited does not tell whether or not the men having short foreskins
> naturally do have foreskins 'locked' behind the glans.
Long foreskins that lock behind the glans and short foreskins (which
don't and can't) are two difference things.
It simply states that
> roughly 4% have foreskins which do not extent as far as the glans in flaccid
> state.
Then they could not provide the 'gliding action', now could they?
> There is nothing conclusive to your assumption that if they have short
> foreskins these shorter foreskins also preclude the sliding mechanism per se.
> You picked that out of your own fantasies about the workings of foreskins,
> especially the short ones. *YOU* have only experience with a cut member where
> it comes to short.
I had a foreskin for thirty years: first long and tight then long and
loose. Glad to be rid of it.
> Once more, if among these 4% men with short foreskins there *maybe* are .5%
> whose skin is locked behind the glans and entirely unmovable, this is hardly an
> argument against the gliding mechanism, it's proof that there can be birth
> defects bearing on any and every human organ or limb. It's very simply a birth
> defect then.
Sure, like having a big nose is a birth defect. Natural variation, dear
lady, natural variation. Some ladies have large breasts, some don't.
> To however argue that a birth defect is proof of falsity of an established
> physical attribute of the normal human male, is like arguing that because .5%
> of the human race is born blind eyesight is not necessary or simply optional.
> Tell that to someone blind from birth and I'm sure he or she will quickly
> disabuse you of such ideas!
Not worth a comment.
> >And one does not have to have to inspect 10,000 penises to know that
> >when the foreskin does not reach the glans during erection, the 'roller
> >action' simply *cannot* occur.
>
> Wrong again. Also, just how many erect men have you seen in action? How many
> have inserted their intact penises with those soi-disant non-sliding penises
> into your vagina?
I don't have to see any to know that a foreskin which cannot reach the
glans cannot provide the 'gliding action'.
> John, that you have a sexual fetish, that's perfectly okay by me. I couldn't
> care less, you can have a fetish to have a cut penis, or a fetish for tattoos
> or licking feet, for all that it matters. You're absolutely free to engage in
> this fetish. The only fetishes *I* would be against are those which bear on
> unconsenting thrid parties.
I doubt that anyone in the world, apart from the anticirc fanatics,
consider neonatal circumcision for valid reasons, and yes there are
valid reasons, whether you share them or not, to be s sexual fetish (but
you seem to have quite an insight into the kinkie side of life).
On the other hand one must wonder what motivates those who must feel
they must exaggerate the value of the foreskin and then to actually
campaign about it.
> But to attempt to pawn off your PERSONAL fetish (and that's what circumcising
> adults for mainly sexual own reasons is looked at in all societies to which
> circumcision is a sexual mutilation or amputation of a normal tissue/organ) as
> in any way relevant to a normal human male without any aberrant tendencies, or
> to argue that unconsenting infants be subjected to your personal fetish, that
> borders on criminal behavior.
Not worth a comment.
> To make it clear, you can cut off your penis, slit it, castrate yourself, make
> sex only in bondage, whatever -- you're adult and free to live out your fetish.
> Just don't try to argue that *your* fetish should be regarded as normal and
> something others should do too. Nor is there any logic and normalcy in trying
> to clothe your fetish as anything but what it is -- a sexual anomality.
>
> If you feel so uncomfortable with your personal sexual fetish, that you seek to
> pawn yourself off as being normal, then maybe you should seek professional
> help.
Anyone who favors neonatal circumcision should seek help? And this
advice coming from *you*? Give me a break.
wadi
MancuzoL <manc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000115072947...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>
> >This is another silly and false notion, a woman can be perfectly healthy
and
> >very
> >interested and yet still be unable to produce the copious amounts of
> >lubrication
> >required for sexual intercourse with a circumcised man, (that is still
yet
> >another
> >reason why circumcision is not a good idea).
>
> Exactly. And especially as women having sexual problems as a result of
lacking
> normal mechanism in the cut penis, whether chafing, soreness, painful
> intercourse or dryness, are subjected to anything from being forced to
> introduce artificial lubricants into their vaginas, up to having to take
> artificial hormones to 'cure' what isn't their own problem to begin with
and
> being sent off to shrinks for alleged mental problems.
>
LOL
So women in Europe never experience dry and/or painful sex?
heh heh
That's the way though, state it with confidence and certainty and you may
even get a few idiots to believe you.
Oh yes.
Meantime read up on the issue.
wadi
>
>
> wadi wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> > There is no guarantee of that.
> > There are just too many variables.
> > But the theory makes for a good fairy tale.
>
> riiiight... tell me of these "variables". I never said there
> was a guarantee of getting the "perfect" foreskin.
>
Oh dear you are a dumb kid aren't you.
More than just the foreskin kid.
Think about it.
wadi
>
> >The point it, Hugh, it *happens* - therefore the 'roller action' cannot
> >be generalized to all intact men.
>
> And again, you obviously haven't experienced insertion of circ'd vs.
intact
> penises (even such with short foreskins). The difference is marked,
including
> the absence of the gliding with cut men and the presence of it even with
men
> with short foreskins.
>
Wow
You certainly show a commitment to this theory.
A total psychosexual commitment.
LOL
You can tell the difference between th short foreskin and a loose circ?
LOL
I guess what helps for you is if you get a good look at the thing before it
gets inserted.
That allows for the maximum use of imagination.
> >Yes, I find the latter, 'direct vaginal stimulation' better - my opinion
> >based upon my experience. Upon what do you base your opinion?
>
> Hmm, *you* find it better. Good for you and so on.
>
But your subjective experience is to be accepted at face value?
LOL
> Bud, just how self-centered can you get? I suggest an artificial vagina,
at
> least you're not chafing a woman that way or telling her to lube up for
your
> pleasure, giving her a bad conscience if she can't go to the excess a cut
penis
> needs.
>
Bud?
You still claiming to be a female aren't you?
> Thank God my (intact) DH shows a bit more concern for the pleasure and
> interests of his wife.
Ah ... so you are a bottom.
So whose dear wife are you now, honey?
wadi
>
> >My points remain: the 'gliding action' does not occur for all intact
> >men; and from my experience and from what I have read on these
> >newsgroups and elsewhere there are many men circumcised as adults >and
are
> happy with the results.
>
> The length or rather as you claim shortness of an intact foreskin in
flaccid
> state of the penis doesn't preclude the sliding mechanism when it is erect
in
> the automatic manner you so readily assume.
>
Huh?
You are more than a bit dense aren't you.
If there is not enough to "rock and roll" then how can it slither and slide?
> This depends on the length to which the penis extends *when* erect, and as
is
> well enough known not every penis extends to a set, same length, this
varies
> quite some between 4 and 8 inches as the widest range still commonly found
and
> not exceptional.
>
That's intertesting.
You now accept that there is some variety in the male member.
So it just goes to show how fucking stupid your statement about thickness
from another post was.
> Nor does the fact that for some men the glans isn't completely or covered
at
> all in flaccid state any pointer of how much skin was found behind the
glans,
> how loose it is and how easily it can stretch.
Well sort of.
But this all goes to show that the variety is infinite.
And supports JP's assertion rather than yours.
> Scar tissue -- as can be found
> on circ'd penises -- is known to not stretch at all or to not stretch
well,
> while intact skin stretches with ease.
>
heh heh
More ridiculous nonsense.
What % of the shaft skin is scar tissue?
What is this scar tissue?
Personally I have a slight colour change at an almost at a faint line on the
shaft.
> Hands-on experience with both, loosely cut men and intact men with shorter
> foreskins, showed me that this makes for a noticable difference.
>
That's bullshit of course.
At a point it must blurs to the extent of being undetectable.
Unless of course you have had the opportunity to study it before hand at
which point the psychosexual takes over.
wadi
>
> I doubt that anyone in the world, apart from the anticirc fanatics,
> consider neonatal circumcision for valid reasons, and yes there are
> valid reasons, whether you share them or not, to be s sexual fetish (but
> you seem to have quite an insight into the kinkie side of life).
>
> On the other hand one must wonder what motivates those who must feel
> they must exaggerate the value of the foreskin and then to actually
> campaign about it.
>
Yea we really have got a strange one here.
Funny thing.
Have you noticed that the theme for the week is "womans preference".
The problem is, that for that to work, they need some real women to post.
I guess we must brace ourselves for another Suzy who will regale us with
tales of the ecstasy of "tonguing out Mr Happy".
Puke puke.
Lockdown
wadi wrote:
> MancuzoL <manc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000115072947...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >
> > >This is another silly and false notion, a woman can be perfectly healthy
> and
> > >very
> > >interested and yet still be unable to produce the copious amounts of
> > >lubrication
> > >required for sexual intercourse with a circumcised man, (that is still
> yet
> > >another
> > >reason why circumcision is not a good idea).
> >
> > Exactly. And especially as women having sexual problems as a result of
> lacking
> > normal mechanism in the cut penis, whether chafing, soreness, painful
> > intercourse or dryness, are subjected to anything from being forced to
> > introduce artificial lubricants into their vaginas, up to having to take
> > artificial hormones to 'cure' what isn't their own problem to begin with
> and
> > being sent off to shrinks for alleged mental problems.
> >
>
> LOL
> So women in Europe never experience dry and/or painful sex?
> heh heh
refusing to believe that not everyone suffers the same as the girls with
circ'ed partners? You think everyone else's "little red fireman" gives as
much pain to girls as you do?
MancuzoL
> consider neonatal circumcision for valid reasons, and yes there are
> valid reasons, whether you share them or not, to be s sexual fetish (but
> you seem to have quite an insight into the kinkie side of life).
>
In the absence of medical reasons any self-chosen/self-inflicted (sexual)
mutilation (= surgical alteration or amputation of a normal, healthy part of
the body) enters the realm of fetishistic behavior.
In some instances it may be graded the wish to conform, especially in a society
which has a high circumcision rate. In this case I wouldn't call it a fetish or
a fetishistic behavior (two different things), I'd call it the need to conform
with one's peers or in some cases ceding to peer pressure.
The moment however that sexual fulfillment or pleasure is derived from the
alteration itself this is fetishistic behavior. If the alteration is the sole
means by which someone can achieve sexual fulfillment, this constitutes a
fetish. There are graduations of this, to be sure. A fetish or fetishistic
behavior can also be to watch such a procedure done, to incite someone into
doing it or to delectate oneself on the state of someone else's body or
behavior.
These by the way are the classical definitions of the terms in modern
psychology.
Circumcision is cited alongside with more serious sexual mutilations among
fetishes sought in all classical textbooks, these include a variety of severe
mutilations, e.g. total amputation of the penis or castration or even
amputation of non-sexual limbs with a sexual purpose.
> On the other hand one must wonder what motivates those who must feel
> they must exaggerate the value of the foreskin and then to actually
> campaign about it.
The debate is not whether or not an adult lives out fetishistic behavior or
satisfies a full-fledged fetish or gets a circumcision to conform or to cede to
peer pressure. Some insight into one's own motivations or the motivations of
some people posting here serves well to relativize what is in their own
interest, and to evaluate the advice they give.
The debate is about routine infant circumcision. Having the best interest of
babies unable to give consent on one's mind is normal. Just as I wouldn't
tolerate a parent beating his/her child, or sexually assaulting it, or doing
any other invasive action harming the child, I have something against sexual
mutilation. I wouldn't tolerate anyone circumcising his dog or cat either, by
the way.
John Pritchard
>
> > I doubt that anyone in the world, apart from the anticirc fanatics,
> > consider neonatal circumcision for valid reasons, and yes there are
> > valid reasons, whether you share them or not, to be s sexual fetish (but
> > you seem to have quite an insight into the kinkie side of life).
> >
>
> In the absence of medical reasons any self-chosen/self-inflicted (sexual)
> mutilation (= surgical alteration or amputation of a normal, healthy part of
> the body) enters the realm of fetishistic behavior.
major deletion
>
> The debate is not whether or not an adult lives out fetishistic behavior or
> satisfies a full-fledged fetish or gets a circumcision to conform or to cede to
> peer pressure. Some insight into one's own motivations or the motivations of
> some people posting here serves well to relativize what is in their own
> interest, and to evaluate the advice they give.
Or more specifically, *why* they take it upon themselves to even give
*advice* in first place. I am not aware of any individual or
organization, on these newsgroups at least, who have taken it upon
themselves to advise parents to neonatally circumcision. Yet, there is a
massive propaganda campaign mounted to stop neonatal circumcision. Why?
Children would be denied medical benefits. Why? Neonatal circumcision
would be singled out from all other preventative measures for
prohibition. Why? Religious and parental rights would be trampled. Why?
A campaign that can only be supported by carefully selected data,
half-truths, wild speculations and downright lies is vigorously
promoted. Why? Why? Why?
The only justification I have seen so far is some exaggerated and
speculative claims regarding a positive sexual function of the foreskin.
We know for a fact that it can have disadvantages. What are its
advantages? At best I have seen is some speculation that for an adult it
*might* provide some 'gliding action' (which it didn't for me) and one
*might* find that 'gliding action' pleasant (which I did not when it
occasionally occurred).
So medical benefits are denied, religious rights are attacked,
half-truths and lies are promoted all based a small militant group's
unrealistic, fanciful and erotic wet-dreams about the foreskin - none of
which are supported by any objective data. Why? Why? Why?
If you want to look into fetishes, that would be a good place to start.
> The debate is about routine infant circumcision.
In fact, if I remember corretly, this thread started with Geoffrey
Falk's comment about the 'gliding action."
> Having the best interest of
> babies unable to give consent on one's mind is normal.
Yes, we both seem to agree on that.
> Just as I wouldn't
> tolerate a parent beating his/her child, or sexually assaulting it, or doing
> any other invasive action harming the child, I have something against sexual
> mutilation. I wouldn't tolerate anyone circumcising his dog or cat either, by
> the way.
Having made an intelligent statement upon which we can both agree, you
then proceed to ramble on about dogs and cats. Why?
MancuzoL
writes:
>Or more specifically, *why* they take it upon themselves to even give
>*advice* in first place. I am not aware of any individual or
>organization, on these newsgroups at least, who have taken it upon
>themselves to advise parents to neonatally circumcision. Yet, there is a
Your post here is nothing else. If you solely argued the case of your own
choice this would be different.
>massive propaganda campaign mounted to stop neonatal circumcision. Why?
Because it infringes on the right of a human being to physical integrity while
that person is incapable of deciding and consenting or refusing himself.
>Children would be denied medical benefits. Why?
Which medical benefits? There are none.
>Neonatal circumcision
>would be singled out from all other preventative measures for
>prohibition. Why?
Because it's no preventive measure. Preventing against what?
> Religious and parental rights would be trampled. Why?
Because religious and parental rights do not supersede those of the individual
child. Many procedures have been proven to try to do that and have been
forbidden, usually during just such a process of information and fact-finding
that we see currently with circumcision. 30 years ago parents could beat their
children to pulp as a measure of chastising them. This has been forbidden, too,
though it may have taken die-hards a while to see that abusing their children
is no justified parental right.
>A campaign that can only be supported by carefully selected data,
>half-truths, wild speculations and downright lies is vigorously
>promoted. Why? Why? Why?
This is your POV. There are enough scientific data, including those gathered
and published by the various medical boards of countries all over this planet
who correctly say differently.
If you want to get a circ, by all means do so. If you want to circ a kid under
legal age, then this should and shall be forbidden for what it is: an
infringement on this child's personal integrity.
>The only justification I have seen so far is some exaggerated and
>speculative claims regarding a positive sexual function of the foreskin.
No. Quite simply: the child is born *with* a foreskin, it's no birth defect. It
is the child's decision -- upon reaching legal age -- what he will do or not do
with his intact penis. It's as simple as that, everything else is secondary to
this primal right of the child.
>We know for a fact that it can have disadvantages. What are its
>advantages? At best I have seen is some speculation that for an adult it
>*might* provide some 'gliding action' (which it didn't for me) and one
>*might* find that 'gliding action' pleasant (which I did not when it
>occasionally occurred).
Whether or not your foreskin had disadvantages for YOU is entirely and
completely irrelevant! As an adult you can do whatever you want with it.
Relevant is only that the child be left intact, until he can come to an own
decision.
>So medical benefits are denied, religious rights are attacked,
Which benefits?
Religious rights? You mean the religious rights of Christians to burn witches?
Or the religious rights of Muslims to chop off the hand of a thief? Or the
religious right of a Celtic chieftain to rape the virginal bride in her
marriage night?
Get real. Religious rights end where the constitutional ones of a country and
the humanitarian rights of an individual start. Just because so far genders are
treated non-equally doesn't mean this injustice is self-perpetuating.
>half-truths and lies are promoted all based a small militant group's
>unrealistic, fanciful and erotic wet-dreams about the foreskin - none of
>which are supported by any objective data. Why? Why? Why?
Hardly. Again -- it is the basic right of the child to an intact body. Like you
had one until YOU decided to mutilate YOURself.
>If you want to look into fetishes, that would be a good place to start.
It is no fetish to help guarantee primal constitutional rights to a helpless
human being. If so, abolishing slavery would have made a fetishist out of Abe
Lincoln.
>In fact, if I remember corretly, this thread started with Geoffrey
>Falk's comment about the 'gliding action."
Right. Because this gliding action is one of the things a boy child loses
forever if circed.
>Having made an intelligent statement upon which we can both agree, you
>then proceed to ramble on about dogs and cats. Why?
Because exactly as a child an animal cannot exert its personal wishes and
decisions.
MancuzoL
>Long foreskins that lock behind the glans and short foreskins (which
>don't and can't) are two difference things.
Yep. As I pointed out.
>Then they could not provide the 'gliding action', now could they?
I see no sense answering this question a second time.
>I had a foreskin for thirty years: first long and tight then long and
>loose. Glad to be rid of it.
Well, happy to hear you're glad with the achievements of your self-mutilations.
>Sure, like having a big nose is a birth defect. Natural variation, dear
>lady, natural variation. Some ladies have large breasts, some don't.
No, sorry. The normal foreskin does provide that gliding mechanism, regardless
of length when flaccid. Only a tight skin sheath on the erect member
constitutes a non-existent gliding mechanism. This however is not
self-conclusive from having a short foreskin when flaccid.
As this gliding mechanism is the normalcy, absence thereof is an anomality. If
so from birth on = birth defect.
A large nose doesn't hinder the nose from full function, large breasts also are
entirely functional. The correct comparison would be a nose with closed
nostrils or without septum, or breasts without nipples.
>I don't have to see any to know that a foreskin which cannot reach the
>glans cannot provide the 'gliding action'.
I beg to differ, as I said, you don't experience the gliding mechanism where
it's supposed to be experienced. Even your anus wouldn't be the proper place to
test.
>Anyone who favors neonatal circumcision should seek help? And this
>advice coming from *you*? Give me a break.
No, actually I meant that a good therapy might have helped you more than your
circumcisions.
wadi
Yes indeed there are a lot of questions to be asked about the motives of the
4skincentric.
The problem is that the more one seeks answers to these questions the more
one is appalled by what one discovers.
These are very sick people.
>
> Or more specifically, *why* they take it upon themselves to even give
> *advice* in first place. I am not aware of any individual or
> organization, on these newsgroups at least, who have taken it upon
> themselves to advise parents to neonatally circumcision. Yet, there is a
> massive propaganda campaign mounted to stop neonatal circumcision. Why?
> Children would be denied medical benefits. Why? Neonatal circumcision
> would be singled out from all other preventative measures for
> prohibition. Why? Religious and parental rights would be trampled. Why?
> A campaign that can only be supported by carefully selected data,
> half-truths, wild speculations and downright lies is vigorously
> promoted. Why? Why? Why?
>
> The only justification I have seen so far is some exaggerated and
> speculative claims regarding a positive sexual function of the foreskin.
> We know for a fact that it can have disadvantages. What are its
> advantages? At best I have seen is some speculation that for an adult it
> *might* provide some 'gliding action' (which it didn't for me) and one
> *might* find that 'gliding action' pleasant (which I did not when it
> occasionally occurred).
>
> So medical benefits are denied, religious rights are attacked,
> half-truths and lies are promoted all based a small militant group's
> unrealistic, fanciful and erotic wet-dreams about the foreskin - none of
> which are supported by any objective data. Why? Why? Why?
>
> If you want to look into fetishes, that would be a good place to start.
>
>
> > The debate is about routine infant circumcision.
>
>
> In fact, if I remember corretly, this thread started with Geoffrey
> Falk's comment about the 'gliding action."
>
>
> > Having the best interest of
> > babies unable to give consent on one's mind is normal.
>
> Yes, we both seem to agree on that.
>
>
> > Just as I wouldn't
> > tolerate a parent beating his/her child, or sexually assaulting it, or
doing
> > any other invasive action harming the child, I have something against
sexual
> > mutilation. I wouldn't tolerate anyone circumcising his dog or cat
either, by
> > the way.
>
John Pritchard
> >*advice* in first place. I am not aware of any individual or
> >organization, on these newsgroups at least, who have taken it upon
> >themselves to advise parents to neonatally circumcision. Yet, there is a
>
> choice this would be different.
>
>
> that person is incapable of deciding and consenting or refusing himself.
So you agree that there is a massive propaganda campaign
And the purpose of this campaign is to force *your* (collective) views
upon the world.
Pretty much as I have said all along.
There seems to be little point in talking furhter to you. We will simply
have to agree to disagree.
major deletion
MancuzoL
>have to agree to disagree.
>
Oh, I was disagreeing with you and your rather non-chalant view on
people/procedures sexually mutilating infants in non-consensual manner all the
time. I thought I was clear on that.
Chazz
retard down? Had I learned about the NG a while ago I could have been eased
into the situation, but I've been hit with Wadi overload here.
John Pritchard
Yes, you have made yourself perfectly clear. You present your position,
the anticirc litany, quite forcefully and rather well - but that doesn't
mean you are right.
You attempt to push all the right emotional buttons. Above we see such
colorful words as 'nonchalant', 'sexually mutilating', and
'nonconsensual'. Through necessity of course since the anticirc case
rests largely upon emotion.
From what I have seen of your postings, you seem incapable of
comprehending the difference between what is on one hand fact and what
is one the other simply your personal opinion (or imaginings).
In an earlier posting you say: "Which medical benefits? There are
none." Which of course is untrue. There are in fact benefits and
although not great, they are there. You can rant, pound the table and
remain in a state of complete denial all you want but wishing and
ranting are not going to make them go away.
wadi
Chazz <chazb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OyRg4.33091$Lf2.8...@news6.giganews.com...
And to think you thought you would slip in here to indulge your fetish among
"friends".
LOL
Oh we also advocate violence do we?
But someone else has to do the deed for you, right?
You bunch of pussies.
Chazz
among
> "friends".
> LOL
There is a slight difference between respecting everyone's right to decide
whether or not to have a flap of skin removed and having some fetish. I
honestly don't care one way or the other, I simply feel that people
shouldn't have it done to their children and wish to voice my opinion. That
would be what newsgroups are for, speaking out what's on our minds.
Unfortunately, that also means little kindergarders like yourself also come
about.
> Oh we also advocate violence do we?
> But someone else has to do the deed for you, right?
> You bunch of pussies.
Yes, I do advocate violence, in the right situation. I believe in the death
penalty under certain circumstances, I believe in corporal punishment under
certain circumstances, and I believe idiots who get their jollies by simply
ridiculing everyone with inane and immature chatter that nobody else wants
to hear deserve a solid punch in the face. And no, someone else doesn't have
to do the deed for me, it's just that you're not worth the energy I would
expel in nor the cleaning costs due to beating you to a bloody pulp with my
bare hands.
Ice Man
will not miss them. By the way this is the suggestion that Rick made and I have
to admit, it is wonderful.
Hugh Young
said:
> Through necessity of course since the anticirc case
>rests largely upon emotion.
Just like the antislavery case, really.
>From what I have seen of your postings, you seem incapable of
>comprehending the difference between what is on one hand fact and what
>is one the other simply your personal opinion (or imaginings).
>
>In an earlier posting you say: "Which medical benefits? There are
>none." Which of course is untrue. There are in fact benefits and
>although not great, they are there.
They are trivial. You could say there are medical benefits of removing
any part of the human anatomy at all, because we would no longer
suffer the ills that that part is heir to, but we don't. Why is there
such an obsession with removing just THIS part? What is unique about
THIS part? Well,
1. It is on the GENITALS and
2. We can still function sexually without it.
And there, in a nutshell, is the "rationale" for circumcision. All the
rest is psychopathology.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
wadi
Hugh Young <hu...@young.wn.GAR.planet.gen.BAGE.nz> wrote in message
news:3884ff56...@news.wn.planet.gen.nz...
>
> And there, in a nutshell, is the "rationale" for circumcision. All the
> rest is psychopathology.
>
And the "rationale" behind foreskin "admiration"?
Purely psychosexual.
LOL
wadi
> > And to think you thought you would slip in here to indulge your fetish
> among
> > "friends".
> > LOL
>
> There is a slight difference between respecting everyone's right to decide
> whether or not to have a flap of skin removed and having some fetish. I
> honestly don't care one way or the other, I simply feel that people
> shouldn't have it done to their children and wish to voice my opinion.
That
> would be what newsgroups are for, speaking out what's on our minds.
> Unfortunately, that also means little kindergarders like yourself also
come
> about.
>
Integrity check!!!
OK
Mind if I hold you to that?
Your "interest" is purely on the basis that "people shouldn't have it done
to their children".
Lets see how long it takes before the mask slips.
dogman
>
> Oh we also advocate violence do we?
> But someone else has to do the deed for you, right?
> You bunch of pussies.
OK, so are you out performing the violence (circumcision) you advocate,
and would you be a pussy not to?
John Pritchard
>
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 01:51:36 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
> said:
>
> > Through necessity of course since the anticirc case
> >rests largely upon emotion.
>
> Just like the antislavery case, really.
>
> >From what I have seen of your postings, you seem incapable of
> >comprehending the difference between what is on one hand fact and what
> >is one the other simply your personal opinion (or imaginings).
> >
> >In an earlier posting you say: "Which medical benefits? There are
> >none." Which of course is untrue. There are in fact benefits and
> >although not great, they are there.
>
> They are trivial.
But they are there. So this is the point of departure from fact on one
hand to *opinion*, as to their relative importance, on the other. Which
is pretty much what I said above.
> You could say there are medical benefits of removing
> any part of the human anatomy at all,
Are there others with a similar benefit/risk ratio?
because we would no longer
> suffer the ills that that part is heir to, but we don't. Why is there
> such an obsession with removing just THIS part? What is unique about
> THIS part? Well,
> 1. It is on the GENITALS and
And that could well be why the anticirc people single out from all
others this particular preventive measure for prohibition.
> 2. We can still function sexually without it.
And IMO function better without it.
>
> And there, in a nutshell, is the "rationale" for circumcision. All the
> rest is psychopathology.
I have yet to see a single substantive disadvantage put forth. They are,
IMO, to use your term, trivial.
Terry
All these problems regarding foreskin, not to mention hygiene. I'm a
CUT male and extremely grateful to be one!!
wadi
dogman <I-don't-w...@your-e-mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:38856D98...@your-e-mail.invalid...
I note that you had the sense to add the "c" word in brackets.
Otherwise only a handful of your fellow lunatics would had realised that you
were indeed referring to circumcision.
Of course it is not.
So once again a pathetically poorly contrived argument from a skin freak
falls on it's arse.
LOL
Dave
>
> All these problems regarding foreskin, not to mention hygiene. I'm a
> CUT male and extremely grateful to be one!!
And hey, guess what.
I DO NOT CARE.
- Dave
...Fuck off.
Hugh Young
said:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 01:51:36 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
>> said:
>>
>> > Through necessity of course since the anticirc case
>> >rests largely upon emotion.
>>
>> Just like the antislavery case, really.
>>
>> >From what I have seen of your postings, you seem incapable of
>> >comprehending the difference between what is on one hand fact and what
>> >is one the other simply your personal opinion (or imaginings).
>> >
>> >In an earlier posting you say: "Which medical benefits? There are
>> >none." Which of course is untrue. There are in fact benefits and
>> >although not great, they are there.
>>
>> They are trivial.
>
>But they are there.
Trivial. Unworthy of consideration, trifling, of no consequence
whether they are "there" or not.
> So this is the point of departure from fact on one
>hand to *opinion*, as to their relative importance, on the other. Which
>is pretty much what I said above.
>
>> You could say there are medical benefits of removing
>> any part of the human anatomy at all,
>
>Are there others with a similar benefit/risk ratio?
Who knows? I imagine the risks of removing the earlobe are pretty near
zero (no blood vessels, unlike the foreskin) and I once had a nasty
little papilloma on my earlobe, so for all anyone knows there would be
a net benefit. What is interesting is that only circumcision has ever
become customary and so only circumcision gets its risk/benefit ratios
looked at.
>because we would no longer
>> suffer the ills that that part is heir to, but we don't. Why is there
>> such an obsession with removing just THIS part? What is unique about
>> THIS part? Well,
>> 1. It is on the GENITALS and
>
>And that could well be why the anticirc people single out from all
>others this particular preventive measure for prohibition.
Pah! That really is putting the cart before the horse. JP begs a
thousand questions calling it a preventative measure. What does he
think it prevents today? Masturbation? Evil spirits?
We don't single it out. I am (and I imagine we all are) equally
opposed to earlobe removal, fingertip removal, eyelid removal, etc.
etc. etc. Why we don't put up websites about them, form organisations
etc, should be obvious.
>> 2. We can still function sexually without it.
>
>And IMO function better without it.
JP can speak only for himself. He CHOSE to have his foreskin cut off
(because his parents were wise enough to leave him with that choice).
>> And there, in a nutshell, is the "rationale" for circumcision. All the
>> rest is psychopathology.
And for this JP has no answer. I repeat, cutting off part of babies'
genitals, whether male or female, is based on PSYCHOPATHOLOGY.
>I have yet to see a single substantive disadvantage put forth. They are,
>IMO, to use your term, trivial.
How about removal of the choice that JP had? But it's not up to us to
make any case against circumcision. It's up to circumcisionists to
justify it.
John Pritchard
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:09:28 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
> said:
>
> >Hugh Young wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 01:51:36 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
> >> said:
> >>
> >> > Through necessity of course since the anticirc case
> >> >rests largely upon emotion.
> >>
> >> Just like the antislavery case, really.
> >>
> >> >From what I have seen of your postings, you seem incapable of
> >> >comprehending the difference between what is on one hand fact and what
> >> >is one the other simply your personal opinion (or imaginings).
> >> >
> >> >In an earlier posting you say: "Which medical benefits? There are
> >> >none." Which of course is untrue. There are in fact benefits and
> >> >although not great, they are there.
> >>
> >> They are trivial.
> >
> >But they are there.
> Trivial. Unworthy of consideration, trifling, of no consequence
> whether they are "there" or not.
Yes, but they are *there*. "Trivial' is simply your opinion, your value
judgment of them.
Others may judge differently. I see them as part of a broader beneficial
package.
> > So this is the point of departure from fact on one
> >hand to *opinion*, as to their relative importance, on the other. Which
> >is pretty much what I said above.
> >
> >> You could say there are medical benefits of removing
> >> any part of the human anatomy at all,
> >
> >Are there others with a similar benefit/risk ratio?
>
> Who knows? I imagine the risks of removing the earlobe are pretty near
> zero (no blood vessels, unlike the foreskin) and I once had a nasty
> little papilloma on my earlobe, so for all anyone knows there would be
> a net benefit. What is interesting is that only circumcision has ever
> become customary and so only circumcision gets its risk/benefit ratios
> looked at.
I suspect that the original attention to circumcision resulted from
thinking along the lines expressed by Bryk (the medical benefits are
serendipitous.)
"Man strives to make the often troublesome act of intercourse
as comfortable as possible; and it cannot be denied that the foreskin
is often a painful hindrance, becoming strangulated after the entrance
of the glans and making the act difficult, or, in case the prepuce
does not leave the glans free, hastening the ejaculatio seminis.
What could be simpler than to do away with this hindrance,
especially since an additional mark of beauty was thus attained
for maturity." (1)
> >because we would no longer
> >> suffer the ills that that part is heir to, but we don't. Why is there
> >> such an obsession with removing just THIS part? What is unique about
> >> THIS part? Well,
> >> 1. It is on the GENITALS and
> >
> >And that could well be why the anticirc people single out from all
> >others this particular preventive measure for prohibition.
>
> Pah! That really is putting the cart before the horse. JP begs a
> thousand questions calling it a preventative measure. What does he
> think it prevents today? Masturbation? Evil spirits?
Pish tush! Pshaw! See:
http://www.circlist.org/
For all who are interested in the general medical benefits of
circumcision (for use as arguments, perhaps) here is a summary from Dr.
Wiswells "Neonatal circumcision: A current appraisal", Pediatrics 1995,
Vol.1, No.2
"If a male is not circumcised, the risk for the following disorders is:
Sexually transmitted disease (not HIV) 1 in 4
HIV 1 in 300
Penile cancer 1 in 400-600
Urinary tract infections 1 in 25-100
Balanoposthitis* 1 in 6
True phimosis (obstruction to urine flow) 1 in 10-50
The risk of these disorders is significantly lower in circumcised males"
*Balanopostihitis: infection of glans penis and foreskin.
Exactly what you expected, no doubt. Now I expect the next part of this
dance will be for you to analyse and reject each item one by one.
> We don't single it out. I am (and I imagine we all are) equally
> opposed to earlobe removal, fingertip removal, eyelid removal, etc.
> etc. etc. Why we don't put up websites about them, form organisations
> etc, should be obvious.
Don't ask me. These all are your ideas. Not mine.
> >> 2. We can still function sexually without it.
> >
> >And IMO function better without it.
>
> JP can speak only for himself. He CHOSE to have his foreskin cut off
> (because his parents were wise enough to leave him with that choice).
Or they never thought about it. Frankly, it is a choice I would rather
not have had. Still, it is this so-called choice which helps motivate me
to be here today.
> >> And there, in a nutshell, is the "rationale" for circumcision. All the
> >> rest is psychopathology.
> And for this JP has no answer. I repeat, cutting off part of babies'
> genitals, whether male or female, is based on PSYCHOPATHOLOGY.
You, like extremists on both sides, seem incapable of comprehending the
difference between the *act* on one hand and the life-long *condition*
on the other. I favor neonatal circumcision because the *act* is safe,
simple, short and now relatively pain free while the *condition*
provides lifelong benefits.
As to your comment," I repeat, cutting off part of babies' genitals,"
no one is suggesting cutting off babies' genitals - circumcision is no
more "cutting off part of babies' genitals," than removing a child's
tooth is "removing his entire head."
The act of removing a foreskin under medical or religious conditions has
to the best of my knowledge and observation no erotic connotation
whatsoever.
*Retaining* a foreskin for all the wrong reasons and ascribing to it
almost mystical properties is psycho.
> >I have yet to see a single substantive disadvantage put forth. They are,
> >IMO, to use your term, trivial.
>
> How about removal of the choice that JP had? But it's not up to us to
> make any case against circumcision. It's up to circumcisionists to
> justify it.
That is the least convincing.
Because during the formative years, I really did not have a 'choice', I
had to live with and deal with what I had. (On the board today is the
comment "I get a lot of emails from guys with phimosis wanting help."
(2)) And I dealt with it successfully. But I see no positive trade-off
for the inconvenience and unpleasantness.
Those who choose neonatal circumcision have to justify nothing to you or
to members of the anticirc cult. They must decide for themselves which
course of action provides overall the best short and long-term benefits
for the child.
> --
> Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
> Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
(1)
Sex and Circumcision
Felix Bryk
Brandon House,
North Hollywood Calif
c1967
(2)
From: nic...@aol.com (NickT80)
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
Subject: There is NO need to have a tight foreskin
Date: 19 Jan 2000 20:11:02 GMT
Message-ID: <20000119151102...@ng-dh1.aol.com>
Chazz
> For all who are interested in the general medical benefits of
> circumcision (for use as arguments, perhaps) here is a summary from Dr.
> Wiswells "Neonatal circumcision: A current appraisal", Pediatrics 1995,
> Vol.1, No.2
> "If a male is not circumcised, the risk for the following disorders is:
> Sexually transmitted disease (not HIV) 1 in 4
> HIV 1 in 300
> Penile cancer 1 in 400-600
> Urinary tract infections 1 in 25-100
> Balanoposthitis* 1 in 6
> True phimosis (obstruction to urine flow) 1 in 10-50
>
> The risk of these disorders is significantly lower in circumcised males"
> *Balanopostihitis: infection of glans penis and foreskin.
"The risk of these disorders is significantly lower in circumcised males."
Please define the term "significant." Does it lower STD rate from 1 in 4 to
1 in 10? Does it lower cancer to 1 in 1000? Or is it more of a situation
where the actual number of cases is less, however the ratio is at the very
least close? Please, do not take this as a flame, I just have a natural
distrust for anything claiming superiority without presenting evidence. As
in the courtroom, the burden of proof is on the prosecuter, and in this case
the prosecuter is Dr. Wiswells.
Ana
Leif Thompson <le...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:387B77CF...@teleport.com...
> Yo John,
> You got a point or what? Make it. Calling something "utterly
ridiculous" is
> really no arguement at all.
> Kind of like a fart, makes a nose but doesn't say much.
I'll second that. I'm interested to hear why such statements are utterly
ridiculous. Sounds like jealousy to me. Give some reasons here......
> Leif
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > > User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the
circumcision
> > > >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture
content of
> > > >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture
content is high
> > > >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
> > >
> > > Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls
within
> > > the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction,
hence
> > > less need for lubrication. Also, the moist part of the penis stays
inside
> > > the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is
less
> > > drying.
> > >
> > > The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls
of the
> > > vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where
they
> > > can dry up.
> > >
> > > When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful.
The woman
> > > often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to
destroy
> > > sexual intimacy in many different ways.
> > >
> > > g.
> >
> > Geoffrey, I won't go into detail but simply say that this is utterly
> > ridiculous. Where are on earth to you get your fanciful notions?
> >
> > > --
> > > 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/
>
John Pritchard
>
> Leif Thompson <le...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:387B77CF...@teleport.com...
> > Yo John,
> > You got a point or what? Make it. Calling something "utterly
> ridiculous" is
> > really no arguement at all.
> > Kind of like a fart, makes a nose but doesn't say much.
>
> I'll second that. I'm interested to hear why such statements are utterly
> ridiculous. Sounds like jealousy to me. Give some reasons here......
By checking 'Show All Messages' on my newsreader, I get 29 entries for
'Circumcision and lubrication' remaining. It seem a waste of time to
repeat the whole bunch of them but if you are too lazy to even check
that option, I will at least get started. Here was my reply.
Subject: Re: Circumcision and lubrication
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:44:22 GMT
From: John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
References: 1 , 2 , 3
Geoffrey T. Falk wrote:
>
> [I am reposting this because the original disappeared. A rogue censor?]
>
> In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the circumcision
> >issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content of
> >the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is high
> >to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
>
> Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
> the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
> less need for lubrication.
Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
*all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
during erection. And when it does occur, the man is self-stimulated it
is really just vaginal masturbation.
Also, the moist part of the penis stays inside
> the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
> drying.
>
> The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
> vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
> can dry up.
> When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The woman
> often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
> sexual intimacy in many different ways.
The female supplies the lubrication. If she does not any possible
physical problem should be addressed - or perhaps she is simply not
sufficiently interested.
Circumcision can improve intimacy by giving the man greater control and
letting him be more attentive to his partner's needs than to his own.
> g.
>
CiberCrooz
>Date: Sun, 09 January 2000 10:50 PM EST
>Message-id: <fGce4.16523$G55.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>
>
>In article <19991214082913...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
>User91283 <user...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Wadi, your knowledge of physics is less than your knowledge of the
>circumcision
>>issue. Smegma has nothing to do with it. It's the initial moisture content
>of
>>the skin and how well it wets when wetted. Since the moisture content is
>high
>>to begin with the skin simply wets easier.
>
>Actually, it is a question of mechanics. The fact that the penis rolls within
>the foreskin roller-bearing means that there is very little friction, hence
>the vagina and does not draw the lubricants outside. Hence there is less
>drying.
>
>The circumcised penis, on the other hand, is forced to rub the walls of the
>vagina, needs more lubrication, and draws the lubricants outside where they
>can dry up.
>
>When there is insufficient lubrication, intercourse becomes painful. The
>woman
>often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to destroy
>sexual intimacy in many different ways.
>
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/anat/
This is what women who have had both have to say:
This appeared in the March/April 1999 issue of Mothering magazine:
Not Tonight, Dear, You Have No Foreskin
Women in Britain overwhelmingly prefer sex with a partner who has an
anatomically complete penis, according to a recent survey of 138 English women
who had had intercourse with both intact and circumcised partners.
The women involved reported noticeably more vaginal discomfort, increased loss
of vaginal secretions, greater likelihood of premature ejaculation, shorter
duration of intercourse, fewer vaginal orgasms, fewer multiple orgasms, and
more negative emotions during sex with circumcised men than with men who had
their foreskins intact. "Circumcision profoundly alters the sexual experience
of the female partner in a negative fashion," researcher Kristen
O'Hara concluded with typical British understatement. (See the British Journal
of Urology, 83, 1999.)
CiberCrooz
>woman
>> often ends up thinking that this is her fault. Circumcision helps to
>destroy
>> sexual intimacy in many different ways.
>
>physical problem should be addressed - or perhaps she is simply not
>sufficiently interested.
With age both males and females lose moisture,so when the female ages and
starts loosing her own moisture as well as the circumcised man becoming drier.
In older age is when the foreskin is the most valuble as far as providing
moistur to the glans as well as helping to keep moisture in the vagina.
>Circumcision can improve intimacy by giving the man greater control and
>letting him be more attentive to his partner's needs than to his own.
>
Not to forget that the glans of circumcised men flare up after circumcision
becoming thicker and karotinized hence the term mushroom or acorn head,this
would be definetly more uncomftarble.
Hugh Young
said:
>Aside from the question as to whether it is desirable when it does
>occur, the fatal flaw in this approach is that it does not occur for
>*all* intact. It will not occur when the foreskin is so short as to
>remain retracted along the glans or when it locks behind the glans
>during erection.
It is hardly a FATAL flaw with the case for having something, that a
small minority of people are unfortunate enough to be born lacking it.
>The female supplies the lubrication.
Not all of it, if the man is intact.
>Circumcision can improve intimacy by giving the man greater control and
>letting him be more attentive to his partner's needs than to his own.
Castration would improve it even more, by making him be ENTIRELY
attentive to his partner's needs rather than his own.
Hugh Young
said:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>> Who knows? I imagine the risks of removing the earlobe are pretty near
>> zero (no blood vessels, unlike the foreskin) and I once had a nasty
>> little papilloma on my earlobe, so for all anyone knows there would be
>> a net benefit. What is interesting is that only circumcision has ever
>> become customary and so only circumcision gets its risk/benefit ratios
>> looked at.
>
>I suspect that the original attention to circumcision resulted from
>thinking along the lines expressed by Bryk (the medical benefits are
>serendipitous.)
>
>"Man strives to make the often troublesome act of intercourse
>as comfortable as possible; and it cannot be denied
It certainly can.
>that the foreskin
>is often a painful hindrance, becoming strangulated after the entrance
>of the glans and making the act difficult, or, in case the prepuce
>does not leave the glans free, hastening the ejaculatio seminis.
>What could be simpler than to do away with this hindrance,
>especially since an additional mark of beauty was thus attained
>for maturity." (1)
What absolute rubbish, on all counts.
>> >because we would no longer
>> >> suffer the ills that that part is heir to, but we don't. Why is there
>> >> such an obsession with removing just THIS part? What is unique about
>> >> THIS part? Well,
>> >> 1. It is on the GENITALS and
>> >
>> >And that could well be why the anticirc people single out from all
>> >others this particular preventive measure for prohibition.
>>
>> Pah! That really is putting the cart before the horse. JP begs a
>> thousand questions calling it a preventative measure. What does he
>> think it prevents today? Masturbation? Evil spirits?
>
>Pish tush! Pshaw! See:
>http://www.circlist.org/
That well known hangout of circumfetishists. They aren't interested in
preventing anything, only in getting off on circumcision.
>For all who are interested in the general medical benefits of
>circumcision (for use as arguments, perhaps) here is a summary from Dr.
>Wiswells "Neonatal circumcision: A current appraisal", Pediatrics 1995,
>Vol.1, No.2
>"If a male is not circumcised, the risk for the following disorders is:
>Sexually transmitted disease (not HIV) 1 in 4
>HIV 1 in 300
>Penile cancer 1 in 400-600
>Urinary tract infections 1 in 25-100
>Balanoposthitis* 1 in 6
>True phimosis (obstruction to urine flow) 1 in 10-50
>
>The risk of these disorders is significantly lower in circumcised males"
>*Balanopostihitis: infection of glans penis and foreskin.
>
>Exactly what you expected, no doubt. Now I expect the next part of this
>dance will be for you to analyse and reject each item one by one.
Done it too many times already. Can't be bothered.
Just go to http://www.circumstitions.com/ and follow the links.
I'll just point out (again) that each of those came up one by one
after the previous best reason to circumcise was disposed of.
Interesting that UTIs, now the reason numero uno, only came up (thanks
to the same Dr Wiswell) in the mid 1980s after Dr Spock (probably the
greatest influence for circumcision in the US this century) was dead.
>> We don't single it out. I am (and I imagine we all are) equally
>> opposed to earlobe removal, fingertip removal, eyelid removal, etc.
>> etc. etc. Why we don't put up websites about them, form organisations
>> etc, should be obvious.
>
>Don't ask me. These all are your ideas. Not mine.
I'm not asking JP. The reason should be obvious to anyone without a
desperate investment in circumcision.
>> >> 2. We can still function sexually without it.
>> >
>> >And IMO function better without it.
>>
>> JP can speak only for himself. He CHOSE to have his foreskin cut off
>> (because his parents were wise enough to leave him with that choice).
>
>Or they never thought about it.
Better yet.
> Frankly, it is a choice I would rather
>not have had. Still, it is this so-called choice which helps motivate me
>to be here today.
...to take the choice away from others.
>> >> And there, in a nutshell, is the "rationale" for circumcision. All the
>> >> rest is psychopathology.
>
>> And for this JP has no answer. I repeat, cutting off part of babies'
>> genitals, whether male or female, is based on PSYCHOPATHOLOGY.
>
>You, like extremists on both sides, seem incapable of comprehending the
>difference between the *act* on one hand and the life-long *condition*
>on the other. I favor neonatal circumcision because the *act* is safe,
wrong
>simple,
wrong
> short
wrong
> and now relatively pain free
No new anaesthetic has been invented. All that has happened is that
the medical profession has finally recognised the obvious, that
circumcision is exquisitely painful and babies feel pain.
> while the *condition*
>provides lifelong benefits.
wrong.
>As to your comment," I repeat, cutting off part of babies' genitals,"
>no one is suggesting cutting off babies' genitals - circumcision is no
>more "cutting off part of babies' genitals," than removing a child's
>tooth is "removing his entire head."
By this JP demonstrates that it is he who can't see the difference
between "part of", and "all of", not me.
I will go on pointing out that circumcision is cutting off part of
babies' genitals because that seems to be lost in phrases like "just a
flap of skin."
see
http:/www.circumstitions.com/Notjustaflap.html for how much is lost
(130KB but worth it)
http:/www.circumstitions.com/Anatomy.gif for what it consists of and
http:/www.circumstitions.com/Works.html for an animated illustration
of how it works.
>The act of removing a foreskin under medical or religious conditions has
>to the best of my knowledge and observation no erotic connotation
>whatsoever.
Doctors and others who get off on it are hardly going to tell anyone,
are they? The act of removing it under sexual conditions, as described
in circlist (A Blade for Brian, and the like) obviously has. What
barrier is there between them?
>*Retaining* a foreskin for all the wrong reasons and ascribing to it
>almost mystical properties is psycho.
Nobody needs any reasons at all for retaining part of their own body.
>> >I have yet to see a single substantive disadvantage put forth. They are,
>> >IMO, to use your term, trivial.
>>
>> How about removal of the choice that JP had? But it's not up to us to
>> make any case against circumcision. It's up to circumcisionists to
>> justify it.
>
>That is the least convincing.
We can't help it if JP doesn't appreciate the choice he had, just
because he happened to make it one way and not the other.
>Because during the formative years, I really did not have a 'choice',
No, and a child is not capable of making that choice. That is why it
should be left until he is an adult.
> I
>had to live with and deal with what I had. (On the board today is the
>comment "I get a lot of emails from guys with phimosis wanting help."
>(2)) And I dealt with it successfully. But I see no positive trade-off
>for the inconvenience and unpleasantness.
JP seems determined to judge the world by himself. The vast majority
of intact guys have no problems whatsoever. They have a right to enjoy
all they were born with.
>Those who choose neonatal circumcision have to justify nothing to you or
>to members of the anticirc cult.
Doubtless parents who decide to choose FGM say the same, as do abusive
parent of all stripes.
> They must decide for themselves which
>course of action provides overall the best short and long-term benefits
>for the child.
Only because they are offered this decision, and then put under
considerable pressure to choose circumcision. They could be like JP's
parents, and never give it a thought.
wadi
Ana <anasta...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:7KTh4.283$YM1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
>
> I'll second that. I'm interested to hear why such statements are utterly
> ridiculous. Sounds like jealousy to me. Give some reasons here......
>
As I predicted the worm is turning.
LOL
wadi
CiberCrooz <ciber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000121144927...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
>
>
> With age both males and females lose moisture,so when the female ages and
> starts loosing her own moisture as well as the circumcised man becoming
drier.
heh heh
You can substantiate this?
>
> In older age is when the foreskin is the most valuble as far as providing
> moistur to the glans as well as helping to keep moisture in the vagina.
>
Notwithstanding the fact that Laumann found a higher rate of sexual
dysfunction among uncircumcised men?
[snip]
>
> Not to forget that the glans of circumcised men flare up after
circumcision
> becoming thicker and karotinized hence the term mushroom or acorn
head,this
> would be definetly more uncomftarble.
Second time today you have made this statement.
I can't wait for you to provide proof of this position.
It's so off the wall I'm not holding my breath on that.
John Pritchard
I haven't been following Ana's postings. Is she another 'innocent' who
after discovering the truth becomes an anticirc convert?
If so, how does she compare to 'Al' in terms of time. 'Al' (see below)
holds the record for speedy conversion as far as I know. Does Ana beat
him out?
***************************
Message-ID: <3881D8...@escape.ca>
From: John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
Subject: Re: phimosis
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:39:50 GMT
wadi wrote:
>
> Al <agg...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3881C981...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au...
> > Hi George,
> >
> > Thanks very much for your advice. I most likely won't have circ done now.
Just think what a used car salesman could do with a guy like this.
> LOL
> Great troll.
> But a bit transparent don't you think?
wadi
> wadi wrote:
> >
> > Ana <anasta...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:7KTh4.283$YM1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > I'll second that. I'm interested to hear why such statements are
utterly
> > > ridiculous. Sounds like jealousy to me. Give some reasons
here......
> > >
> >
> > As I predicted the worm is turning.
> > LOL
>
>
> I haven't been following Ana's postings. Is she another 'innocent' who
> after discovering the truth becomes an anticirc convert?
Oh yea.
This one follows the pattern.
There is not enough variation to create interest.
The "conversion" is too rapid to create any suspense.
Just true to type.
Boringly so.
>
> If so, how does she compare to 'Al' in terms of time. 'Al' (see below)
> holds the record for speedy conversion as far as I know. Does Ana beat
> him out?
>
They are certainly coming thick and fast out of Australia these days.
All playing the same game.
LOL
CiberCrooz
>Date: Sat, 22 January 2000 12:47 AM EST
>Message-id: <86bk14$2ofc$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>
Look and compare yourself:
http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm
Now you are going to say the photos are made up LOL
John Pritchard
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:41:49 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
> said:
>
> >Hugh Young wrote:
>
> >
> >"Man strives to make the often troublesome act of intercourse
> >as comfortable as possible; and it cannot be denied
>
> It certainly can.
So man does *not* strive to make the act as comfortable as possible.
That seems consistent with the foreskin- at-all-costs, regardless of all
results, philosophy
> >that the foreskin
> >is often a painful hindrance, becoming strangulated after the entrance
> >of the glans and making the act difficult, or, in case the prepuce
> >does not leave the glans free, hastening the ejaculatio seminis.
> >What could be simpler than to do away with this hindrance,
> >especially since an additional mark of beauty was thus attained
> >for maturity." (1)
>
> What absolute rubbish, on all counts.
No, there is really a great deal of truth here, a truth about which the
anticirc crowd, for the sake of the Cause, must remain in complete
denial. It is your refusal to recognize things likke this that
contributes to your unrealistic view of the foreskin.
deletion
> >
> >Exactly what you expected, no doubt. Now I expect the next part of this
> >dance will be for you to analyse and reject each item one by one.
>
> Done it too many times already. Can't be bothered.
> Just go to http://www.circumstitions.com/ and follow the links.
I think a far better site is:
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~bmorris/circumcision.shtml
MEDICAL BENEFITS FROM CIRCUMCISION
> I'll just point out (again) that each of those came up one by one
> after the previous best reason to circumcise was disposed of.
> Interesting that UTIs, now the reason numero uno, only came up (thanks
> to the same Dr Wiswell) in the mid 1980s after Dr Spock (probably the
> greatest influence for circumcision in the US this century) was dead.
Denied by the true-blue anticircers but by no means 'disposed of'.
deletion
> >
> >> And for this JP has no answer. I repeat, cutting off part of babies'
> >> genitals, whether male or female, is based on PSYCHOPATHOLOGY.
You do seem to be preoccupied with the *act*. Researchers who publish
papers favorable to circumcision; doctors who perform it; parents who
choose it; religions which require it; young men who turn to it -
hundreds of millions of people: all conspirators, all conspire do so in
order to, to use your term, "get off on it" that is, they find sexual
stimulation in the *act*
You paint with a very broad brush. Anyone who favors circumcision for
any reason whatsoever is put on the same level, as a mirror image of,
John Erickson, see footnote. This is an interesting insight into your
world view and your attitude towards those who simply disagree with you.
deletion
>
> > and now relatively pain free
> No new anaesthetic has been invented. All that has happened is that
> the medical profession has finally recognised the obvious, that
> circumcision is exquisitely painful and babies feel pain.
http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html
"In summary, analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural
pain associated with circumcision and, therefore, adequate analgesia
should be provided if neonatal circumcision is performed. EMLA cream,
DPNB, and a subcutaneous ring block are options, although the
subcutaneous ring block may provide the most effective analgesia."
deletion
>
> I will go on pointing out that circumcision is cutting off part of
> babies' genitals because that seems to be lost in phrases like "just a
> flap of skin."
And I will go on pointing out that the anticirc campaign is based upon a
false premise - an unrealistic, exaggerated and almost mystical view of
the foreskin.
deletion
> Doctors and others who get off on it are hardly going to tell anyone,
> are they? The act of removing it under sexual conditions, as described
> in circlist (A Blade for Brian, and the like) obviously has. What
> barrier is there between them?
I don't know. I don't follow the circ-for-entertainment sites. But you
seem preoccupied with the *act*.
You honestly don't see a barrier between a Jewish baba attending her
grandson's bris and "Man who circumcised himself: 13 photographs". see
below.
I am sure you can't and it tells again a lot about your world view.
deletion
> JP seems determined to judge the world by himself. The vast majority
> of intact guys have no problems whatsoever. They have a right to enjoy
> all they were born with.
In this instance, JP is not judging the world by himself. You
conveniently overlook the statement "I get a lot of emails from guys
with phimosis wanting help."
deletion
> Only because they are offered this decision, and then put under
> considerable pressure to choose circumcision. They could be like JP's
> parents, and never give it a thought.
So it should not even to offered. To never give it a thought, that is,
to promote ignorance, is a major plank in the anticirc platform. The
less parents really know about it or even aware of it the better it is
for the Cause.
> --
> Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
> Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
footnote
Footnote
From: D...@see.address.below (Don)
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy
Subject: Re: "I won't let anyone hurt my son." (Circumcision)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:50:44 GMT
Message-ID: <377f5983...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:06:41 GMT, qs...@datasync.com (John A.
Erickson) wrote:
>I just received this email. I'm deleting the woman's
>name and email address to protect her privacy.
[snip]
>John A. Erickson
>www.SexuallyMutilatedChild.org
>qs...@datasync.com
[snip]
Anyone visiting John Erickson's "mutilated child" web site should
be sure to visit his sister site:
http://www.foreskin.org
... as well as investigate what else John offers--and why. . .
----------- Begin quoted material -----------
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 04:00:22 GMT, in alt.circumcision
qs...@datasync.com (John A. Erickson) wrote:
"Philanthropy is fine but philanthropy plus
five percent is even better." --J.P. Morgan
Besides, I'm saving for a down payment on
a condo at Trump Towers, so it's for a good
cause.
John A. Erickson
www.SexuallyMutilatedChild.org
www.foreskin.org
*****
-----------
Man who circumcised himself:
13 photographs
Before, during, after. Enlarged second generation 5 1/2" x 7 1/2"
black-and-white photocopies of photocopies of original 3" x 3
1/2" photographs. Includes printed text of notes/commentary
written on backs of first generation photocopies. Image quality:
poor. (Clear enough to see, however.) Mailed flat in 2-3 day
Priority envelope. Outside U.S. sent Air Mail. $10 postpaid
anywhere. Check or money order drawn on U.S. bank payable in U.S.
dollars only.
1. Examining frenulum.
2. Penis before circumcision, foreskin extending beyond
glans.
3. Instruments used:
1. Extra elastic ecraseur surgical rubber band.
2. Holder for stretched ecraseur band.
3. Aluminum wire loops to hold stretched ecraseur.
4. Ecraseur band in holder.
5. Cutter to cut wire and release ecraseur to clamp
down on foreskin.
6. Grooved plastic ring to fit into sulcus.
4. Pulling glans through ring.
5. Ring in place behind glans (in sulcus).
6. Pulling foreskin full forward over ring. Dots on foreskin
marking position of corona.
7. Positioning ecraseur band over grooved ring while
positioning foreskin so dots are over grooved ring.
8. Cutting wire loops to release ecraseur band onto
foreskin.
9. Cutting foreskin off with scissors.
10. Severed foreskin on saucer.
11. Penis seven days later.
12. Underside of penis, frenulum removed.
13. Semi-erect penis several months later.
Order from:
John A. Erickson
1664 Beach Blvd. #216
Biloxi, MS 39531-5351
USA
Include signed "I am over 21" statement.
Please note:
I have no photographs of children or for children and don't
know or want to know anyone who does. If you are looking for
photographs showing the genitals of children, try Sing Sing
or San Quentin.
*****
-----------
From: qs...@datasync.com (John A. Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
Subject: 18 UNCUTs left @ $12
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 06:31:27 GMT
Organization: AMC Internet
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <7jd162$3bp$1...@news.ametro.net>
On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 06:31:27 GMT, in alt.circumcision
qs...@datasync.com (John A. Erickson) wrote:
I have these 18 back issues of UNCUT left, which I'll sell for
$12 each.
I'll pay shipping to a U.S. address.
I prefer to sell Volumes 5 and 6 (which are both complete) as
"sets" but I'll split them if no one offers to buy all 6 from
each volume.
Vol 5 No 1 Sep 1990
wadi
Cyberskin wrote:
> >>
> >> Not to forget that the glans of circumcised men flare up after
> >circumcision
> >> becoming thicker and karotinized hence the term mushroom or acorn
> >head,this
> >> would be definetly more uncomftarble.
wadi wrote:
> >Second time today you have made this statement.
> >I can't wait for you to provide proof of this position.
> >It's so off the wall I'm not holding my breath on that.
>
> Look and compare yourself:
> http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm
>
> Now you are going to say the photos are made up LOL
Interesting pics.
Proves the point about how hideous the 4skin really is.
Gross!!!
But that was not the point was it.
The point was that you made a statement that circumcision leads to the
phenomenon term "mushroom head".
Did I miss such a pic there?
Of course not, because it is just another bullshit argument.
I can accept that the glans once liberated from the restrictions of the
foreskin may well develop a larger profile.
This would of course include more nerves and therefore greater sensations
where it counts ;-)
Dave
> > In older age is when the foreskin is the most valuble as far as providing
> > moistur to the glans as well as helping to keep moisture in the vagina.
> >
>
> Notwithstanding the fact that Laumann found a higher rate of sexual
> dysfunction among uncircumcised men?
And we've repeatedly told you, Laumann had a very loose description for
"sexual dysfunction". How would you define sexual function?
Doesn't really matter, but Laumann described it as something akin to,
"anxiety about circ status" basically meaning that these guys felt the
odd ones out, which would be natural in a majority circumcised country.
if the question had been asked in a pre-dominatly intact country this
would have been reversed. But whatever.
- Dave
Dave
- Dave
...Perhaps you should read what you quote next time...
wadi wrote:
>
> Dave <wal...@Pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:388B6C0E...@Pacbell.net...
> > wadi wrote:
> > >
> > > CiberCrooz <ciber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20000121144927...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> >
> > > > In older age is when the foreskin is the most valuble as far as
> providing
> > > > moistur to the glans as well as helping to keep moisture in the
> vagina.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Notwithstanding the fact that Laumann found a higher rate of sexual
> > > dysfunction among uncircumcised men?
> >
> > And we've repeatedly told you, Laumann had a very loose description for
> > "sexual dysfunction". How would you define sexual function?
> >
>
> What you skin freaks say is more often than not at odds with the truth.
> Laumann listed 7 types of dysfunction in the question so there is no
> vagueness as to this matter.
>
> "Of the 7 sexual dysfunctions
> considered, uncircumcised older men were more likely to experience everyone
> of these difficulties than are their uncircumcised peers. Three of these
> differences are statistically significant even in the presence of controls."
>
> And significant it is.
> These dysfunctions were more half as likely to be found among circumcised
> men in the sam age cohort.
>
> ==========================
> "The odds of a circumcised man experiencing anxiety about his performance
> were approximately half that for his uncircumcised peers. (95% CI,
> 0.22-0.95); the odds of a member of the former group having difficulty
> achieving or maintaining an erection are about 0.40 that for the latter
> group (95% CI, 0.16-0.77).
>
> Overall, the odds that a circumcised man of the oldest cohort experienced
> sexual dysfunction was
> 0.48 that for uncircumcised men of the same age group (95% CI, 0.28-0.79). "
> ==========================
>
> > Doesn't really matter, but Laumann described it as something akin to,
> > "anxiety about circ status" basically meaning that these guys felt the
> > odd ones out, which would be natural in a majority circumcised country.
> > if the question had been asked in a pre-dominatly intact country this
> > would have been reversed. But whatever.
> >
>
> Oh yea.
> A white lie?
> "anxiety" was only one of the 7 dysfunction's covered.
> God ... you skin freaks are pathological liars.
> But of course that is the story you skin freaks are sticking to.
> I am still waiting for an explanation why "older" men would have performance
> anxiety based on their circumcision status with the woman they have been
> married to for more than thirty years?
> If she hasn't got used to that hideous thing by then I can't help you.
> But then again maybe one whiff of smeggies is enough to haunt a woman for
> the rest of her life ;-)
>
> But anyway the uncircumcised have twice the risk of erectile dysfunction as
> they age.
> That's something you must be looking forward to Dave.
CiberCrooz
>Date: Sun, 23 January 2000 04:01 PM EST
>Message-id: <388B6C0E...@Pacbell.net>
>
>wadi wrote:
>>
>> CiberCrooz <ciber...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20000121144927...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
>
>> > In older age is when the foreskin is the most valuble as far as providing
>> > moistur to the glans as well as helping to keep moisture in the vagina.
>> >
>>
>> Notwithstanding the fact that Laumann found a higher rate of sexual
>> dysfunction among uncircumcised men?
>
>And we've repeatedly told you, Laumann had a very loose description for
>"sexual dysfunction". How would you define sexual function?
>
>"anxiety about circ status" basically meaning that these guys felt the
>odd ones out, which would be natural in a majority circumcised country.
>if the question had been asked in a pre-dominatly intact country this
>would have been reversed. But whatever.
>
Well if we consider tight painful erections and intercourse,dryness and the
need for artificial lubrication,friction and all the other side effets of
circumcision,wouldn't it be true circumcised men have more sexual dysfunctions?
CiberCrooz
>where it counts ;-)
Now gee,this is the stupidest comment I have read,its not even funny,but
pathetic and even more pathetic to think it is funny. What a moron!
wadi
Dave <wal...@Pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:388B6C0E...@Pacbell.net...
> >
> > CiberCrooz <ciber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000121144927...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
>
> > > In older age is when the foreskin is the most valuble as far as
providing
> > > moistur to the glans as well as helping to keep moisture in the
vagina.
> > >
> >
> > Notwithstanding the fact that Laumann found a higher rate of sexual
> > dysfunction among uncircumcised men?
>
> And we've repeatedly told you, Laumann had a very loose description for
> "sexual dysfunction". How would you define sexual function?
>
What you skin freaks say is more often than not at odds with the truth.
Laumann listed 7 types of dysfunction in the question so there is no
vagueness as to this matter.
"Of the 7 sexual dysfunctions
considered, uncircumcised older men were more likely to experience everyone
of these difficulties than are their uncircumcised peers. Three of these
differences are statistically significant even in the presence of controls."
And significant it is.
These dysfunctions were more half as likely to be found among circumcised
men in the sam age cohort.
==========================
"The odds of a circumcised man experiencing anxiety about his performance
were approximately half that for his uncircumcised peers. (95% CI,
0.22-0.95); the odds of a member of the former group having difficulty
achieving or maintaining an erection are about 0.40 that for the latter
group (95% CI, 0.16-0.77).
Overall, the odds that a circumcised man of the oldest cohort experienced
sexual dysfunction was
0.48 that for uncircumcised men of the same age group (95% CI, 0.28-0.79). "
==========================
> Doesn't really matter, but Laumann described it as something akin to,
> "anxiety about circ status" basically meaning that these guys felt the
> odd ones out, which would be natural in a majority circumcised country.
> if the question had been asked in a pre-dominatly intact country this
> would have been reversed. But whatever.
>
Oh yea.
wadi
Well you fell into that one didn't you?
That was a quote about the supposed joys of the foreskin.
Missed the wink did you?
LOL
You must be the most stupid bitch queen in North America.