Why is this so hard to grasp?
Cheri
observing them. :-)
But the one thing that baffles me, that has me dumbfounded is this: Why
is it so hard to understand that a parent would want to avoid inflicting
pain on their child? I've read a lot of rhetoric, we've been labeled
fetishists, and we've been trying to defend ourselves.
It seems to me most of the anti-RIC camp is unified in one key way. We
don't want to see people needlessly experience pain. Isn't that the
bottom line? Some of us focus on the newborn infant, others on the adult
male. But the endeavor is the same.
Some have personally experienced a keen sense of loss due to their circ,
and wish to enlighten others that this is a possibility. Some are
intact, and know the sensations a foreskin brings. They wish to inform
the world that the foreskin is a GOOD thing, a natural thing. Some focus
on the strictly human rights aspect. The right to choice. The fact the
circ is permanent, and should be up to the child. Others are concerned
about the danger to their child, the trauma that RIC puts a newborn
through.
It seems to me that all of these reasons are really about the man as a
whole, not just his penis. All of the reasons we give for not circing a
baby are not really about his sexuality as an adult, but about giving a
child every opportunity to grow up whole. Not in the physical sense, but
emotionally complete. We want the best for our children, we want them to
have safe environments, nurturing homes, the best the world has to
offer. And WE, those anti-RIC folks, feel that leaving his penis intact
is part of the nurturing environment. WE feel that leaving a boy intact
will only add to his life as a man.
Many of the things we discuss here are just "for instances". They are
not the entire basis for our decision, but rather examples of WHY we
reached our descision.
I once said that I felt we must discuss the adult male, if we are to
truly feel right with our stand on RIC.
I guess what I meant was this, all decisions we make for our kids, we
make for their lives, to bring them into adulthood. We nuture them,
educate them, instill values, etc so that they will grow into adulthood
whole. We feel leaving him intact is just as important as these other
things.
Seems simple.
--
replace nospam with cheri to reply via email
http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/1784/
Suzanne Root
What a wonderful, intelligent post! You are such a sweetie!
;-D
Suzy
RSFtLauder
Centure
thanks
> and I was
>observing them. :-)
thanks again
> Why
>is it so hard to understand that a parent would want to avoid inflicting
>pain on their child?
thats not hard to believe at all most parents dont want to hurt there children.
if by harm you mean circumcise most see it as a health benefit
and or religious obligation.
> I've read a lot of rhetoric, we've been labeled
>fetishists, and we've been trying to defend ourselves.
and anti-ric people have engaged in the same tactics
>It seems to me most of the anti-RIC camp is unified in one key way.
yes you wish to take away americans constitutional right
to practice there judeo-christian beliefs.
also elements of totalitarianism, wherein the government
tells parents how to raise there children.
>. We
>don't want to see people needlessly experience pain.
ok demand that all infants being circumcised recieve
proper analgestics, and move onto campaigning against
more painful medical procedures against infants, such
as abortion.
>Some have personally experienced a keen sense of loss due to their circ,
>and wish to enlighten others that this is a possibility
could be but that would be subgective because it would
be there own experiance.
i dont want to take away peoples constitutional rights
because of ones opinion because opinions are subgective.
>And WE, those anti-RIC folks, feel that leaving his penis intact
>is part of the nurturing environment.
fine thats your opinion thats great, but dont tell other parents
how to raise there children,
> WE feel that leaving a boy intact
>will only add to his life as a man.
great again now please extend the same curtuosy to
other parents to make there own decisions on the matter.
RSFtLauder
RSFtLauder
how to raise there children, >>>
To me the invidual's right(the right to a complete,intact body and the right to
make decisions about his body at an age of conscent) surpass parental rights.
RSFtLauder
Cheri wrote:
>
> I've been mostly lurking lately, the trolls had taken over, and I was
> observing them. :-)
> But the one thing that baffles me, that has me dumbfounded is this: Why
> is it so hard to understand that a parent would want to avoid inflicting
> fetishists, and we've been trying to defend ourselves.
> don't want to see people needlessly experience pain. Isn't that the
> bottom line? Some of us focus on the newborn infant, others on the adult
> male. But the endeavor is the same.
> intact, and know the sensations a foreskin brings. They wish to inform
> the world that the foreskin is a GOOD thing, a natural thing. Some focus
> on the strictly human rights aspect. The right to choice. The fact the
> circ is permanent, and should be up to the child. Others are concerned
> about the danger to their child, the trauma that RIC puts a newborn
> through.
> It seems to me that all of these reasons are really about the man as a
> whole, not just his penis. All of the reasons we give for not circing a
> baby are not really about his sexuality as an adult, but about giving a
> child every opportunity to grow up whole. Not in the physical sense, but
> emotionally complete. We want the best for our children, we want them to
> have safe environments, nurturing homes, the best the world has to
> is part of the nurturing environment. WE feel that leaving a boy intact
> will only add to his life as a man.
> not the entire basis for our decision, but rather examples of WHY we
> reached our descision.
> I once said that I felt we must discuss the adult male, if we are to
> truly feel right with our stand on RIC.
> I guess what I meant was this, all decisions we make for our kids, we
> make for their lives, to bring them into adulthood. We nuture them,
> educate them, instill values, etc so that they will grow into adulthood
> whole. We feel leaving him intact is just as important as these other
> things.
> Seems simple.
>What a wonderful, intelligent post! You are >such a sweetie!
I thought so ,too.It is a sad that only in America do we need to be justifying
keeping the body intact and whole like God/nature intended to.
wadi
>I've been mostly lurking lately, the trolls had taken over, and I was
>observing them. :-)
>But the one thing that baffles me, that has me dumbfounded is this: Why
>is it so hard to understand that a parent would want to avoid inflicting
>pain on their child?
This continued dishonesty remains astounding. Why do you (pl.) refuse to
acknowledge that the use of analgesics renders your emotional rallying cry
ridiculous? Rather it indicates that the use of the pain angle is not
sincere, but just a means to an end.
>I've read a lot of rhetoric, we've been labeled
>fetishists, and we've been trying to defend ourselves.
>It seems to me most of the anti-RIC camp is unified in one key way. We
>don't want to see people needlessly experience pain. Isn't that the
>bottom line?
Pain again? Enough already!!
There have been enough postings to clearly attribute your (pl.) desire for
the 4skin, hopefully adult, as a sex-toy (note the continuing adventures of
Mr Happy and Suzy's tongue). The prevalence of such sexually orientated
postings leaves one in no doubt that the anti-circ argument is dominated by
a pro-4skin obsessed sexually orientated grouping.
When the "biggy" reason for not circumcising a son is based on the mothers
fantasy and the possible future preferences of lovers/girlfriends one
wonders whether the interests of the child have really been taken into
account.
On this basis it should not be difficult to understand why some people are
suspicious of the true motives of many of those of the pro-foreskin
persuasion who post here.
>Some of us focus on the newborn infant, others on the adult
>male. But the endeavor is the same.
>Some have personally experienced a keen sense of loss due to their circ,
>and wish to enlighten others that this is a possibility.
The fact that some men suffer from a psychosomatic hang-ups about having
been circumcised should be placed in perspective. It is by all accounts a
minority view and as we have seen in this newsgroup always accompanied by a,
pro-4skin propaganda induced, misunderstanding of the facts relating to
amongst other things, dysfunction, and also in most cases just another of
multiple hang-ups those individuals have. There is clearly a "profile" for
these people who are prone to develop psychosomatic hang-ups. Your
exploitation of these sad people is hardly ethical.
>Some are
>intact, and know the sensations a foreskin brings. They wish to inform
>the world that the foreskin is a GOOD thing, a natural thing.
A good thing? A GOOD THING?? To Suzy and MM it’s a good thing as it allows
Mr Happy to be tongued out. To others it allows for some pretty peculiar
erotic activities. But, I would say, to most it's just a piece of skin.
>Some focus
>on the strictly human rights aspect. The right to choice. The fact the
>circ is permanent, and should be up to the child.
If the medical benefits indicate that circumcision is desirable then a
parental decision is justified. There appears to be less and less pretence
from the pro-4skin persuasion that the risks outweigh the benefits. Hence
the emphasis has swung to the "choice" and sexual preference issues.
>Others are concerned
>about the danger to their child, the trauma that RIC puts a newborn
>through.
The "risks" are infinitesimal with the careful selection of the surgeon.
Yet you (pl.) continue to plug this deceitful line.
>It seems to me that all of these reasons are really about the man as a
>whole, not just his penis.
Not so sure about that!!
>All of the reasons we give for not circing a
>baby are not really about his sexuality as an adult, but about giving a
>child every opportunity to grow up whole. Not in the physical sense, but
>emotionally complete. We want the best for our children, we want them to
>have safe environments, nurturing homes, the best the world has to
>offer. And WE, those anti-RIC folks, feel that leaving his penis intact
>is part of the nurturing environment. WE feel that leaving a boy intact
>will only add to his life as a man.
Add to his life?? It appears more likely that it will add to a minority of
other peoples lives in that it will provide a sex-toy for them. Remember as
a parent you are supposed to do what's best for the child and not what's
best for mommy and any future lovers/girlfriends who may have peculiar
tastes.
>Many of the things we discuss here are just "for instances". They are
>not the entire basis for our decision, but rather examples of WHY we
>reached our descision.
If was just your decision it would be fine. The question is rather why do
you (pl.) feel that you are on some self initiated crusade to save 4skins.
Given the background of your (pl.) affinity for the 4skin as a sex-toy is it
not clear to you that your motivation will be seriously questioned?
>I once said that I felt we must discuss the adult male, if we are to
>truly feel right with our stand on RIC.
>I guess what I meant was this, all decisions we make for our kids, we
>make for their lives, to bring them into adulthood. We nuture them,
>educate them, instill values, etc so that they will grow into adulthood
>whole. We feel leaving him intact is just as important as these other
>things.
>Seems simple.
Coming from your point of departure it does indeed seem simple. All you
stated seems simple and acceptable until you slyly include the presence of a
4skin. Do you really believe that where circumcision is desirable for
medical health reasons a caring parent should ignore that on the basis of
her sexual preference for 4skins?
Cheri
--
To reply via email replace nospam with cheri
wadi wrote in message <3636a...@news1.mweb.co.za>...
>Cheri<NOS...@VPINET.NET wrote in message <36352CDA...@vpinet.net>...
>>I've been mostly lurking lately, the trolls had taken over, and I was
>>observing them. :-)
>>But the one thing that baffles me, that has me dumbfounded is this: Why
>>is it so hard to understand that a parent would want to avoid inflicting
>>pain on their child?
>
>This continued dishonesty remains astounding. Why do you (pl.) refuse to
>acknowledge that the use of analgesics renders your emotional rallying cry
>ridiculous? Rather it indicates that the use of the pain angle is not
>sincere, but just a means to an end.
Wadi, try to bit a bit more open minded. Pain is not a concrete word, it
does not describe only one state, but many. It is in the eyes of the
beholder, it's subjective. It can be physical or mental. While analgesics
will help reduce the pain of the procedure itself, they will not help any of
the other "types" of pain I listed. Read the entire post, start to finish.
You cannot take one paragraph and dissect it. It isn't written that way.
>
>>I've read a lot of rhetoric, we've been labeled
>>fetishists, and we've been trying to defend ourselves.
>>It seems to me most of the anti-RIC camp is unified in one key way. We
>>don't want to see people needlessly experience pain. Isn't that the
>>bottom line?
>
>Pain again? Enough already!!
>There have been enough postings to clearly attribute your (pl.) desire for
>the 4skin, hopefully adult, as a sex-toy (note the continuing adventures of
>Mr Happy and Suzy's tongue). The prevalence of such sexually orientated
>postings leaves one in no doubt that the anti-circ argument is dominated by
>a pro-4skin obsessed sexually orientated grouping.
Pain again, pretty simple. Start at the beginning, read till the end. I
addressed sexuality. Read it again, or take some reading comprehension
classes. I am not foreskin obsessed. Find a post where I said anything about
the foreskin as a sex toy.
>
>When the "biggy" reason for not circumcising a son is based on the mothers
>fantasy and the possible future preferences of lovers/girlfriends one
>wonders whether the interests of the child have really been taken into
>account.
You are assuming. You are far more talented than I if you can get into the
minds of all the folks here. Do this for me, tell me why I have chosen not
to circ. I'd love to know your perception of my reasons.
>
>On this basis it should not be difficult to understand why some people are
>suspicious of the true motives of many of those of the pro-foreskin
>persuasion who post here.
>
>>Some of us focus on the newborn infant, others on the adult
>>male. But the endeavor is the same.
>>Some have personally experienced a keen sense of loss due to their circ,
>>and wish to enlighten others that this is a possibility.
>
>The fact that some men suffer from a psychosomatic hang-ups about having
>been circumcised should be placed in perspective. It is by all accounts a
>minority view and as we have seen in this newsgroup always accompanied by
a,
>pro-4skin propaganda induced, misunderstanding of the facts relating to
>amongst other things, dysfunction, and also in most cases just another of
>multiple hang-ups those individuals have. There is clearly a "profile" for
>these people who are prone to develop psychosomatic hang-ups. Your
>exploitation of these sad people is hardly ethical.
When have we expolited them? They come here of their own free will, just as
you did. They have a message they feel is worth sharing. And profile or not,
they exist, and any one of our children may grow up to be that person, fit
that profile. We don't want our child to feel that loss. Period.
>
>>Some are
>>intact, and know the sensations a foreskin brings. They wish to inform
>>the world that the foreskin is a GOOD thing, a natural thing.
>
>A good thing? A GOOD THING?? To Suzy and MM it’s a good thing as it
allows
>Mr Happy to be tongued out. To others it allows for some pretty peculiar
>erotic activities. But, I would say, to most it's just a piece of skin.
Regardless of what you think it is, it is a part of the male human body. And
if MOST think it's just a peice of skin, then the folks who wish to educate
about the true funtionality of the foreskin are needed.
>
>>Some focus
>>on the strictly human rights aspect. The right to choice. The fact the
>>circ is permanent, and should be up to the child.
>
>If the medical benefits indicate that circumcision is desirable then a
>parental decision is justified. There appears to be less and less pretence
>from the pro-4skin persuasion that the risks outweigh the benefits. Hence
>the emphasis has swung to the "choice" and sexual preference issues.
Pretense? Perhaps we feel it's obvious that the risks do not outweigh the
benifits, therefore don't need to repeat it. And what part of the word
"some" don't you understand?
>
>>Others are concerned
>>about the danger to their child, the trauma that RIC puts a newborn
>>through.
>
>The "risks" are infinitesimal with the careful selection of the surgeon.
>Yet you (pl.) continue to plug this deceitful line.
Infintitesimal? But they do exist? Then how is it deceitful? Even the most
skilled surgeon cannot be perfect. If you want to take a chance on your
newborn baby, that's your decision. I don't, simple.
>
>>It seems to me that all of these reasons are really about the man as a
>>whole, not just his penis.
>
>Not so sure about that!!
That's ok, you obviously aren't sure about much.
>
>>All of the reasons we give for not circing a
>>baby are not really about his sexuality as an adult, but about giving a
>>child every opportunity to grow up whole. Not in the physical sense, but
>>emotionally complete. We want the best for our children, we want them to
>>have safe environments, nurturing homes, the best the world has to
>>offer. And WE, those anti-RIC folks, feel that leaving his penis intact
>>is part of the nurturing environment. WE feel that leaving a boy intact
>>will only add to his life as a man.
>
>Add to his life?? It appears more likely that it will add to a minority
of
>other peoples lives in that it will provide a sex-toy for them. Remember
as
>a parent you are supposed to do what's best for the child and not what's
>best for mommy and any future lovers/girlfriends who may have peculiar
>tastes.
Assuming again. You are attrubuting one motive to us all, assuming that's
what is driving us. We feel it will add to HIS life, period. It's really not
that hard to grasp.
>
>
>>Many of the things we discuss here are just "for instances". They are
>>not the entire basis for our decision, but rather examples of WHY we
>>reached our descision.
>
>If was just your decision it would be fine. The question is rather why do
>you (pl.) feel that you are on some self initiated crusade to save 4skins.
>Given the background of your (pl.) affinity for the 4skin as a sex-toy is
it
>not clear to you that your motivation will be seriously questioned?
I don't think we mind our motivations being questioned. I know I don't.
However, we don't all see the foreskin as a sex toy, they way you do. How do
you feel about breasts? Are they sex toys? Or are they normal parts of the
female body, which some enjoy touching in a sexual way? It's not that hard
to make the connection between normal sexual organs being enjoyed in sexual
encounters, is it?
>
>>I once said that I felt we must discuss the adult male, if we are to
>>truly feel right with our stand on RIC.
>>I guess what I meant was this, all decisions we make for our kids, we
>>make for their lives, to bring them into adulthood. We nuture them,
>>educate them, instill values, etc so that they will grow into adulthood
>>whole. We feel leaving him intact is just as important as these other
>>things.
>>Seems simple.
>
>Coming from your point of departure it does indeed seem simple. All you
>stated seems simple and acceptable until you slyly include the presence of
a
>4skin. Do you really believe that where circumcision is desirable for
>medical health reasons a caring parent should ignore that on the basis of
>her sexual preference for 4skins?
Slyly? I think I quite openly included the foreskin. Actually, this is a
newsgroup about circ, which is done to the foreskin. What is so sly about
that? And I really believe that circ is not medically desireable. I haven't
seen an anti-RIC poster here who doesn't. So what's your point? Do you have
one, a valid one?
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Now lets turn this around.. what if the motive for circumcision is the
presumed preferences of future girl friends or lovers?
Your argument is nothing but straw, elephant man.
> >Some of us focus on the newborn infant, others on the adult
> >male. But the endeavor is the same.
> >Some have personally experienced a keen sense of loss due to their circ,
> >and wish to enlighten others that this is a possibility.
>
> The fact that some men suffer from a psychosomatic hang-ups about having
> been circumcised should be placed in perspective. It is by all accounts a
> minority view and as we have seen in this newsgroup always accompanied by a,
> pro-4skin propaganda induced, misunderstanding of the facts relating to
> amongst other things, dysfunction, and also in most cases just another of
> multiple hang-ups those individuals have. There is clearly a "profile" for
> these people who are prone to develop psychosomatic hang-ups. Your
> exploitation of these sad people is hardly ethical.
The point is that many adult men wish they had not been circumcised.
Therefore it is far better to let the man decide this issue for himself and
eliminate infant circumcision. Do you see?
> If the medical benefits indicate that circumcision is desirable then a
> parental decision is justified. There appears to be less and less pretence
> from the pro-4skin persuasion that the risks outweigh the benefits. Hence
> the emphasis has swung to the "choice" and sexual preference issues.
There can be no medical benefit where no pathology exists. An infant exhibits
no such pathological invovlement. Circumcision is done for parental preference
for any crazy reason whatsoever .. they don't ask a parent WHY.
> The "risks" are infinitesimal with the careful selection of the surgeon.
> Yet you (pl.) continue to plug this deceitful line.
Wrong again.. many circumcision problems cannot be linked with circumciser
incompetence. Any surgery done on a large scale, regardless of how skilled the
operator, will have some problems.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
RSFtLauder
There have been enough postings to clearly attribute your (pl.) desire for
the 4skin, hopefully adult, as a sex-toy (note the continuing adventures of
Mr Happy and Suzy's tongue). The prevalence of such sexually orientated
postings leaves one in no doubt that the anti-circ argument is dominated by
a pro-4skin obsessed sexually orientated grouping.
>>>
I don't think so I do not fit this criteria neither do a lot of people involved
in the pro-intact movement.
RSFtLauder
>intact, and know the sensations a foreskin brings. They wish to inform
>the world that the foreskin is a GOOD thing, a natural thing.
I fit into this category.
RSFtLauder
a parent you are supposed to do what's best for the child and not what's
best for mommy and any future lovers/girlfriends who may have peculiar
tastes.>>>
Here you are stating that women do not circumcise cause they have foreskin
fetishes,while Centure in a previous post stated that women circumcise cause
they preffer circumcised penises ?
Hey Centure as you can see,not all American women preffer circumcised
men."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
RSFtLauder
And
if MOST think it's just a peice of skin, then the folks who wish to educate
about the true funtionality of the foreskin are needed.>>>
Exerpt from Mothering Magazine article:Where is my foreskin? by Dr.Paul Fleiss:
What Are the Foreskin's Functions?
The foreskin has numerous protective, sensory, and sexual functions.
•Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the
glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains
optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no
sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our
skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the
surface of the glans. •Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line
all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in
the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12
Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial
Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer
surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete
immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.14 •Erogenous
Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the
mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized
nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.15 These specialized nerve
endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations
of texture.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 •Coverage During Erection: As it
becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered
foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to
allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft
and glans. •Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered
sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile
shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way,
back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This
wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic
triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated. •Sexual Functions
in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle
movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse.
The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively
inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is
thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the
male's foreskin is missing. •The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two
partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The
sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male's
internal organ, the glans, to meet the female's internal organ, the cervix-a
moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.
The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood.
Scientists in Europe recently detected estrogen receptors in its basal
epidermal cells.24 Researchers at the University of Manchester found that the
human foreskin has apocrine glands.25 These specialized glands produce
pheromones, nature's chemical messengers. Further studies are needed to fully
understand these features of the foreskin and the role they play.
The Benefits of Being Intact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No national health organization in the world recommends routine infant
circumcision. The United States is the only country in the world that
circumcises a majority of its newborn sons without a religious reason.
In the United States, circumcision is on a big decline, from 90% twenty years
ago to 59% in 1995.
1. The foreskin is the natural protective covering for the glans, or head of
the penis. It prevents the surface of the glans from becoming thickened and
desensitized.
2. The loose foreskin covers the longer shaft of an erect penis. It is long
enough to slide back and forth, facilitating intercourse as nature intended.
3. The foreskin plays an integral part in sexual pleasure. Recently described
in the medical literature, a series of tiny ridged bands on the inner surface
of the foreskin contribute significantly to sexual pleasure.
4. An intact man can choose as an adult, with fully informed consent, whether
or not he wishes to have his foreskin removed. A man circumcised in infancy has
no such choice.
5. An intact male does not suffer, as an infant, the pain of circumcision.
6. An intact male does not have to wonder why someone else removed a normal,
useful part of his sexual organs.
7. An intact male has skin to cover his glans penis which, in all mammals, is
an internal organ.
8. An intact male will never have to consider spending years trying to stretch
what skin he has over his glans penis.
9. The overwhelming majority of intact men thank their parents for keeping them
intact.
10. Intact men do not have their basic human rights (to an intact body)
violated. By not having him circumcised, you can give your son a gentle
beginning, the gift of his whole body, and all the sensitivity and feeling that
nature intended.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2442 NW Market, Seattle WA 98107
rt2
pro-circ camp attack an intelligent well written posting...The follow
ups posted are so obvious as to be translucent. Infants DO experience
pain because they are not kept on pain killers for days on end. Then
there is the issue of the mental trauma that the infant experiences
through this unnecessary surgery.
You make all the pro-circ mothers and fathers look like slavering
perverts with your deluded ravings. These simply are not true and sex
(between adults) which utilises the foreskin is no more perverted than
sex involving a cut penis. It's all about mass-perception of
non-circumcision as somehow negative when it is quite the opposite.
The posting somebody made in which they suggested cutting off the little
toe was similar to circumcision was bang on accurate! There is no
obvious use for it after all. Then there would be a deluge of research
saying that if they left the toe on then it would possibly endanger
balance in later life...This is a non-issue there is NO debate to be had
! This is not fascist, it is about everybody born having rights
including the children to choose how they want their bodies altered if
at all. Its all about. For the rare occasion when there is a medical
reason, it is necessary, but otherwise ABSOLUTELY NOT. As for your
social reasons, what sort of sick warped society would practically force
their children to have unnecessary surgery at birth. It is a case of
mass social engineering where doctors possibly jewish (this is not
anti-semitic it is the TRUTH) initially exagerated the bennefits of this
operation because due to their religion they sub-consciously (or
consciously for all we know) thought it was the 'best' for the baby,
and told te parent this. I cannot believe anybody would have thought of
doing this otherwise. Its just not feasible. There was no rational
reason then and there still is NONE. Whatsoever. It is stupid
traditionalists that argue that is 'for the best' or whatever, that
continue this practice. Get educated for F**** sake!!!
Centure
>mass social engineering where doctors possibly jewish (this is not
>anti-semitic it is the TRUTH) initially exagerated the bennefits of this
>operation because due to their religion they sub-consciously (or
>consciously for all we know) thought it was the 'best' for the baby,
the jewish religion is a closed religion they dont recruit
and they dont convert people from other religions.
not anti-semetic huh?
Centure
dont you mean to say people should listen to you,and practice there religious
beliefs in accordance with your views.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
Oh, No.. what about Penny Silly and Sammy Davis Jr... dumbo?
Centure
they may or may not be jews, some africans have a claim
to be jewish but there mostly from etheopia,as well as
very small groups in north africa or the middle east.
penny cillin and sammy davis jr would not be allowed
into conservative or orthodox, or ultra orthodox jewish
synagouges as a congregant, as a guest yes but not
as a jew.
RSFtLauder
perverts with your deluded ravings. >>>
I think you meant pro-intact?
Michael the 3rd
of this half cut bull shit......let it all hang out.........
rt2 wrote in message <36376D...@ukc.ac.uk>...
>The replies to the above posting are disgusting and show how the
>pro-circ camp attack an intelligent well written posting...The follow
>ups posted are so obvious as to be translucent. Infants DO experience
>pain because they are not kept on pain killers for days on end. Then
>there is the issue of the mental trauma that the infant experiences
>through this unnecessary surgery.
>(between adults) which utilises the foreskin is no more perverted than
>sex involving a cut penis. It's all about mass-perception of
>non-circumcision as somehow negative when it is quite the opposite.
>The posting somebody made in which they suggested cutting off the little
>toe was similar to circumcision was bang on accurate! There is no
>obvious use for it after all. Then there would be a deluge of research
>saying that if they left the toe on then it would possibly endanger
>balance in later life...This is a non-issue there is NO debate to be had
>! This is not fascist, it is about everybody born having rights
>including the children to choose how they want their bodies altered if
>at all. Its all about. For the rare occasion when there is a medical
>reason, it is necessary, but otherwise ABSOLUTELY NOT. As for your
>social reasons, what sort of sick warped society would practically force
>mass social engineering where doctors possibly jewish (this is not
>anti-semitic it is the TRUTH) initially exagerated the bennefits of this
>operation because due to their religion they sub-consciously (or
>consciously for all we know) thought it was the 'best' for the baby,
>doing this otherwise. Its just not feasible. There was no rational
>reason then and there still is NONE. Whatsoever. It is stupid
>traditionalists that argue that is 'for the best' or whatever, that
TVC
Just why do you say that those future girlfriends have "peculiar tastes" if
they prefer a penis with a foreskin?? Geez, if you consider *that* a bizarre
sexual preference, then I can just imagine how much fun YOU are in a
bedrooom-- and certainly not in any other room! Ever tried oral sex, Wadi?
Or other "peculiar" things during sex?? I can't imagine it.
And why do you conveniently overlook the fact that it is the future man
himself whose life the anti-RICs want to add to, by the retention of his
foreskin?
Hugh Young
coon...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<71784e$541$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <3636a...@news1.mweb.co.za>,
> "wadi" <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > Cheri<NOS...@VPINET.NET wrote in message
<36352CDA...@vpinet.net>...
> Why do you (pl.) refuse to
> > acknowledge that the use of analgesics renders your emotional rallying
cry
> > ridiculous?
Because it doesn't.
> > >It seems to me most of the anti-RIC camp is unified in one key way. We
> > >don't want to see people needlessly experience pain. Isn't that the
> > >bottom line?
No, the bottom line is, whose penis is it, anyway?
> > There have been enough postings to clearly attribute your (pl.) desire
for
> > the 4skin, hopefully adult, as a sex-toy (note the continuing
adventures of
> > Mr Happy and Suzy's tongue). The prevalence of such sexually
orientated
> > postings leaves one in no doubt that the anti-circ argument is
dominated by
> > a pro-4skin obsessed sexually orientated grouping.
Whereas the circumcisors are not dominated by an anti-foreskin obsessed
sexually orientated grouping? I don't think so.
> > When the "biggy" reason for not circumcising a son is based on the
mothers
> > fantasy and the possible future preferences of lovers/girlfriends one
> > wonders whether the interests of the child have really been taken into
> > account.
Wadi knows perfectly well that the whole argument is much more
multidimensional than this. He thinks he can push our buttons by ignoring
everything but his fantasies about Intactivists' motives.
The starting point is that babies (boys and girls) are born with foreskins
and circumcision (male or female) is surgery, and the case for surgery on
an a healthy newborn has to be pretty damned overwhelming before anyone
should even consider it, let alone do it routinely.
> > If the medical benefits indicate that circumcision is desirable then a
> > parental decision is justified. There appears to be less and less
pretence
> > from the pro-4skin persuasion that the risks outweigh the benefits.
Tell that to Mr and Mrs Dustin Evans, Sr, of Cincinnati, Ohio.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
wadi
<71ao5u$p...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>Wadi,
>Just why do you say that those future girlfriends have "peculiar tastes" if
>they prefer a penis with a foreskin?? Geez, if you consider *that* a
bizarre
>sexual preference, then I can just imagine how much fun YOU are in a
>bedrooom-- and certainly not in any other room! Ever tried oral sex, Wadi?
>Or other "peculiar" things during sex?? I can't imagine it.
>And why do you conveniently overlook the fact that it is the future man
>himself whose life the anti-RICs want to add to, by the retention of his
>foreskin?
>
I think, with respect, you are missing the main point of my position on this
issue.
I am really unconcerned about the sexual antics of consenting adults. In
general terms I am not concerned about the sexual preferences of people
either.
I have however stated on many occasions that I have distaste for those who
apply their personal sexual preferences when making a choice in respect of
neonatal circumcision. That applies to both options.
It infuriates me when scorn is poured on Ms average American who is accused
of perpetuating circumcision on the basis of her sexual preference, while it
is considered, by the "human rights activists" in this newsgroup, quite
natural to reject circumcision for one's son on the basis that mommy as a
specific fascination for "tonguing out Mr Happy".
As to my sex life? Well from a purely subjective point of view I tend to
agree with the research findings that circumcised men have a more "varied"
sex life. Where we obviously differ is that I don’t share your interest in
the Fleiss' book on "101 Fantastic Things To Do With A 4skin".
Future man himself? Well I think I have made myself clear on this point. I
don’t believe a word of the "golden prepuce" theory. Of course I accept
that an uncircumcised man can enjoy a fulfilling sex life, as can a
circumcised man. The presence or absence of a 4skin is not a defining
factor. Just as some men and their partners may enjoy having a 4skin to
include in their sexual activities, circumcised men and their partners find
enjoyment and pleasure in the little fireman in all his rampant glory.
So it is still my opinion that there is no big deal about the issue.
Certainly not big enough to create a fantasy world surrounding the 4skin or
to create any number of pretty poor exaggerations and/or excuses for either
state. With the passage of time, and the statistical likelihood of some
degree of dysfunction, I would be more likely to seek solace in the use of
Viagra than to lament my circumcision.
John Pritchard
>
> TVC<MOON...@CHEERFUL.COM wrote in message
> <71ao5u$p...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>
> >Wadi,
> >Just why do you say that those future girlfriends have "peculiar tastes" if
> >they prefer a penis with a foreskin?? Geez, if you consider *that* a
> bizarre
> >sexual preference, then I can just imagine how much fun YOU are in a
> >bedrooom-- and certainly not in any other room! Ever tried oral sex, Wadi?
> >Or other "peculiar" things during sex?? I can't imagine it.
> >And why do you conveniently overlook the fact that it is the future man
> >himself whose life the anti-RICs want to add to, by the retention of his
> >foreskin?
> >
>
> I think, with respect, you are missing the main point of my position on this
> issue.
>
> I am really unconcerned about the sexual antics of consenting adults. In
> general terms I am not concerned about the sexual preferences of people
> either.
Agreed
> I have however stated on many occasions that I have distaste for those who
> apply their personal sexual preferences when making a choice in respect of
> neonatal circumcision. That applies to both options.
Agreed
> It infuriates me when scorn is poured on Ms average American who is accused
> of perpetuating circumcision on the basis of her sexual preference, while it
> is considered, by the "human rights activists" in this newsgroup, quite
> natural to reject circumcision for one's son on the basis that mommy as a
> specific fascination for "tonguing out Mr Happy".
Agreed
> As to my sex life? Well from a purely subjective point of view I tend to
> agree with the research findings that circumcised men have a more "varied"
> sex life. Where we obviously differ is that I don’t share your interest in
> the Fleiss' book on "101 Fantastic Things To Do With A 4skin".
Agreed
> Future man himself? Well I think I have made myself clear on this point. I
> don’t believe a word of the "golden prepuce" theory. Of course I accept
> that an uncircumcised man can enjoy a fulfilling sex life, as can a
> circumcised man. The presence or absence of a 4skin is not a defining
> factor. Just as some men and their partners may enjoy having a 4skin to
> include in their sexual activities, circumcised men and their partners find
> enjoyment and pleasure in the little fireman in all his rampant glory.
Agreed
> So it is still my opinion that there is no big deal about the issue.
> Certainly not big enough to create a fantasy world surrounding the 4skin or
> to create any number of pretty poor exaggerations and/or excuses for either
> state. With the passage of time, and the statistical likelihood of some
> degree of dysfunction, I would be more likely to seek solace in the use of
> Viagra than to lament my circumcision.
Agreed.
You are spoiling the fun. Common sense is not appreciated in this arena
(or as some facetiously call it, this *debate*.)
John
TVC
that, considering your utter reasonableness with respect to your opinions
expressed here, and if everything you said here was the truth, then you
still haven't answered my original question:
WHY would you say that a girlfriend who prefers a foreskin has "peculiar
tastes?" Your obvious bias against the foreskin udermines the supposed
honesty of your neutral stance on people's sexual preferences.
wadi wrote in message <36395...@news1.mweb.co.za>...
>TVC<MOON...@CHEERFUL.COM wrote in message
><71ao5u$p...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>
>>Wadi,
>>Just why do you say that those future girlfriends have "peculiar tastes"
if
>>they prefer a penis with a foreskin?? Geez, if you >>consider *that* a
bizarre sexual preference, then I can >>just imagine how much fun YOU are in
a
>>bedrooom-- and certainly not in any other room!
>I think, with respect, you are missing the main point of my position on
this
>issue.
>
>I am really unconcerned about the sexual antics of consenting adults. In
>general terms I am not concerned about the sexual preferences of people
>either.
>
>I have however stated on many occasions that I have distaste for those who
>apply their personal sexual preferences when making a choice in respect of
>neonatal circumcision. That applies to both options.
>
>It infuriates me when scorn is poured on Ms average American who is accused
>of perpetuating circumcision on the basis of her sexual preference, while
it
>is considered, by the "human rights activists" in this newsgroup, quite
>natural to reject circumcision for one's son on the basis that mommy as a
>specific fascination for "tonguing out Mr Happy".
>
>As to my sex life? Well from a purely subjective point of view I tend to
>agree with the research findings that circumcised men have a more "varied"
>sex life. Where we obviously differ is that I don’t share your interest in
>the Fleiss' book on "101 Fantastic Things To Do With A 4skin".
>
>Future man himself? Well I think I have made myself clear on this point.
I
>don’t believe a word of the "golden prepuce" theory. Of course I accept
>that an uncircumcised man can enjoy a fulfilling sex life, as can a
>circumcised man. The presence or absence of a 4skin is not a defining
>factor. Just as some men and their partners may enjoy having a 4skin to
>include in their sexual activities, circumcised men and their partners find
>enjoyment and pleasure in the little fireman in all his rampant glory.
>
Sean Quinn
John Pritchard wrote in message <363B1B...@escape.ca>...
>wadi wrote:
Some half decent and semi-reasonable stuff, with which John Pritchard....
>Agreed
>Agreed
>Agreed
>Agreed
>Agreed
>Agreed.
.... finishing with:
>You are spoiling the fun. Common sense is not appreciated in this arena
>(or as some facetiously call it, this *debate*.)
>
>John
This "arena", hey? Sounds grand!
I wonder how the Gladiator himself feels when his all-male cheer squad
shouts "Agreed!" at every cut and thrust? (Hope it tickles him as much as it
does me).
wadi
TVC wrote in message <71foo2$3...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>Everything you said in this post makes complete sense to me, Wadi, except
>that, considering your utter reasonableness with respect to your opinions
>expressed here, and if everything you said here was the truth, then you
>still haven't answered my original question:
> WHY would you say that a girlfriend who prefers a foreskin has "peculiar
>tastes?" Your obvious bias against the foreskin udermines the supposed
>honesty of your neutral stance on people's sexual preferences.
>
It is true that I am no admirer of the 4skin. While I have no interest in
the 4skin, I of course accept that some may have varying degrees of
fascination for it.
In my posting I qualified my opinion on sexual preferences with "in general
terms". This was to indicate that I while I really don’t care what sexual
preferences other people may have I do have an opinion on when these
preferences are allowed to influence a neonatal circumcision decision.
(qualified neutrality?)
The word peculiar was selected for its perfect ambiguity. I personally find
such a fascination peculiar (strange, odd, unusual) but am happy if you
interpret its meaning as: particular; special (point of peculiar interest).
wadi
Sean Quinn wrote in message
<71go4n$r2k$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
Oh Sean, you must have had a tough week again.
Didn't hear a peep when:
Suzy said:
> Exactamente!
> Agreed, smoking is such a killer.
And of course who could forget when that interesting resident doctor said:
"Right on Dawson".
Tickles? Indeed being sensitive to "light touch" and all he enjoys a good
tickle now and again.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
"wadi" <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> It is true that I am no admirer of the 4skin. While I have no interest in
> the 4skin, I of course accept that some may have varying degrees of
> fascination for it.
>
>
Of course you don't, precious, you don't have one! This is quite
understandable.. but why belittle those that don't , but wish they did? Ah,
yes you know I've got this uncontrollable fascination for my toes too. Hope
no one wants to ride me of them.
Rick B.
> So it is still my opinion that there is no big deal about the issue.
Then why are YOU making such a big deal about it?
So big that you have to go back and research what other people have
said so you can quote them out of context.
A point you proved in the previous subthread:
wadi also wrote:
> Didn't hear a peep when:
>
> Suzy said:
>
>> Exactamente!
>
>> Agreed, smoking is such a killer.
>
>And of course who could forget when that interesting resident doctor said:
>"Right on Dawson".
Seems to me you make quite a big deal about it.
The zeal with which you pursue the anti's (for your own concocted
reasons) makes you a pro-circ of the highest degree.
And you accuse others of having an obsession?
Rick B.
>
>
> The word peculiar was selected for its perfect ambiguity. I personally find
> such a fascination peculiar (strange, odd, unusual) but am happy if you
> interpret its meaning as: particular; special (point of peculiar interest).
Uh oh! Here comes the Oxford again.
Hey, how's the restoration going?
wadi
coon...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<71hrkh$8d0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> Of course you don't, precious, you don't have one! This is quite
>understandable.. but why belittle those that don't , but wish they did? Ah,
>yes you know I've got this uncontrollable fascination for my toes too. Hope
>no one wants to ride me of them.
>
Yes it is true I don’t have a 4skin. The question is, why would I ever need
one? The pro-4skin persuasion attempts to present the 4skin as the
"default" condition and demands those who are circumcised to justify their
status. The simple point is that there is no reason to cease the practise
of circumcision. With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of
circumcision experience with Jews and Moslems it would by now have become
apparent if circumcision had any "ramifications". Those who demand that
every male should have a 4skin have yet to produce any intelligent argument
as to why both circumcised and uncircumcised should not continue to dangle
between men's legs in any ratio or percentage.
I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense. I don’t buy this "golden prepuce"
crap. I don't believe parents have to justify their beliefs, for or
against, to anyone let alone the motley collection of genitally obsessed
lunatics represented in this newsgroup.
If I have any advice to give to parents it is that you make whatever
decision you believe is in the best interests of your child. And if your
"neighbour" leans over the fence and raises the issue of your children's
genitals get him/her registered with the local child protection agency.
Dave
Yes it is true I don’t have a brain. The question is, why would I ever
need one? The pro-brain persuasion attempts to present the brain as the
"default" condition and demands those who are lobotimised to justify
their status. The simple point is that there is no reason to cease the
practise of lobotomy. With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of
lobotomy experience with large pyschiatric institutes it would by now
have become apparent if lobotomy had any "ramifications". Those who
demand that every male should have a brain have yet to produce any
intelligent argument as to why both lobotomised and unlobotomised should
not continue to dangle between men's ears in any ratio or percentage.
I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense. I don’t buy this "golden
frontal lobe" crap. I don't believe parents have to justify their
beliefs, for or against, to anyone let alone the motley collection of
cranialy obsessed lunatics represented in this newsgroup.
If I have any advice to give to parents it is that you make whatever
decision you believe is in the best interests of your child. And if
your "neighbour" leans over the fence and raises the issue of your
children's cranium get him/her registered with the local child
protection agency.
Sean Quinn
>Yes it is true I don’t have a 4skin. The question is, why would I ever
need
>one? The pro-4skin persuasion attempts to present the 4skin as the
>"default" condition and demands those who are circumcised to justify their
>status.
Although the "default" position is indeed having a whole penis, it is not a
case of circumcised men having to justify their status. (If they like it, so
much the better. If they don't, too bad, and too late). That is not the
issue at all. It is a case of them having to justify enforcing it on a whole
new generation of kids without those kids having the benefit of deciding
whether or not it is such a great idea to have pieces cut off them. I'm
surprised more people do not see the ugliness of this concept.
>The simple point is that there is no reason to cease the practise
>of circumcision.
Simple point? No, for you, that's an uncharacteristically simplistic point.
There are as many good reasons to cease the practice of circumcision as
there are to continue it. Maybe more. That's where the significance of the
"default" status comes in. By default, child has foreskin. No really urgent
reasons to cut it off. Child can have it cut off later if he chooses. What's
so wrong with that? Why the urgency to get in there and guess what he
prefers in penile fashion?
>With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of
>circumcision experience with Jews and Moslems it would by now have become
>apparent if circumcision had any "ramifications".
I agree, but of course the same could be said for the Eternal Man of Skin,
re-embodied several thousand times every second.
>Those who demand that
>every male should have a 4skin have yet to produce any intelligent argument
>as to why both circumcised and uncircumcised should not continue to dangle
>between men's legs in any ratio or percentage.
Demand that every male have a foreskin? Every male (almost every male) *has*
a foreskin - before circumcision is done. It's not me, or anyone else, who
demands this. The value of what our genes provide may be questioned, but our
genes do not have to be justified on the grounds of human rights. I think
it's quite reasonable to question deliberate human activity (eg the
unnecessary inscription of personal beliefs, cosmetic fashions, etc into the
flesh of another person) on the grounds of human rights.
>I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense. I don’t buy this "golden
prepuce"
>crap. I don't believe parents have to justify their beliefs, for or
>against, to anyone let alone the motley collection of genitally obsessed
>lunatics represented in this newsgroup.
OK. You don't buy it. But what exactly *is* this "golden prepuce crap" that
you're not buying? The only claim I'd make for it is that it's a part of my
penis (to my way of thinking that's pretty hard to dispute, and it's enough
to justify me keeping any meddling cunt well away from it unless he or she
is invited to do something with it). See, we have this strangely inverted
freedom thing again. The implication is that circumcision of babies is some
kind of "Freedom" that a bunch of meddling pansies want to take away from
parents. It's not a Freedom. The meddling and deprivation of freedom is done
by the circumcisors. As for "genitally obsessed": compare doing nothing with
spending ten minutes or so carving up a baby's dick to make it suit an
adult's preferences. Come off it, man, you're hanging your colleagues with
that one.
>If I have any advice to give to parents it is that you make whatever
>decision you believe is in the best interests of your child. And if your
>"neighbour" leans over the fence and raises the issue of your children's
>genitals get him/her registered with the local child protection agency.
Serious stuff aside: nobody has better perfected the art of rounding the
argument off with a joke. If you weren't so damned funny and likeable you'd
be an excellent adversary.
wadi
It's just a pity that when you address the issue of circumcision you come
across as a raving lunatic.
Dave wrote in message <363D3C82...@pacbell.net>...
>wadi could have wrote:
>
> Yes it is true I don’t have a brain. The question is, why would I ever
>need one? The pro-brain persuasion attempts to present the brain as the
>"default" condition and demands those who are lobotimised to justify
>their status. The simple point is that there is no reason to cease the
>practise of lobotomy. With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of
>lobotomy experience with large pyschiatric institutes it would by now
>have become apparent if lobotomy had any "ramifications". Those who
>demand that every male should have a brain have yet to produce any
>intelligent argument as to why both lobotomised and unlobotomised should
>not continue to dangle between men's ears in any ratio or percentage.
>
> I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense. I don’t buy this "golden
>frontal lobe" crap. I don't believe parents have to justify their
>beliefs, for or against, to anyone let alone the motley collection of
>cranialy obsessed lunatics represented in this newsgroup.
>
> If I have any advice to give to parents it is that you make whatever
>decision you believe is in the best interests of your child. And if
>your "neighbour" leans over the fence and raises the issue of your
>children's cranium get him/her registered with the local child
>protection agency.
TVC
>The pro-4skin persuasion attempts to present the 4skin as >the
>"default" condition and demands those who are circumcised to justify their
>status.
Wadi, WHAT would you call default if not the state or condition that
something arrives in??
> The simple point is that there is no reason to cease the practise
>of circumcision. With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of
>circumcision experience with Jews and Moslems it would by now have become
>apparent if circumcision had any "ramifications".
This was my point, exactly, when I arrived in this newsgroup and to the most
extent, it still is. But the overwhelming evidence that turned me to a
moderate anticirc is the one about having a choice.
Common sense dictates, in *any* kind of situation where one is making a
decision that affects someone else, that if once choice is reversible and
one isn't.... Well, do I have to continue?
>I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense.
Since when is caring about another human's rights "nonsense"? You are a
closed-minded, stubborn person who probably kicks the dog when you've had a
bad day.
I don’t buy this "golden prepuce"
>crap
Where was the first mention of the foreskin as a golden prepuce? You have
continually taken what is a completely normal interest or appreciation in a
sexual part of the body, and tried to make it sound like a perversion. You
really need to get a grip on your defensiveness. I like your penis just as
it is, Wadi, okay? If you have a nice-looking face, your penis would be very
acceptable to me. I've even said I intrinsically prefer the look of a circed
penis. It's your personality that you need to work on.
Can you relax a bit now? If you do, maybe you could win me away from Sean.
Dawson William
wadi wrote:
> That was clever Dave.
> It's just a pity that when you address the issue of circumcision you come
> across as a raving lunatic.
Only in your twisted mind, to the rest of us you Wadi, are the raving
lunatic.
If you want to be taken seriously post something with some content,
otherwise
why don't you stop wasting our time.
Dawson William
Dave wrote:
> wadi could have wrote:
>
> Yes it is true I don’t have a brain. The question is, why would I ever
> need one? The pro-brain persuasion attempts to present the brain as the
> "default" condition and demands those who are lobotimised to justify
> their status.
Haaaaaaaaa!
I love it! Good job Dave.
Dawson William
wadi wrote:
> >
>
> Yes it is true I don’t have a 4skin. The question is, why would I ever need
> one?
This question has been answered for you so many times that I have
lost count. Apparently you are not willing to understand that the
foreskin has a function.
You know that if you took the time to rebuff the points raised about why a
foreskin is beneficial to have and what functions it fulfills your arguments
would have at least a little merit. As it is now, your posts are a waste of
time because you never address the issues raised, probably because you
can't.
> The pro-4skin persuasion attempts to present the 4skin as the
> "default" condition
Of course it is the default condition, do you think at all before you
post this garbage? The default "condition" (as in if nothing is done),
is a child with a foreskin, so what are you talking about?
> and demands those who are circumcised to justify their
> status.
Only in your imagination, I have never seen posts demanding parents to
justify their choice, on the contrary I have seen a great deal of respect
for parents regardless of what their choice may be.
> The simple point is that there is no reason to cease the practise
> of circumcision.
There is no point to continue it, you can't just say it and expect us to
swallow it, give some kind of reasoning for your statement.
> With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of
> circumcision experience with Jews and Moslems it would by now have become
> apparent if circumcision had any "ramifications".
And with the hundreds and thousands of years of not circumcising it would
have by now become apparent if leaving children intact had "ramifications".
> Those who demand that
> every male should have a 4skin have yet to produce any intelligent argument
> as to why both circumcised and uncircumcised should not continue to dangle
> between men's legs in any ratio or percentage.
Again you claim that demands are made but you never give examples
of posts where such demands have been made.
>
>
> I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense.
Hey! That is your perogative, just as I have the right to believe in the right
of the child to grow up intact.
> I don’t buy this "golden prepuce"
You are the only one that uses this term, so I can only assume that you are
the only one that "worships" this pet concept of yours. Get some help.
> crap. I don't believe parents have to justify their beliefs, for or
> against, to anyone let alone the motley collection of genitally obsessed
> lunatics represented in this newsgroup.
So far I only see one in the collection and it is you Wadi.
>
>
> If I have any advice to give to parents it is that you make whatever
> decision you believe is in the best interests of your child. And if your
> "neighbour" leans over the fence and raises the issue of your children's
> genitals get him/her registered with the local child protection agency.
Well if we knew where to find you and your real name, we could report
you ourselves.
Rick B.
>
> coon...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <71hrkh$8d0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >
> > Of course you don't, precious, you don't have one! This is quite
> >understandable.. but why belittle those that don't , but wish they did? Ah,
> >yes you know I've got this uncontrollable fascination for my toes too. Hope
> >no one wants to ride me of them.
> >
>
> one?
Sour grapes, wadi? Your disdain for a whole penis is quite apparent.
You can't distinguish a whole penis from a penis with a foreskin.
You can't even call it a foreskin without your little pet name.
From a man who prides his literacy and literalness to such an extreme
as you do, your little nickname is just another attempt to belittle
those of us who value having the complete quota of penile parts.
> I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense. I don’t buy this "golden prepuce"
> crap.
Hmm. Okay, the next time I want a review of the symphony, I'll try
to find a critic who is tone deaf. If you don't buy it, it's because
you don't understand it; so why would anyone pay attention to your
opinions?
>
> If I have any advice to give to parents it is that you make whatever
> decision you believe is in the best interests of your child. And if your
> "neighbour" leans over the fence and raises the issue of your children's
> genitals get him/her registered with the local child protection agency.
More gems of advice on personal relationships from wadi.
Rick B.
>
> That was clever Dave.
> It's just a pity that when you address the issue of circumcision you come
> across as a raving lunatic.
>
And wadi completes his usual 1-2 punch. First he tries what
he calls reason. Then when someone points out that wadi's reason
is reasonable only to wadi, he goes for a personal character attack.
And I thought he had a little more class than that.
seq...@my-dejanews.com
> Can you relax a bit now? If you do, maybe you could win me away from Sean.
Well, all I can say is they don't make groupies like they used to.
All yours, Wadi.
Dave
>
> That was clever Dave.
> It's just a pity that when you address the issue of circumcision you come
> across as a raving lunatic.
Funny wadi, considering that you wrote most of that post, all I did was
change certain words to make you look like an idiot. Circumcision just
doesn't make sense, if you could somehow make sense of it and tell me,
then you might have something, but for now it remains senseless surgery.
wadi
<363E08FA...@usa.net>...>
>
>wadi wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Yes it is true I don’t have a 4skin. The question is, why would I ever
need
>> one?
>
>lost count. Apparently you are not willing to understand that the
>foreskin has a function.
>
Yes Dawson, like with a dog, it’s a protective sheath. Beyond that? Sorry
I don’t share the fantasy.
>
>You know that if you took the time to rebuff the points raised about why a
>foreskin is beneficial to have and what functions it fulfills your
arguments
>would have at least a little merit. As it is now, your posts are a waste of
>time because you never address the issues raised, probably because you
>can't.
>
Well I don’t believe in the tooth fairy either. If you believe its true
only a shrink can help you.
>
>> The pro-4skin persuasion attempts to present the 4skin as the
>> "default" condition
>
>Of course it is the default condition, do you think at all before you
>post this garbage? The default "condition" (as in if nothing is done),
>is a child with a foreskin, so what are you talking about?
>
I do think Dawson. And I can predict just who will respond. Must have been
an interesting post to drag you away from your Recap-Ez antics. What
exactly is that thing Dawson? Do you have to clamp your dick up every day?
>
>> and demands those who are circumcised to justify their
>> status.
>
>Only in your imagination, I have never seen posts demanding parents to
>justify their choice, on the contrary I have seen a great deal of respect
>for parents regardless of what their choice may be.
>
Of course Dawson I remember now. You advocate no discussion at all just a
little legislation. I assume that this legislation would be "pro choice"
like abortion?
>>
>> The simple point is that there is no reason to cease the practise
>> of circumcision.
>
>There is no point to continue it, you can't just say it and expect us to
>swallow it, give some kind of reasoning for your statement.
>
It is you who wishes to have the procedure stopped. The onus is on you to
present a coherent case to that effect. Not ask me to justify it.
>>
>> With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of
>> circumcision experience with Jews and Moslems it would by now have become
>> apparent if circumcision had any "ramifications".
>
>And with the hundreds and thousands of years of not circumcising it would
>have by now become apparent if leaving children intact had "ramifications".
>
So what's the big deal? Where I come from we coexist very nicely with the
stinky's. It just the women who suffer.
>>
>> Those who demand that
>> every male should have a 4skin have yet to produce any intelligent
argument
>> as to why both circumcised and uncircumcised should not continue to
dangle
>> between men's legs in any ratio or percentage.
>
>Again you claim that demands are made but you never give examples
>of posts where such demands have been made.
>
Dawson it may be difficult for you to understand but the implication of your
demand for the outlawing of circumcision is tantamount to demanding that
every male should have/retain his foreskin. I can understand the
frustration. Take our Coontail he is beside himself with the fact that his
local hospital has a success rate of plus 80%. What he fails to realise is
that they place the psychiatric ward on stand-by every time he appears in
the parking lot with his pamphlets and mega-phone.
>>
>>
>> I don't buy this "human rights" nonsense.
>
>Hey! That is your perogative, just as I have the right to believe in the
right
>of the child to grow up intact.
>
Interesting concept. Seeing you want this concept entrenched in law you are
going to have to present a better argument than you have hitherto.
>>
>> I don’t buy this "golden prepuce"
>
>You are the only one that uses this term, so I can only assume that you are
>the only one that "worships" this pet concept of yours. Get some help.
>
The term was coined to describe those who have a fascination for an object
with a largely contrived sexual function. While all mammals appear to have
4skins its only a minority of humans who pluck away at the thing with
greater intent other than just to remove ticks and other parasites.
>>
>> crap. I don't believe parents have to justify their beliefs, for or
>> against, to anyone let alone the motley collection of genitally obsessed
>> lunatics represented in this newsgroup.
>
>So far I only see one in the collection and it is you Wadi.
>
No Dawson I mean people like you who carry out a ritual of 4skin stretching
and restoration. Just think how hilarious your great-great grand children
are going to find the pictures of you hanging 5 pound weights from your
dick.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I have any advice to give to parents it is that you make whatever
>> decision you believe is in the best interests of your child. And if your
>> "neighbour" leans over the fence and raises the issue of your children's
>> genitals get him/her registered with the local child protection agency.
>
>Well if we knew where to find you and your real name, we could report
>you ourselves.
>
Ahhh Dawson as predicted you missed the point.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
"wadi" <wadi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Dawson William<DAW...@USA.NET wrote in message
> <363E08FA...@usa.net>...>
> >
> >wadi wrote:
>
> Yes Dawson, like with a dog, it’s a protective sheath. Beyond that? Sorry
> I don’t share the fantasy.
Was it Shakespeare that said, There are more things in heaven and Earth..
... etc.. well, precious, since you have no 4Skin.. listen up. Yes, the
foreskin does have a protective role.. but picture this, so does the mouth
protect the teeth and tongue. What would happen if you took the tongue out of
the mouth, and dried it out? Can you image this? The 4Skin provided a unique
and natural environment for the glans penis. Yes, it does, in some men,
require a very minimum of hygienic care to keep things consistent with what
western society sees as "clean". But, what body part does not smell or
require some personal care? The 4 skin keeps the glans lubricated, moist and
sensitive. Now, its true as the circumcisers say, circumcision does NOT
remove all functionality.. but it modifies the penis in a way where the
ultimate pleasure can no longer be had. Sorta like going fron a 400 Horse car
to a little 100 horse power run around. Both work fine and accomplish the
task.. but whicj one gives more "fun"?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Rick B.
yadda, yadda, yadda
Well, wadi, your counter-arguments are sinking to a new
low of tackiness and desperation.
Keep THIS up and we won't have to keep pointing out to
the lurkers just what level of tunnel vision you have.
You appear to be under the delusion that your pro-cut
stance is the moral counterpart of the pro-intact position.
The pro-intacts say that every boy and the man he is to
become should have the chance to have a fully functioning
penis with all the normal parts at his disposal. And you're
saying that he shouldn't have that chance.
I say that every child should have the right to decent
education. To have the CHANCE to excel irrespective of
his parents' means and possibly of their wishes if they
would rather their kids stay back "on the farm" and become
slaves to the family business or sell their six-year-old
boys to Armenian carpet makers or their ten-year-old
daughters to brothels.
And to back that up, I pay a lot of money in property taxes --
most of which goes to the education system and not even in
my own city. And even though I have no children of my own.
If we extrapolate your beliefs about circumcision and
about the infallibility of parental decisions, we would
have to believe that you pay no taxes for education and that
you think anyone of breeding age should start to produce
more "family income" by making babies. And we might as well
give up a lot of the trappings of thousands of years of
development of democracy.
Circumcision when not the individual's own, _fully_
informed choice is not about having chances, it's about
taking away a chance. It's about oppression.
And, please, PH, don't try to counter this by saying
the kid should have the "chance" to grow up circumcised.
That's like saying he should have the "chance" to grow up
wearing thick glasses or the "privilege" of having a
learning disability.
John Pritchard
>
> wadi wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > Yes it is true I don’t have a 4skin. The question is, why would I ever need
> > one?
>
> This question has been answered for you so many times that I have
> lost count. Apparently you are not willing to understand that the
> foreskin has a function.
>
> foreskin is beneficial to have and what functions it fulfills your arguments
> would have at least a little merit. As it is now, your posts are a waste of
> time because you never address the issues raised, probably because you
> can't.
Function or not, neither he nor anyone else *needs* a foreskin. A man
can urinate, procreate and enjoy the sexual experience without one;
indeed, in the case of sexual experience, perhaps better without one.
You seem to see a static situation - foreskin good - circumcision bad.
You seem unwilling to understand that the foreskin in form and function
is highly variable. As a result, generalizations are meaningless. In the
area of sexual experience, some report that the foreskin can perform a
useful function. From my experience, which according to many anecdotal
reports is by no means unusual, the function of the foreskin can range
from the painfully negative to that of virtaully no function at all,
expect perhaps as a minor nuisance.
Your opinion is simply your opinion, nothing more. The problem of *Why
is this so hard to grasp?* is entirely on your side. You seem incapable
of grasping that some men honestly feel they are better off without a
foreskin.
And I have stated so many times that I have lost count that the more
avid anti-circers, in my view, grossly exaggerate the value of the
'golden prepuce' (a term which I think is both humorous and apt).
Exaggerated views of the foreskin are both simplistic and unrealistic.
They have the side effect of creating doubt and fear where none need
exist, unless of course the planting of such seeds is an integral part
of the program.
Cheri
> Function or not, neither he nor anyone else *needs* a foreskin. A man
> can urinate, procreate and enjoy the sexual experience without one;
> indeed, in the case of sexual experience, perhaps better without one.
Perhaps men don't *need* a foreskin, no more than I *need* breasts. Yet
they are very much a part of me, both sexually and as a woman in
general. Perhaps that's not a good comparison, so I'll use my labia as a
comparative instead. I will be able to function sexually, bear children,
even have a fulfilling sex life, with or without. But I cannot imagine
having my labia removed. And just as I, an intact woman, cannot imagine
life any other way, intact men also cannot imagine life any other way.
>
> You seem to see a static situation - foreskin good - circumcision bad.
> You seem unwilling to understand that the foreskin in form and function
> is highly variable. As a result, generalizations are meaningless. In the
> area of sexual experience, some report that the foreskin can perform a
> useful function. From my experience, which according to many anecdotal
> reports is by no means unusual, the function of the foreskin can range
> from the painfully negative to that of virtaully no function at all,
> expect perhaps as a minor nuisance.
I think the word "bad" is a mis-representation. The anti-circ camp feels
that RIC is unnecessary. To say that we thing a cut penis is bad would
be equivalent to us saying the man who's penis is cut is lesser. I don't
think I've seen anyone post to that effect. A man is a man, regardless
of the state of his penis. But we do believe that a man who was
routinely cut as an infant was done an injustice. There is nothing WRONG
with the foreskin, and many intact men and their lovers have come
forward to dispel the myths associated with a foreskin. We are merely
trying to educate people to this simple fact. Just as you contend there
is nothing wrong with being cut, we contend there is nothing wrong with
being intact. There is so much negativity associated with the foreskin,
people need to be told that it's OK to leave their children intact, and
why it's ok.
>
> Your opinion is simply your opinion, nothing more. The problem of *Why
> is this so hard to grasp?* is entirely on your side. You seem incapable
> of grasping that some men honestly feel they are better off without a
> foreskin.
Since I started this thread, I can state that the problem of "Why is
this do hard to grasp" *is* entirely on my side. I have never stated
that there are men who are quite content with the state of their penis.
But my question would be this: If these same men, who feel they are
better off without their foreskins, were left intact, would they seek
circumcision? Is it a matter of overall preferring circ, or more a
matter of being happy with their bodies?
>
> And I have stated so many times that I have lost count that the more
> avid anti-circers, in my view, grossly exaggerate the value of the
> 'golden prepuce' (a term which I think is both humorous and apt).
> Exaggerated views of the foreskin are both simplistic and unrealistic.
> They have the side effect of creating doubt and fear where none need
> exist, unless of course the planting of such seeds is an integral part
> of the program.
Do you have a foreskin? How do you know the views are exaggerated? Try
to look at it this way, those who are intact feel the same way about
their penis as you do about yours. Perhaps they feel the value of a cut
penis is grossly exaggerated. Just as men and women cannot truly
understand the values of the others bodies, cut and uncut men cannot
understand the individual perceptions associated with the penis.
Seems simple, doesn't it?
--
replace nospam with cheri to reply via email
http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/1784/
Dawson William
John Pritchard wrote:
> Dawson William wrote:
> >
> > wadi wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes it is true I don’t have a 4skin. The question is, why would I ever need
> > > one?
> >
> > This question has been answered for you so many times that I have
> > lost count. Apparently you are not willing to understand that the
> > foreskin has a function.
> >
> > You know that if you took the time to rebuff the points raised about why a
> > foreskin is beneficial to have and what functions it fulfills your arguments
> > would have at least a little merit. As it is now, your posts are a waste of
> > time because you never address the issues raised, probably because you
> > can't.
>
> Function or not, neither he nor anyone else *needs* a foreskin. A man
> can urinate, procreate and enjoy the sexual experience without one;
> indeed, in the case of sexual experience, perhaps better without one.
Well if you read correctly you would have noticed that Wadi is the
one who used the term "need", I believe that routine infant circumcision
is unnecessary, I don't care what an adult male decides for himself. If
he wants to be circumcised GREAT, if not, GREAT, I am saying that the
decision should be made by the adult male and not done routinely at birth.
>
>
> You seem to see a static situation - foreskin good - circumcision bad.
> You seem unwilling to understand that the foreskin in form and function
> is highly variable. As a result, generalizations are meaningless. In the
> area of sexual experience, some report that the foreskin can perform a
> useful function. From my experience, which according to many anecdotal
> reports is by no means unusual, the function of the foreskin can range
> from the painfully negative to that of virtaully no function at all,
> expect perhaps as a minor nuisance.
Routine infant circumcision is wrong, circumcision itself is a surgical
procedure and therefore neither right or wrong. What I feel is wrong is
inflicting a surgical procedure on an infant without sound medical reason,
especailly when that surgical procedure irreversibly amputates part of his
body which he may very well wish to have in the future.
I don't know what anecdotal reports you are referring to but I have seen
anecdotal reports on this very news group which do not fit into your
"painfully negative to that of virtaully no function at all" claim, I have
seen reports from people on this group who say they derive great
pleasure from their foreskin, of course those would be invisible to you.
I have also spoken to and read about a great number of other people including
those in the medical field who are convinced that the foreskin plays a major
role, you cannot prove a universal negative (ie. the foreskin has no function),
all you can say is that the function of the foreskin is not apparent to you.
>
>
> Your opinion is simply your opinion, nothing more. The problem of *Why
> is this so hard to grasp?* is entirely on your side. You seem incapable
> of grasping that some men honestly feel they are better off without a
> foreskin.
Of course my opinion is my opinion, for God sake when are you going to
catch on to this whole notion. Everyone here is expressing their opinion,
including yourself. I have never claimed to be anything other than a representative
of myself and my personal views and opinions. When you start prefacing ALL of
your comments with "in my opinion", then I will consider doing the same, until then
I will continue to believe that people are smart enough to realise that when they
read something they are reading someones opinion.
I don't care if some men prefer to be circumcised, if they chose to have themselves
circumcised as adults I have no problem with that and I even encourage them to
have it done if they feel that it will help them or make their life better. My
problem,
as you very well know, is with routine infant circumcision, this really isn't so
hard
to understand, you must be trying to misunderstand on purpose, can you not see
the difference between condeming routine infant circumcision and circumcision
performed on an adult at the request of the adult and paid for by that same adult?
Are you being obtuse for a specific reason?
>
>
> And I have stated so many times that I have lost count that the more
> avid anti-circers, in my view, grossly exaggerate the value of the
> 'golden prepuce' (a term which I think is both humorous and apt).
> Exaggerated views of the foreskin are both simplistic and unrealistic.
> They have the side effect of creating doubt and fear where none need
> exist, unless of course the planting of such seeds is an integral part
> of the program.
That you find the term "golden prepuce" humorous is irrelevant, it is a
term that you use in order to marginalize the opinion of those who are
opposed to routine infant circumcision.
What is really simplistic and unrealistic is your contention that the foreskin
plays no role, you are really grasping at straws with that argument given that
the medical community does not agree with you, also you cannot prove the
non existence of something, you can simply demonstrate your contrived ignorance
of its' function.
Hugh Young
<363F55...@escape.ca>...
> Function or not, neither he nor anyone else *needs* a foreskin. A man
> can urinate, procreate and enjoy the sexual experience without one;
What a drab view of life and sexuality that reflects. What one cannot enjoy
without a foreskin is the foreskin itself.
> indeed, in the case of sexual experience, perhaps better without one.
And perhaps not. You never know. It is for an adult to decide after he has
tried it with, whether he would prefer to be without.
> You seem incapable
> of grasping that some men honestly feel they are better off without a
> foreskin.
But if they never had a chance to experience "with" then they were
*cheated* of that honest feeling.
> They have the side effect of creating doubt and fear where none need
> exist, unless of course the planting of such seeds is an integral part
> of the program.
The alternative is that generations of boys have part of their penises cut
off to protect the feelings of men who never knew what they had lost and
are afraid to consider that it may have been worth having.
John Pritchard
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Function or not, neither he nor anyone else *needs* a foreskin. A man
> > can urinate, procreate and enjoy the sexual experience without one;
>
Women *need* breasts to feed offspring. Men don't.
Yet
> they are very much a part of me, both sexually and as a woman in
> general. Perhaps that's not a good comparison, so I'll use my labia as a
> comparative instead. I will be able to function sexually, bear children,
> even have a fulfilling sex life, with or without. But I cannot imagine
> having my labia removed.
Male and female genitals differ.
And just as I, an intact woman, cannot imagine
> life any other way, intact men also cannot imagine life any other way.
Some can. I did. And a number of others I know.
> >
> > You seem to see a static situation - foreskin good - circumcision bad.
> > You seem unwilling to understand that the foreskin in form and function
> > is highly variable. As a result, generalizations are meaningless. In the
> > area of sexual experience, some report that the foreskin can perform a
> > useful function. From my experience, which according to many anecdotal
> > reports is by no means unusual, the function of the foreskin can range
> > from the painfully negative to that of virtaully no function at all,
> > expect perhaps as a minor nuisance.
>
> I think the word "bad" is a mis-representation. The anti-circ camp feels
> that RIC is unnecessary.
As I said in posting the other day, there are hundreds of postings which
analyse the word *necessary* and discuss whether or not it needs an
object. Shall we rehash that? Besides, I don't think anyone has said
that circumcision is *necessary*, some of us simply feel that it is
*desirable*.
To say that we thing a cut penis is bad would
> be equivalent to us saying the man who's penis is cut is lesser. I don't
> think I've seen anyone post to that effect. A man is a man, regardless
> of the state of his penis. But we do believe that a man who was
> routinely cut as an infant was done an injustice.
Yes, some do. Many of us don't.
There is nothing WRONG
> with the foreskin, and many intact men and their lovers have come
> forward to dispel the myths associated with a foreskin.
From where I sit, the myths are being created by the anti-circ group not
dispelled.
We are merely
> trying to educate people to this simple fact. Just as you contend there
> is nothing wrong with being cut, we contend there is nothing wrong with
> being intact. There is so much negativity associated with the foreskin,
> people need to be told that it's OK to leave their children intact, and
> why it's ok.
On the contrary, on these newsgroups, it's value is in my view grossly
exaggerated. Sure, either way is okay.
> >
> > Your opinion is simply your opinion, nothing more. The problem of *Why
> > is this so hard to grasp?* is entirely on your side. You seem incapable
> > of grasping that some men honestly feel they are better off without a
> > foreskin.
>
> Since I started this thread, I can state that the problem of "Why is
> this do hard to grasp" *is* entirely on my side. I have never stated
> that there are men who are quite content with the state of their penis.
> But my question would be this: If these same men, who feel they are
> better off without their foreskins, were left intact, would they seek
> circumcision?
It seems that about 10 to 15 percent of men left intact subsequently opt
for circumcision. It could be higher too if intact men were given
accurate information.
Is it a matter of overall preferring circ, or more a
> matter of being happy with their bodies?
Happiness with one's own body is essential. Falsely telling neonatally
circumcised men that they are mutilated does not help to spread
happiness.
> > And I have stated so many times that I have lost count that the more
> > avid anti-circers, in my view, grossly exaggerate the value of the
> > 'golden prepuce' (a term which I think is both humorous and apt).
> > Exaggerated views of the foreskin are both simplistic and unrealistic.
> > They have the side effect of creating doubt and fear where none need
> > exist, unless of course the planting of such seeds is an integral part
> > of the program.
> Do you have a foreskin?
No, not any longer. I was circumcised as an adult.
> How do you know the views are exaggerated?
From my experience the views are exaggerated.
Try
> to look at it this way, those who are intact feel the same way about
> their penis as you do about yours. Perhaps they feel the value of a cut
> penis is grossly exaggerated. Just as men and women cannot truly
> understand the values of the others bodies,
Yes, that I am sure is true. So I say again, male and female genitals
differ. Yet above you were giving advice to men regarding their
foreskins based upon your feelings about your labia.
> cut and uncut men cannot
> understand the individual perceptions associated with the penis.
>
> Seems simple, doesn't it?
Yes, it is very simple. A circumcised penis is clean, comfortable,
maintenance free; less likely to incur certain diseases; and compared to
some intact models offers an improved the sexual experience. For the
anti-circ brigade, why is that so hard to grasp?
Dave
> Routine again? I do not feel that neonatal circumcision approved by
> informed parents is wrong.
I for the most part would also fell some what similar, except that I
would still oppose it, problem is, most parents ARE NOT INFORMED.
They're a bunch of culturally blinded fools who see nothing other then
what they want to see. Humanity: cancer of the universe.
TVC
"some men" who don't like having a foreskin can have it removed, and as I
have come to understand from reports in this newsgroup, with little pain or
discomfort either during the surgery or in its aftermath.
You say that you were circed as an adult. Was it a painful or traumatic
enough experience that you can sincerely say you wish it had been done to
you at birth to have prevented such trauma?
Are you saying that you were plagued with problems all your life from your
foreskin, which of course RIC would have prevented?
If your answer to these two questions is "yes", then you make a valid point
that RIC has benefits, although parents would still be playing with a blank
crystal ball regarding whether their son would have been in the minority of
boys with problems if left intact.
If your answer to those questions is no, then what about the "some men" who
would have preferred to have a foreskin, but it was taken from them before
they were "men"? How can we take that choice away from them on the chance
that they will have problems or simply decide in adulthood to get rid of
their foreskin?
Can you or Wadi or Centure or even Paul, whom I respect immensely, or
others who so strongly believe in parental choice, answer this question:
What is so damn *wrong* with leaving all newborn males a choice to be made
by and for themselves??
And just *what* characterized Cheri's attitude as "holier than thou" when
she says that the Cleveland incident is what convinced her not to circ a
baby?
She said that her heart would never heal and she would never forgive
herself if the RIC went wrong. How is that a judgment of anyone else?? Why
do people so often infer things that are not being implied?
You projected her personal expression of her own feelings as if it were an
an opinion of those who would still circ. To me, that kind of defensiveness
shows a guilty or at least self-consciousness stance.
Dave
> Can you or Wadi or Centure or even Paul, whom I respect immensely,
You respect centure? Wow!
Rick B.
> Yes, it is very simple. A circumcised penis is clean, comfortable,
> maintenance free; less likely to incur certain diseases; and compared to
> some intact models offers an improved the sexual experience. For the
> anti-circ brigade, why is that so hard to grasp?
Well, I tell you what, John. If it were like getting a haircut,
I'd try it out. If I could have it back, I'd give it a shot just
to find out. And let's say I didn't like it. Anyone could say,
"Well, you had preconceived notions. You didn't THINK you were
going to like it so, of course, you didn't." Wouldn't the same
apply if I DID like it? In other words, someone could equally
say, "Well, you really wanted it psychologically (or physically)
so, of course, you like it."
My point is that it proves nothing either way.
I offer you that my intact model is also very clean, comfortable
and as maintenance free as any other part of my body. Looking
after my intact penis is much less work than looking after my
nails and I certainly wouldn't go out and get them removed just
to conform to a "look" or for the sake of easy maintenance.
Just because you like it, it doesn't mean it should be done to
boys and men without their consent or _full_ understanding.
Even with adult circumcision, it could be highly influenced by
a doctor's recommendation which in turn could be influenced by
HIS culture, personal experiences, or particular medical training.
I accept that many a doctor may suggest circumcision to cure certain
physical conditions but he may simply see it as an easy way for HIM
to deal with the situation. "Get it done and on to the next case."
I'm pleased that you're contented with your switch. But I know
several people who have had sex reassignments and most of them
are "happy". That doesn't mean we should reassign people's
genders haphazardly. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
And I don't know a single one who suggests that men at random
should go for the same thing.
I fully accept that some men would rather have the naked-knob
look. It does seem to be a popular "fashion trend" in some
cultures. I personally think their sense of values is a little
skewed to say the least just like I would some guy going around
with spiked green hair but, hey, it's his hair. (In both cases,
[and in the case of adult circumcision, barring some unusual
physical malady which could perhaps be treated by a less
invasive procedure] I see it as an identity problem.) But it's
when that man who just HAD to have an adult circumcision to
satisfy some need within, says that others should have that
irreversible condition by "default" that it makes me speak up.
It's not the specific that bothers me but the generalization
that sometimes borders on mass hysteria.
Or to paraphrase you, foreskin in the majority of cases good,
circumcision in the majority of cases... uhh... questionable.
John Pritchard
>
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Dawson William wrote:
> > >
> > > wadi wrote:
deletion
>
> Well if you read correctly you would have noticed that Wadi is the
> one who used the term "need", I believe that routine infant circumcision
> is unnecessary, I don't care what an adult male decides for himself. If
> he wants to be circumcised GREAT, if not, GREAT, I am saying that the
> decision should be made by the adult male and not done routinely at birth.
I don't intend to play word games with *routinely*. I am not sure what
*routinely* is supposed to mean. But I believe that the decision lies
within the realm of parental rights and responsibilities.
> > You seem to see a static situation - foreskin good - circumcision bad.
> > You seem unwilling to understand that the foreskin in form and function
> > is highly variable. As a result, generalizations are meaningless. In the
> > area of sexual experience, some report that the foreskin can perform a
> > useful function. From my experience, which according to many anecdotal
> > reports is by no means unusual, the function of the foreskin can range
> > from the painfully negative to that of virtaully no function at all,
> > expect perhaps as a minor nuisance.
>
> Routine infant circumcision is wrong, circumcision itself is a surgical
> procedure and therefore neither right or wrong. What I feel is wrong is
> inflicting a surgical procedure on an infant without sound medical reason,
> especailly when that surgical procedure irreversibly amputates part of his
> body which he may very well wish to have in the future.
Routine again? I do not feel that neonatal circumcision approved by
informed parents is wrong.
> I don't know what anecdotal reports you are referring to but I have seen
> anecdotal reports on this very news group which do not fit into your
> "painfully negative to that of virtaully no function at all" claim, I have
> seen reports from people on this group who say they derive great
> pleasure from their foreskin, of course those would be invisible to you.
No, they are not invisible to me. Their experience is simply different
from mine. (Perhaps they have been taught to be unhappy.)
> I have also spoken to and read about a great number of other people including
> those in the medical field who are convinced that the foreskin plays a major
> role, you cannot prove a universal negative (ie. the foreskin has no function),
> all you can say is that the function of the foreskin is not apparent to you.
Of course, I cannot prove a universal negative, I am merely reporting my
own experience. (Isn't everyone here merely expressing their opinion.)
No, I did not find the function of the foreskin to be particularly
useful.
> >
> >
> > Your opinion is simply your opinion, nothing more. The problem of *Why
> > is this so hard to grasp?* is entirely on your side. You seem incapable
> > of grasping that some men honestly feel they are better off without a
> > foreskin.
>
> Of course my opinion is my opinion, for God sake when are you going to
> catch on to this whole notion. Everyone here is expressing their opinion,
> including yourself. I have never claimed to be anything other than a representative
> of myself and my personal views and opinions. When you start prefacing ALL of
> your comments with "in my opinion", then I will consider doing the same, until then
> I will continue to believe that people are smart enough to realise that when they
> read something they are reading someones opinion.
The way words are twisted by this group, one never knows what to expect.
In this subjective area I take care to point out that I am simply
offering an opinion. If opinion and opinion only is to be always
implied, why did you say "you cannot prove a universal negative"? Of
course, I cannot prove a universal negative, I am merely reporting my
own experience; that is, offering an opinion. To put it more bluntly,
your views regarding neonatal circumcision are wrong. Okay now?
> I don't care if some men prefer to be circumcised, if they chose to have themselves
> circumcised as adults I have no problem with that and I even encourage them to
> have it done if they feel that it will help them or make their life better. My
> problem,
> as you very well know, is with routine infant circumcision, this really isn't so
> hard
> to understand, you must be trying to misunderstand on purpose, can you not see
> the difference between condeming routine infant circumcision and circumcision
> performed on an adult at the request of the adult and paid for by that same adult?
> Are you being obtuse for a specific reason?
If you have a problem with neonatal circumcision that is too bad. I
don't have a problem with it. I think that it is a good idea. I am not
being obtuse.
I simply disagree with you. You are wrong. Why is this so hard to
grasp?
> > And I have stated so many times that I have lost count that the more
> > avid anti-circers, in my view, grossly exaggerate the value of the
> > 'golden prepuce' (a term which I think is both humorous and apt).
> > Exaggerated views of the foreskin are both simplistic and unrealistic.
> > They have the side effect of creating doubt and fear where none need
> > exist, unless of course the planting of such seeds is an integral part
> > of the program.
>
> That you find the term "golden prepuce" humorous is irrelevant, it is a
> term that you use in order to marginalize the opinion of those who are
> opposed to routine infant circumcision.
>
> What is really simplistic and unrealistic is your contention that the foreskin
> plays no role, you are really grasping at straws with that argument given that
> the medical community does not agree with you, also you cannot prove the
> non existence of something, you can simply demonstrate your contrived ignorance
> of its' function.
Medical community? Taylor?
You are wrong but I respect your opinion.
Cheri
being called names again.:-)
I'll address the following to the John's and Wadi's.
For those who feel the need to continually guess at my motives, I'll lay
em on the line.
I am 28 years old and have been trying for 7 years to conceive, with
breaks here and there. Until recently I never really thought about circ,
I never realized what was involved in circumcising a baby.
When I found out there were risks, even small ones, I knew that if I
were ever lucky enough to be able to make a choice, I would not have my
son circed.
Those of you who never had to try, or who don't have and don't want
children can't really understand the struggle.
It's a struggle that I have chosen, so those who want to call my a
whiner can stuff it. I know that I have made my bed, but I'll be damned
if after all is said and done, that I will do anything to put at risk my
precious gift.
If that makes me "weird" to some folks, it's just too bad. They are not
people whose opinions matter to me anyway.
That being said, back to our regularly scheduled programming. :-)
TVC wrote:
> And just *what* characterized Cheri's attitude as "holier than thou" when
> she says that the Cleveland incident is what convinced her not to circ a
> baby?
> She said that her heart would never heal and she would never forgive
> herself if the RIC went wrong. How is that a judgment of anyone else?? Why
> do people so often infer things that are not being implied?
> You projected her personal expression of her own feelings as if it were an
> an opinion of those who would still circ. To me, that kind of defensiveness
> shows a guilty or at least self-consciousness stance.
--
TVC
to the name directly previous to it.
Dave wrote in message <36413551...@pacbell.net>...
Dave
>
> Naw, silly upcoming birthday boy. The phrase following the comma refers only
> to the name directly previous to it.
Oh OK, just checking.
Paul Hagen
<moon...@cheerful.com> wrote:
> Can you or Wadi or Centure or even Paul, whom I respect immensely, or
> others who so strongly believe in parental choice, answer this question:
> What is so damn *wrong* with leaving all newborn males a choice to be made
> by and for themselves??
In an absolute sense, I don't see anything wrong with that. But life is
rarely about absolutes. When I was young, I saw many issues pretty much in
black and white. Now that I'm older, I see most issues in shades of gray.
Circumcision is one of them.
I can understand how parents from cultures where intact is the norm could
see circumcision as both unnecessary and undesirable. I can also see how
parents from cultures where circumcision is the norm (like the U.S.) could
see leaving their boys intact as being just as "unnecessary" (given the
availability and affordability of the procedure) and "undesirable" (given
their preference for the appearance of circumcised penises because that is
what they're used to).
Also, in cultures where intact is the norm, the notion of leaving boys
intact "so they can make their own decision" simply doesn't enter into the
parents' thinking. Boys in those cultures are left intact because boys
have ALWAYS been left intact, and circumcision is normally not even
discussed except when there is an absolute medical indication for it
(usually after exhausting all of the non-surgical remedies, such as
foreskin stretching at the appropriate age to make it retractable in cases
where it isn't).
Since I beleive that males can grow up to be happy, healthy and sexually
fulfilled with or without a foreskin, I don't have a problem with parents
deciding in favor of circumcision or intact. I don't have a problem with
the parents' decision being influenced by prevailing cultural norms
either.
Throughout my life (here in the U.S.), whenever the topic of circumcision
has come up (usually because someone has mentioned hearing about a friend
or relative who was circumcised later in life, or because someone
mentioned that so-and-so ISN'T circumcised), one of the neonatally
circumcised guys in the group usually says that he's glad his parents had
him circumcised as an infant because he wouldn't want to have go through
that as a teen or adult. This is usually followed by a round of "me too's"
from the other neonatally circumcised guys in the group. I have never
personally encountered a guy who has expressed anything negative about
being neonatally circumcised. I never realized it was a problem for some
until discovering the Internet.
The penis is the most emotionally charged part of the male anatomy. Guys,
especially in adolescence, are always curious and/or concerned (to varying
degrees) about how their own penises "stack up" with those of their peers.
Most prefer to "fit in" with the majority, whether it be circumcised or
intact.
In the case the neonatally circumcised U.S. guys expressing a preference
for being circumcised, some anti-circ activists have called this a result
of "cultural brainwashing" and "denial." I call it very human.
TVC
I have to say that I agree with every word you wrote. I, too, never
encountered an unhappily circed man until I found the Internet, and
specifically, this newsgroup.
However, when I read this one paragraph of your post, it hit me very, very
strongly. When you step back from this and imagine it being about anything
other than circumcision, think of how ridiculous it sounds: leaving a baby
boy in the condition in which he arrived in this world simply because there
is an operation that is *available* and *affordable*.
Duh! Is that what life is about??? Let's all do anything and everything to
ourselves and our children JUST because it is AVAILABLE and AFFORDABLE???
How on earth can it be seen as *unnecessary* to leave a baby boy intact just
because there is a legal and affordable way to modify his body?
Why do we consider a parent's preference for the look of a circed penis to
be a good enough reason to do it to their child? They will have to "endure"
seeing his penis for only the first few years of his life, and not in any
situation where I would think aesthetics mean anything. It is this reason
you gave that most infuriates me and makes me glad I woke up to the
wrongness of RIC.
Why not let parents make all kinds of arbitrary cosmetic changes in their
infant? Why should RIC be the only exception allowed for cosmetic reasons?
Parents are not *owners* of their children, as used to be the way it was
viewed. The law now requires certain people to report instances of suspected
child abuse or neglect. It seems to me that social and cosmetic reasons for
RIC should not even come into play at this stage of the game.
Hugh Young
Paul Hagen <prh...@bitstream.net> wrote in article
<prhagen-0611...@port102.bitstream.net>...
> In article <71r0tu$r...@journal.concentric.net>, "TVC"
> <moon...@cheerful.com> wrote:
> I can also see how
> parents from cultures where circumcision is the norm (like the U.S.)
could
> see leaving their boys intact as being just as "unnecessary" (given the
> availability and affordability of the procedure)
This is crazy. Do US parents seriously think and say "Hey, they're ready to
cut, we've got the moolah, let's cut part of our baby's penis off!"?
If that is all it takes, US parents don't think nearly enough.
> and "undesirable" (given
> their preference for the appearance of circumcised penises because that
is
> what they're used to).
Well sometimes people prefer what they're used to and sometimes they prefer
novelty. As far as penises go, there are some other considerations: a ring
of scar tissue is a slightly extraordinary thing to find attractive, so is
a glans healing (over about a fortnight) after the synechia have been torn
away. That cut look doesn't arrive in an instant.
> Also, in cultures where intact is the norm, the notion of leaving boys
> intact "so they can make their own decision" simply doesn't enter into
the
> parents' thinking. Boys in those cultures are left intact because boys
> have ALWAYS been left intact, and circumcision is normally not even
> discussed except when there is an absolute medical indication for it
> (usually after exhausting all of the non-surgical remedies, such as
> foreskin stretching at the appropriate age to make it retractable in
cases
> where it isn't).
Absolutely right! But at least if they have been left intact and they ever
should WANT to have part of their penis cut off, they can. But if it's been
done already they can't decide to leave it there.
> Since I beleive that males can grow up to be happy, healthy and sexually
> fulfilled with or without a foreskin, I don't have a problem with parents
> deciding in favor of circumcision or intact. I don't have a problem with
> the parents' decision being influenced by prevailing cultural norms
> either.
But Paul does have a problem with us telling them it's a breach of the
kids' human rights. Interesting.
> Throughout my life (here in the U.S.), whenever the topic of circumcision
> has come up (usually because someone has mentioned hearing about a friend
> or relative who was circumcised later in life, or because someone
> mentioned that so-and-so ISN'T circumcised), one of the neonatally
> circumcised guys in the group usually says that he's glad his parents had
> him circumcised as an infant because he wouldn't want to have go through
> that as a teen or adult.
That's right. This is the myth that "it'll have to be done sooner or later"
that has led to many a circumcision. (Circumstition No 39:
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/Intactivism/stitions.html)
That's where the 85% of the world's population who never needed it done
later are again worth remembering.
> This is usually followed by a round of "me too's"
> from the other neonatally circumcised guys in the group.
The myth is widespread.
> I have never
> personally encountered a guy who has expressed anything negative about
> being neonatally circumcised.
A sheltered life.
> The penis is the most emotionally charged part of the male anatomy. Guys,
> especially in adolescence, are always curious and/or concerned (to
varying
> degrees) about how their own penises "stack up" with those of their
peers.
> Most prefer to "fit in" with the majority, whether it be circumcised or
> intact.
And when intact guys learn that they're different because they've got more,
that is usually satisfactory. But many and many a guy, when he learns that
he is different - OR that he "fits in" - because HE HAS HAD PART OF HIS
PENIS CUT OFF, can be devastated. And rightly so.
> In the case the neonatally circumcised U.S. guys expressing a preference
> for being circumcised, some anti-circ activists have called this a result
> of "cultural brainwashing" and "denial." I call it very human.
Both are true.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
Craig Wagner
REQUEST it. Instead, parents often get handed a stack of papers to sign,
one of which refers to circumcision. In our case, we had to say "NO"
numerous times, and threaten a lawsuit if they ever went near our son's
genitals with a sharp instrument just to get them to stop asking "ARE YOU
SURE?" and "There's still time before we release him from the hospital,
but this may be your last chance."
In article <3640F3C7...@pacbell.net>, wal...@pacbell.net wrote:
> John Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Routine again? I do not feel that neonatal circumcision approved by
> > informed parents is wrong.
>
coon...@my-dejanews.com
cwa...@his.com (Craig Wagner) wrote:
> I'd feel better if doctors were required to wait for the parents to
> REQUEST it. Instead, parents often get handed a stack of papers to sign,
> one of which refers to circumcision. In our case, we had to say "NO"
> numerous times, and threaten a lawsuit if they ever went near our son's
> genitals with a sharp instrument just to get them to stop asking "ARE YOU
> SURE?" and "There's still time before we release him from the hospital,
> but this may be your last chance."
This type of outrageous behavior is very common, especially in hospitals
that circumcise 90 percent or beyond. We have a local (small birthing center)
and when I asked the nurses about circumcision.. knowing already they DID 90
percent they very calmly said.. "Oh, we don't advise them one way or the
other, see.. the circumcision box is checked before they are admitted."
However, I knew this was pure BS where their rate was so high.. so next I
asked, " and what do you do if the BOX is NOT checked"... " Well, we ask them
again..just to make sure!" When they dicovered I was anti-circ, they refused
to talk with me further and would not even look up from their desks when I
asked questions.. they suddenly became deaf and referred me to the hospital's
administrator. Who then blamed the high rate on the doctors! He claimed
parents had their mind set before entering the hospital, but they were given
a dated and very pro-circ hand-out. It said it covered the pros and cons, but
never mentioned pain and as I counted the paragraphs.. I found this theme
repeated three or more times.. "Though out life a boy will find the care of
his penis easier if circumcised" "The care of an infant will be EASIER if
CIRCUMCISED." Now I put it to you, if you were a parent and did not have much
information about circumcision and read this promotional leaflet, what would
you do? And Oh, yes another phrase it used, " circumcision in American is a
POPULAR and QUICKLY done procedure." I assume that a quick mind would
recognize that cutting off a finger might also be quick, but perhaps not
popular.
Now, at our states largest teaching hospital I got a much friendlier
response. In fact the nurses admitted the rate was high and that they were
"personally" opposed. But apparently they did not feel compelled to act in
anyway that would desuade a parent.
Patricia & Andrew
<snip>
> No Dawson I mean people like you who carry out a ritual of 4skin stretching
> and restoration. Just think how hilarious your great-great grand children
> are going to find the pictures of you hanging 5 pound weights from your
> dick.
<snip>
Yes, it is bizarre, isn't it, this idea of restoration? What with weights and
tapes and metal clips and cones and things that set off metal detectors in
airports.... But, Wadi, you should allow the possibility that a lot of guys
involved in restoration aren't complete wackos. I've tried it myself, as I
think I told you in one of our first exchanges, and I met some guys in NZ
who were into it too. Truly, they weren't all fetishsists! (Well, one of them
might have been... :-) ) I found these guys to be intelligent, well rounded
sorts, who were just somewhat pissed off that they'd been unnecessarily
deprived of a body part. Like me. One guy, for example, resented the fact
that at age 7, he'd been admitted to hospital for an appendectomy, and the
doctor and his parents neglected to tell him that while they were at it, a
foreskinectomy had been thrown into the deal --- the first he knew about
it was when he woke up and saw stitches in more than one part of his body.
I'd say he had more compelling reasons than I (RIC'd) in wanting to restore.
For me, I felt at the time that I wanted to reassert control over my own body.
And growing back some skin seemed like the way to do it. Sure, it sounds
pretty self-indulgent, and in some ways it is, especially when, like me, you've
had a "neat" circumcision, no ugly skin tags, no bent erections, no bleeding.
But each to his own. I can see why some men want to do it. If it were a lot
easier, involving less effort, I'd do it, no questions. What you grow back
is only a semblance of the real thing, of course, no frenular band for example,
but I'd prefer to look like I was meant to, ideally. I've long ago given up
restoration, as it was far too much of a hassle for my taste (bloody clips
and tape, and peeing was a damned nuisance, especially as I was hitting the
coffee more in those days!). However, what I can say is that I did notice
enhanced sensitivity after having my glans covered, as did many of the other
guys, although I won't claim it's a universal experience. (In the process, I
got a whiff of the dreaded smegma after being covered for a while, although,
in my case, it was't at all bad with a modicum of daily hygiene.)
So if Dawson, or anyone else, wants to try restoration, then I wish them the
best of luck. It's probably like Paul Hagen so aptly puts it with regard to
adult
circumcision: if you do it because you want to, you'll most likely be pleased
with the results; if you're talked into it by others against your better
judgement,
the reverse outcome will apply --- although it's easier to be cajoled into
getting
cut (a quick process) than to hang in there for a couple of years with
restoration!
Ultimately, in my case, I was happy with the knowledge that if I really ever
did want to reacquire the natural look, the means were at my disposal, if I
persisted.
But it's a poor substitute for the choice that guys like Dawson and me feel we
should have been left with in the first place.
Andrew
Dawson William
Patricia & Andrew wrote:
**snip, a very good post*
Paul Hagen
> In our case, we had to say "NO"
> numerous times, and threaten a lawsuit if they ever went near our son's
> genitals with a sharp instrument just to get them to stop asking "ARE YOU
> SURE?" and "There's still time before we release him from the hospital,
> but this may be your last chance."
Has it occurred to you that these medical people might genuinely view
circumcision as a Good Thing? That profit motive is NOT a prime motivator?
And that their convictions might be just as strong as your conviction that
circumcision is a Bad Thing?
You anti-circ activists don't seem to have a problem with hammering away
repeatedly at parents to leave their boys intact, so why do you condemn
people who feel just as strongly in the opposite direction. Let me
guess... Because you're "right" and they're "wrong!" Did I guess right?
Rick B.
> One guy, for example, resented the fact
> that at age 7, he'd been admitted to hospital for an appendectomy, and the
> doctor and his parents neglected to tell him that while they were at it, a
> foreskinectomy had been thrown into the deal --- the first he knew about
> it was when he woke up and saw stitches in more than one part of his body.
One of my late friends went through a similar experience.
He came from a poor background and was eventually adopted. When he had
to go in for his tonsillectomy in the 50's, his parents got talked
into a "package deal" "while he was under" and he came out minus his
adenoids and foreskin too.
He was really pissed off about it as an adult.
coon...@my-dejanews.com
The reason I find this impossible to believe.. is that when all the so
called medical pros are given.. there is a BIG credibility gap. Any hammer
head MD who just slices away.. isn't a good MD. By the way, I think I recall
a study where MDs where looked at, those the recommend and those opposed.
Most who lock-step did circumcisions were the old "washed out has beens" who
had not been to school or read a Journal article in 30 years!
Eric Boyd
> Now, at our states largest teaching hospital I got a much friendlier
> response. In fact the nurses admitted the rate was high and that they were
> "personally" opposed. But apparently they did not feel compelled to act in
> anyway that would desuade a parent.
If you're not compelled to act to dissuade others, you're not opposed.
-seric
Patricia & Andrew
> One of my late friends went through a similar experience.
>
> He came from a poor background and was eventually adopted. When he had
> to go in for his tonsillectomy in the 50's, his parents got talked
> into a "package deal" "while he was under" and he came out minus his
> adenoids and foreskin too.
>
> He was really pissed off about it as an adult.
I don't blame him. A total disregard for his rights and it was foisted
on him unbeknowns. The guy I mentioned had no problems that
remotely justified circumcision, no phimosis and so on (his parents
later told him that it was more a matter of tying up loose ends, they
should have had it done when he was born etc). He knows what he
is missing out on, so his resentment was a lot more visceral than mine,
which is largely intellectual and, to an extent, conjectural.
I can understand why some parents go for RIC (perceived medical
benefits), but to impose a circumcision on a child who has long been
conscious of his own body, without even consulting him, let alone
making a pretence of doing so, is incredibly callous and defies (my)
comprehension.
Andrew
Roy G. Bragg
not be done above & below the waist at the same time.
Roy