Google Groups no longer supports new usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The dreaded circ issue rears its ugly head in my house!

4 views
Skip to the first unread message

Bridget Smith

unread,
31 Dec 1999, 03:00:0031/12/1999
to
It's funny that we were all talking about this, and it comes up in my house
yesterday [insert Twilight Zone theme here].

My boyfriend and I haven't really discussed this, but I found out his
thoughts on the subject last night. We were watching TV, and whatever show
was on (I was not paying attention) mentioned the movie "Something About
Mary." He brought up the scene where the goofy guy gets himself caught in
his zipper. I said something about keeping one's foreskin in the clear if
you're going to zip quick. He said, "Who has foreskins anymore?" I said,
"Well, I don't know your thoughts on the subject, but I don't plan on
allowing a circumcision for our son."

He looked at me like I was nuts. He said, "Why the h*ll would you want to
subject a kid to being made fun of in the locker room?" I gently said,
"John, a lot of parents today aren't opting for it, so there will be a
variety of penises in the locker room. And besides, do YOU look at other
men's penises when you're at the gym or the Y? If another kid makes fun of
our son, think of all the come-backs he has in his favor...like, what are
you doing looking at my penis, dude? You one of *those* guys?" He said,
"You're not a man. It boils down to basic hygene." So I said, "If you knew
what they did to a child during a circumcision, it would make you positively
ill. Imagine someone cutting YOUR unit without painkillers." John is
always asking me if I've eaten enough, if I'm taking my vitamins, and is
almost rabid about not allowing me to do what he deems "dangerous" things
(like lifting laundry or hauling heavy items), so you know that he's always
thinking of the baby's health and well-being. He gave me the same look that
he gave me when I said that I intended on birthing with a midwife in an
other-than-hospital setting - the look I know well by now...the "don't be
getting militant on me" look - so I said, "I'm not talking about this right
now. But just so you know...I will not give my consent for a circumcision.
No way." To my knowledge, they need both parents' consent, anyway.

Luckily, we're giving birth at the birthing center, where circs are not
performed. If we wanted our son circ'd, we'd have to make a separate trip
to the hospital...which, if you've read my posts over the past several
months, know ain't happening easily.

If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight the next
time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
circumcised, I'd appreciate it. Unfortunately, John is 42 and from the
generation where everyone he knows has been circ'd. I'm 31 and have known
men with circ'd and un-circ'd penises, so it's less of an oddity to me. I
had two boyfriends prior to John with un-circ'd penises, and I honestly
didn't notice any downgrade in cleanliness (not to mention that when they're
errect, all penises basically look alike). I'm sort of a clean freak - a
two-bath per day girl - and I WOULD notice. Maybe, since the baby will be
nowhere near a hospital, there is the possibility of "forgetting" to get
this done....and then "finding out" that it's too late. In other words,
ignore the discussion and it will go away.

--
Bridget in Connecticut
Due 2/22/00 with #1
It's A Boy!

Georga Hackworth

unread,
31 Dec 1999, 03:00:0031/12/1999
to
Hmmm, how to approach this diplomatically....Good question.
When I was pregnant the first time around (my first 5 kids were girls so
we really didn't have to worry about such things until number 6 was
born) my ex-SIL got into a fight about this (we were both pregnant at
the same time) at my in-laws. I thought my MIL was going to have a
heart attack! All my husband could say was that I was opinonated.
Maybe you could find one of those books that explains in detail the
procedure and just nonchalantly hand it to your boyfriend (open to the
approperated page) to read. Maybe give him something to read reguarding
the history of circ and the pros and cons. I can't believe that anyone
would be hung up on circ (either way) based on looks of the penis alone.
Georga

Wade & Litha

unread,
1 Jan 2000, 03:00:0001/01/2000
to
I'm not stating how i feel either way but i like it that my husband was
circed. To me it's more "attractive" but that is a personal preference. I
couldn't imagine doing certain sexual acts with a non-circed man! But that
is a personal opinion... I know I am gonna get ripped for this so I am just
gonna leave it at this and go.

Georga Hackworth <The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:386D399B...@worldnet.att.net...

Jkknfollett

unread,
1 Jan 2000, 03:00:0001/01/2000
to
Hi Bridget --
I had to talk my husband into it (or rather NOT doing it :) But it was fairly
easy once I showed him literature on the procedure. We had a long discussion
about the social issues (i.e. locker room, future lovers, etc) and the points
that really won him over were:
It's his penis, not ours to alter. I really made a bid fuss over that one. I
feel very stong about leaving nature alone, that a man should be able to have
that choice, and if he's circumsized at birth then the choice is made for him.
A human rights issue. Male and female babies should have equal rights. No one
thinks about female circumcision and the very thought of it appalls everyone.
So why should boys be any different?? The have a right to keep the penis they
were born with. Also, the pain and trauma involved is kept in the dark. SO
many people are ignorant as to what actually goes on during a circumcision. I
cannot for the life on me understand how ANY parent would agree to put their
tiny newborn though that -- and I think most wouldnt if they knew how awful it
is. I have also read intact babies nurse better than those who have been
circumcized and are more tolerant than pain later on (immunizations and such)
Socially -- the father looking like son debate -- hogwash. My husband actually
laughed at that one. He doesnt even know if his dad is circ'ed or not and I
can bet most men dont. If the subject comes up with my son and his father we
plan on being honest about it. As for the locker room, I agree with what you
wrote. I dont think anyone will look at him funny, its becoming more and more
common and boys nowadays are more homophobic that they would be about an uncut
penis. I doubt very much that they would dare open their mouth about it unless
they want to be called a "fag" or "queer"
As far as cleanliness, so far i personally have had no problems. The foreskin
does not need to be retracted in infants and it is very simple to wipe down. I
think girls are much harder to keep clean but noone ever says anything about
them!! The same with infections, my daughter had a urinary infection at 2 yrs
and it was no big deal but everyone is soooo scared of boys getting them. Why
cant you treat them with antibiotics as well??
Whew -- I get going and I can't stop :) I hope you can come to a mutual
agreement about this. It really is a big decision and highly controversial.
the bottom line is, do what you feel is in the best interest of you and your
son.
Good luck!!
Kari
Mommy to Kaylie 12/16/95 and Noah Patrick 4/7/99

Cindi Halyburton

unread,
1 Jan 2000, 03:00:0001/01/2000
to
I happen to be glad that some of us still feel comfortable enough to have an
opinion which may differ from someone else's. No matter what I believe I
have found that whenever this topic appears on the NG some posters get very
personal and attack the viewpoints of others. Perhaps it would be more
valuable if we listened, voiced our opinions, opened ourselves for
discussion, but quit baring our claws and "going for the throat" of everyone
who does not happen to share our thoughts. Sorry to sound so irritable but
there is nothing good that comes of attacking the opinions of others it just
leaves everyone angry and feeling disrespected.

Okay, climbing off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening to my opinion.

Respectfully,

Cindi


Wade & Litha wrote in message ...

Sgt. Dylan W. McGehee

unread,
1 Jan 2000, 03:00:0001/01/2000
to
Hi! I usually avoid this topic for the reasons others have stated - it can
get mean! Lol.

I really don't have advice to give you. I guess I'm just glad my husband
and I automatically agreed on what to do with our son. Sure made it easier.

But I have wondered about that too - do men really check each other out that
closely in a locker room to tease each other? Lol. Just wondered.

Good luck, Sophie
mom to Charlotte (18 months) and Patrick (7 weeks)

AlanKngsly

unread,
1 Jan 2000, 03:00:0001/01/2000
to
>From: "Wade & Litha"
>I'm not stating how i feel either way but i like it that my husband was
>circed. To me it's more "attractive" but that is a personal preference. I
>couldn't imagine doing certain sexual acts with a non-circed man! But that
>is a personal opinion... I know I am gonna get ripped for this so I am just
>gonna leave it at this and go.

LItha, I'm not going to rip you for that, just point out that if you lived in a
different country, or came from a different generation, you would almost surely
feel quite differently. You are a product of your environment, that's all.

Alan

tecia

unread,
1 Jan 2000, 03:00:0001/01/2000
to
In article <84j9pj$bh3$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, Bridget Smith
<Brid...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight the next
>time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
>circumcised, I'd appreciate it. Unfortunately, John is 42 and from the
>generation where everyone he knows has been circ'd.


Remind him that America is the ONLY country that routinely circ's boys.
I've never even *seen* a circumcised penis. And funnily enough, we all
seem to manage just fine <g>. I think part of the problem is that
american adult men (including doctors) don't yet know much about
childrens' foreskins, and give all sorts of crazy advice like that they need
to be retracted etc. Just remember that a child's foreskin is attached until
they are three or four, that you don't need to do anything to it, touch it,
clean it or anything else, and that you shouldn't *allow* anyone to try to
do any of those things (can cause tearing and scarring). In very
occasional cases (probably about one in a hundred) there may be a need
for circumcision in later life, because the foreskin becomes too tight - but
to operate on every child and remove a healthy body part just for the
remote chance that they might need it done later is absurd. And I would
certainly stand firm on this one.
--
C
Mama to Peter (3), Isabel (21 months)
Georgia and Anna (11 months)
and little peanut due April 2000

I wanted to get out and change the world, but I couldn't find a babysitter
=====================================================

Ginger0407

unread,
2 Jan 2000, 03:00:0002/01/2000
to
I am going to try realy hard not to be judemental. Yes, I have my own opinions,
but please understand that I am not going to judge your life. It's yours, not
mine.
It sounds like you and your boyfriend have not had some of the really important
talks you need to now that you're about to be parents. Whether or not you
believe in marriage, it's time to pretend you are (married). You have to work
as a team as parents, and if you can't agree on major issues, you may need a
marriage counselor. The anti-circs will side with you on this for "protecting
the baby," but remember that it will be his son too. It's time to sit down and
have a long talk about how you want to raise this child and what you each
believe in. It would have been preferable to do it before conception, but don't
let that stop you now.
Also some doctors do now use nerve block on request, but that's a whole
different issue.
So don't spend time thinking I'm judging your life. Spend time with this
boyfriend trying to figure out whether or not you can keep a united front for
the next 30 yrs or so.

Rose Bingham

unread,
2 Jan 2000, 03:00:0002/01/2000
to
Bridget Smith wrote:

> If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight the next
> time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
> circumcised, I'd appreciate it.

Bridget,

I don't know if this will work with your boyfriend but you might try getting him
to watch an infant circumcision. (Exactly how one goes about being allowed to
attend the circumcision of someone else's child I don't know...) I was talking
to my sister who has one boy and they had him circumcised - primarily because
"that's what's done" when you have a baby boy. (They are about the same age as
your BF.) Anyway, when she told me that they'd had their son circumcised she
also said that her husband was there when the procedure was done. He came out
of the room physically ill and saying he wished they had not had it done
certainly would not make the same decision again.

Rose
EDD 1.12.2000 #1
It's a boy


Bridget Smith

unread,
2 Jan 2000, 03:00:0002/01/2000
to
"Sgt. Dylan W. McGehee" <sgt_m...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:zHrb4.6435$Fn6.1...@alfalfa.thegrid.net...

>
> But I have wondered about that too - do men really check each other out
that
> closely in a locker room to tease each other? Lol. Just wondered.

When I asked, John would not admit to looking at other men in the locker
room at the golf course, or at the Y. In fact, he has said that there are 3
urinals in the mens room at work. If the other two are being used, he will
wait or use the stall, because he likes there to be a vacant urinal between
him and the other guy. And yet, he says that, even if the other guy is
talking to him in there, he won't turn his head when he answers and will
continue to look straight ahead, not down. Says that a lot of men observe
this practice. <grin> In spite of all this, he claims that our son will get
stared at, and will get made fun of if he's not circ'd...which makes you
wonder just who is doing all this looking. I know when I used to belong to
a gym, and even on occasions when I've gone on vacation with another woman
friend/s and there have been communal bathing facilities....I never outright
stared at someone else, or made fun of them, or commented on their physical
variations. Even if you notice, which I rarely do, it's somewhere you
don't go. I guess it's a do-unto-others thing: I will not dare notice
anything about anyone else and comment, lest they point out my physical
imperfections (and there are several, trust me).

The more I think of it, the more I think that the real reason he would
prefer our son to be circ'd is because he doesn't know anyone who isn't.
He's 42, and circs were automatic back then. I'm 31, and since I grew up
with many "children of hippies," homebirthed children, and kids from foreign
countries, I have known men of both varieties. As long as the guy keeps
himself clean (a daily shower and washing/drying underneath will do it),
there is not a heck of a difference - my reasoning against has more to do
with causing the baby pain and subjecting him to something unnecessary than
looks.

M.Zeini

unread,
2 Jan 2000, 03:00:0002/01/2000
to

tecia <te...@tecia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:X+uElQAq...@tecia.demon.co.uk...

> In article <84j9pj$bh3$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, Bridget Smith
> <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight the
next
> >time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
> >circumcised, I'd appreciate it. Unfortunately, John is 42 and from the
> >generation where everyone he knows has been circ'd.
>
>
> Remind him that America is the ONLY country that routinely circ's boys.
> I've never even *seen* a circumcised penis. And funnily enough, we all

Not to be picky, but as I know the Moslem country where I have lived
routinely circ's boys, and I would guess that many other Moslem countries,
and maybe (???) Israel do also. I would just guess that when the majority
of the citizens are Moslem (or Jewish) , circumcision is a routine thing.
But I don't know for sure about any other country except the one I lived in.

Megan
Köln, Germany

Sgt. Dylan W. McGehee

unread,
2 Jan 2000, 03:00:0002/01/2000
to
>If the other two are being used, he will
>wait or use the stall, because he likes >there to be a vacant urinal
between
>him and the other guy.

My husband does the same thing. Lol. While I would rather not sit next to
someone and go to the bathroom, it seems weird. Kinda paranoid. Lol.

>I never outright
>stared at someone else, or made fun of >them, or commented on their
physical
>variations.

I haven't/wouldn't stare and NO WAY would I comment either. I got my shape
back pretty quick after my daughter but boy, what happens to you after 2
kids! Eeww! Lol.

We did circ our son and it was an automatic "because that's what you do"
thing for us. When they took my son away to do it they took him to the room
next door to mine and I heard him crying. I know some people will think I'm
"totally horrible" but if we have another boy I wouldn't hesitate to circ
him too.

I can't imagine how hard it must be for you both. How will you decide if
he'll be circ'ed or not? I mean, my husband and I disagree on a couple of
things and it's a case of agreeing to disagree. When my husband is with our
son he does it his way and when I have him I do it my way. But we aren't
talking about something irreversible, you know?

Later, Sophie

Naomi Gayle Rivkis

unread,
2 Jan 2000, 03:00:0002/01/2000
to
On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 12:30:35 -0500, Rose Bingham <a...@gate.net> wrote:

>Bridget Smith wrote:
>
>> If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight the next
>> time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
>> circumcised, I'd appreciate it.
>

>Bridget,
>
>I don't know if this will work with your boyfriend but you might try getting him
>to watch an infant circumcision. (Exactly how one goes about being allowed to
>attend the circumcision of someone else's child I don't know...) I was talking
>to my sister who has one boy and they had him circumcised - primarily because
>"that's what's done" when you have a baby boy. (They are about the same age as
>your BF.) Anyway, when she told me that they'd had their son circumcised she
>also said that her husband was there when the procedure was done. He came out
>of the room physically ill and saying he wished they had not had it done
>certainly would not make the same decision again.

Better yet, for the sake of fairness, you might try agreeing both to
go watch an infant circumcision and agree that if EITHER party left
with their mind changed, that would settle the question. Then both of
you go in with open minds.

-Naomi


freez...@my-deja.com

unread,
3 Jan 2000, 03:00:0003/01/2000
to
In article <X+uElQAq...@tecia.demon.co.uk>,

tecia <te...@tecia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <84j9pj$bh3$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, Bridget Smith
> <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight
the next
> >time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
> >circumcised, I'd appreciate it. Unfortunately, John is 42 and from
the
> >generation where everyone he knows has been circ'd.
>
> Remind him that America is the ONLY country that routinely circ's
boys.
> I've never even *seen* a circumcised penis. And funnily enough, we
all
> seem to manage just fine <g>. I think part of the problem is that
> american adult men (including doctors) don't yet know much about
> childrens' foreskins, and give all sorts of crazy advice like that
they need
> to be retracted etc. Just remember that a child's foreskin is
attached until
> they are three or four, that you don't need to do anything to it,
touch it,
> clean it or anything else, and that you shouldn't *allow* anyone to
try to
> do any of those things (can cause tearing and scarring). In very
> occasional cases (probably about one in a hundred) there may be a need
> for circumcision in later life, because the foreskin becomes too
tight - but
> to operate on every child and remove a healthy body part just for the
> remote chance that they might need it done later is absurd.

Most of the therapeutic circumcisions done are not necessary, even in
the UK. Often they fail to implement conservative treatments for
phimosis. See http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/

Freeze


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Jane Elizabeth

unread,
3 Jan 2000, 03:00:0003/01/2000
to
Hi Bridget,

My husband is 38 and it took a little convincing on my part to get him
to change his mind. He's circ'ed, but he's fairly open-minded, so I
barraged him with literature, let him see for himself. He changed his
mind and now regrets that he was circ'ed at birth! He thought uncirc'ed
penises (penii??!!) were "funny looking". But when I asked him if he'd
ever SEEN one in person, he said no! I pointed out that he just thought
it was funny looking 'cos he wasn't accustomed to it. If he'd grown up
around uncirc'ed guys, he'd think circ'ed looked funny.

For me personally, I just couldn't do that to my son. I didn't feel it
was my place to decide.

Jane
mum to Zeff 10/27/99


In article <84j9pj$bh3$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Bridget Smith"

> Luckily, we're giving birth at the birthing center, where circs
> are not
> performed. If we wanted our son circ'd, we'd have to make a
> separate trip
> to the hospital...which, if you've read my posts over the past
> several
> months, know ain't happening easily.

> If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight
> the next
> time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
> circumcised, I'd appreciate it. Unfortunately, John is 42 and
> from the

> generation where everyone he knows has been circ'd. I'm 31 and
> have known
> men with circ'd and un-circ'd penises, so it's less of an oddity
> to me. I
> had two boyfriends prior to John with un-circ'd penises, and I
> honestly
> didn't notice any downgrade in cleanliness (not to mention that
> when they're
> errect, all penises basically look alike). I'm sort of a clean
> freak - a
> two-bath per day girl - and I WOULD notice. Maybe, since the baby
> will be
> nowhere near a hospital, there is the possibility of "forgetting"
> to get
> this done....and then "finding out" that it's too late. In other
> words,
> ignore the discussion and it will go away.

> --
> Bridget in Connecticut
> Due 2/22/00 with #1
> It's A Boy!

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Julia Ream

unread,
3 Jan 2000, 03:00:0003/01/2000
to

Sgt. Dylan W. McGehee <sgt_m...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:JuRb4.6513$Fn6.1...@alfalfa.thegrid.net...

> I can't imagine how hard it must be for you both. How will you decide if
> he'll be circ'ed or not? I mean, my husband and I disagree on a couple of
> things and it's a case of agreeing to disagree. When my husband is with
our
> son he does it his way and when I have him I do it my way. But we aren't
> talking about something irreversible, you know?
>

With our baby in the making, I told DH that it was his decision. While I
would chose NOT to circumcise my baby, I am not a man and I do not have a
penis...I figure my husband is best equipped to make that decision. I guess
I will have to deal with it if he decides to have the baby circumcised...but
right now I think he's leaning toward not having it done.

My husband is a responsible and caring dad, and I know that he'd have a
really good reason before he put his son through that much pain...and he is
44. He has a 16 year old son that is circumcised (as far as I know anyway),
and the reason he did it then is because he was young and was unaware that
there were options. Now he knows there are options, and I'm confident that
he will make the right choice.

Take Care,
Julia Ream
and "ticker" EDD 08/14/00

wadi

unread,
3 Jan 2000, 03:00:0003/01/2000
to

Julia Ream <Julia...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:84qm5q$md$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...

>
> My husband is a responsible and caring dad, and I know that he'd have a
> really good reason before he put his son through that much pain...and he
is
> 44. He has a 16 year old son that is circumcised (as far as I know
anyway),
> and the reason he did it then is because he was young and was unaware that
> there were options. Now he knows there are options, and I'm confident
that
> he will make the right choice.
>

The decision you make is entirely between yourself and your husband.

But I am amazed that you appear to be unaware of the availability of pain
relief for neonatal circumcision.

The AAP brochure: Circumcision: Information for Parents (1999) has this to
say on the issue of pain.

==========================
Is circumcision painful?

When done without pain medicine, circumcision is painful. There are pain
medicines available that are safe and effective. The American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends that they be used to reduce pain from circumcision.
Local anesthetics can be injected into the penis to lower pain and stress in
infants. There are also topical creams that can help. Talk to your
pediatrician about which pain medicine is best for your son. Problems with
using pain medicine are rare and usually not serious.
===========================

Jeanne Nielsen Clelland

unread,
3 Jan 2000, 03:00:0003/01/2000
to
Bridget,

I'm with you on this one! I have a variant on this problem: DH's father had to
be circumsized in his 70's because his foreskin had stopped retracting and was
getting infected regularly. He's not one to talk about such things, but after
the operation, he told DH definitively, "Have your sons circ'ed at birth." For
DH, this is the end of the argument. I've tried all sorts of reasoning with
him: I'd rather it be later in life when he can understand why and participate
in the choice rather than be subjected to this trauma as a newborn, etc., etc.
But DH just says "I had it done at birth, don't remember a thing, clearly
suffered no long-lasting ill-effects, and Dad says have it done, so we're
having it done." He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks like I'm going to
lose this one. I'm hoping we'll have a girl and it won't be an issue!

BTW, we discussed this with our midwife at our last visit, and while she thinks
it's an unnecessary procedure, she suggested that if we have it done, we should
consider using a moyle (sp?). Apparently they can do it very fast with
minimal pain.

-Jeanne (EDD
6/8/00)


tecia

unread,
3 Jan 2000, 03:00:0003/01/2000
to
In article <84ojkn$d0u$2...@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>, M.Zeini
<m_ha...@pacbell.net> writes

>Not to be picky, but as I know the Moslem country where I have lived
>routinely circ's boys, and I would guess that many other Moslem countries,
>and maybe (???) Israel do also. I would just guess that when the majority
>of the citizens are Moslem (or Jewish) , circumcision is a routine thing.


Sorry - yes, OK. But Jews and Moslems circumcise for religious
reasons, which as far as I am concerned is a different ball-game. If that
is what your religion tells you to do, then that is a *reason* to do it.
America is not a Jewish or Moslem country, and therefore there is no
justification for routine newborn circumcision that I can see.

John Pritchard

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
Jane Elizabeth wrote:
>
> Hi Bridget,
>
> My husband is 38 and it took a little convincing on my part to get him
> to change his mind. He's circ'ed, but he's fairly open-minded, so I
> barraged him with literature,

BARRAGED? Is he still 'open-minded' or have you corrected him of that?

let him see for himself. He changed his
> mind and now regrets that he was circ'ed at birth!

Yes, the anticirc Cause gains recruits by *barraging* men with
literature, teaching and convincing them that they are mutilated and
sexually substandard - even though there is unlikely to be a shred of
truth in the whole campaign.

We see evidence that the 'big lie' told often can become accepted as
truth.

You give one of the better descriptions of brain-washing I have seen so
far.

He thought uncirc'ed
> penises (penii??!!) were "funny looking". But when I asked him if he'd
> ever SEEN one in person, he said no! I pointed out that he just thought
> it was funny looking 'cos he wasn't accustomed to it. If he'd grown up
> around uncirc'ed guys, he'd think circ'ed looked funny.
>
> For me personally, I just couldn't do that to my son. I didn't feel it
> was my place to decide.

I hope as the child gets older you will be capable of making some
decisions, preferably wise, on your son's behalf dealing with his
well-being.

Ginger0407

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
>BTW, we discussed this with our midwife at our last visit, and while she
>thinks
>it's an unnecessary procedure, she suggested that if we have it done, we
>should
>consider using a moyle (sp?). Apparently they can do it very fast with
>minimal pain.
>
> -Jeanne (EDD
>6/8/00)
>

A Mohel is the one that does ritual jewish circumcision. They can be medical
doctors, but are not required to be. I would recommend finding one who is. It
made me more comfortable.

Erin Marsh

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:25:43 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
wrote:

>Jane Elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bridget,
>>
>> My husband is 38 and it took a little convincing on my part to get him
>> to change his mind. He's circ'ed, but he's fairly open-minded, so I
>> barraged him with literature,
>
>BARRAGED? Is he still 'open-minded' or have you corrected him of that?
>
>let him see for himself. He changed his
>> mind and now regrets that he was circ'ed at birth!
>
>Yes, the anticirc Cause gains recruits by *barraging* men with
>literature, teaching and convincing them that they are mutilated and
>sexually substandard - even though there is unlikely to be a shred of
>truth in the whole campaign.

This was a nice friendly discussion about Bridgets problem before you
chimed in. Please keep your pro-circ opinions in the real circ
threads. Your opinion does nothing to help Bridget and Jane with their
decisions


Geoffrey T. Falk

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
In article <38710D7E...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu>,

Jeanne Nielsen Clelland <j...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu> wrote:
>BTW, we discussed this with our midwife at our last visit, and while she thinks
>it's an unnecessary procedure, she suggested that if we have it done, we should
>consider using a moyle (sp?). Apparently they can do it very fast with
>minimal pain.

Most mohels do not use any aneesthetic, except for a bit of wine.

Even if an anaesthetic is used, studies have shown that it will only reduce
pain during part of the procedure. See http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/
There will also be extreme pain after the anaesthetic wears off, until
it heals, 1 week later.

My advice is to avoid circumcision. After all, the American Academy of
Pediatrics says it is an unnecessary procedure. And he can decide for
himself later if he wants it done.

Regards
g.

--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)cirp.org> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/

AlanKngsly

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
>If he'd grown up
>around uncirc'ed guys, he'd think circ'ed looked funny.
>
>For me personally, I just couldn't do that to my son. I didn't feel it
>was my place to decide.
>
>Jane

Glad to hear this, Jane. :)

Alan

AlanKngsly

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
>He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
>really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks like I'm going to
>lose this one.

Jeanne, why have you decided you're going to lose? Isn't this the kind of
thing both parents need to consent to, otherwise the default (do nothing) wins?

> I'm hoping we'll have a girl and it won't be an issue!

I've heard a lot of people say this. It's too bad circumcision has turned so
many people off of even having boys....

Alan

AlanKngsly

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
>From: Don see.address@below
>>In spite of all this, he claims that our son will get
>>stared at, and will get made fun of if he's not circ'd...which makes you
>>wonder just who is doing all this looking.
>
>Had you ever been present in a typical, boys-of-the-same-age only
>locker room situation, you would not likely question who is doing
>the looking (and note that it is not staring, but discrete
>glances). Seldom is there out-and-out teasing, although I have on
>occasion even seen that occur (back when my own kids were young
>and were in locker room situations).

I grew up as (presumably) the only intact boy in a lot of gym locker rooms,
where I changed and showered in front of the other boys. Never was I teased
about my penis. I can't claim such a thing has never happened, but I think it
is much less likely now than when I was young (and it never happened to me
then). Kids today rarely shower in front of each other or get completely nude
while changing. And being intact is not nearly the rarity it was (in the US)
when I was a boy.

Alan

j47

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
Some nurses and doctors dread boys too because they don't want to circ.
http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9803/1117.html

AlanKngsly wrote in message
<20000104055950...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...

John Pritchard

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to

No but it may save other men from being *barraged* with misinformation
or at least let them know that they are being conned - and who knows? -
it may make some parents look at the issue of neonatal more
intelligently

Jane Elizabeth

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
In article <hnm27s89bbrmniff0...@4ax.com>, Erin Marsh
<ejm...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> This was a nice friendly discussion about Bridgets problem before
> you
> chimed in. Please keep your pro-circ opinions in the real circ
> threads. Your opinion does nothing to help Bridget and Jane with
> their
> decisions

Yeah, Erin!!

I totally tuned out these guys when I was pregnant and trying to decide
whether to circ or not; DH and I made the decision based on our own
research. But, **sigh**, unfortunately they have to keep butting in, in
their ugly fashion......

Jane
mum to Zeff 10/27/99

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *

Helen Arias

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
In article 0000...@ng-fi1.aol.com, alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) writes:
}I grew up as (presumably) the only intact boy in a lot of gym locker rooms,
}where I changed and showered in front of the other boys. Never was I teased
}about my penis. I can't claim such a thing has never happened, but I think it
}is much less likely now than when I was young (and it never happened to me
}then). Kids today rarely shower in front of each other or get completely nude
}while changing. And being intact is not nearly the rarity it was (in the US)
}when I was a boy.
}
}Alan

My son is 10.5 years old and plays extensive travel ice hockey. He has
been undressing in the locker room for the last four years (he is intact). At times,
there are parents in the locker rooms (helping the boys with skates,
gear, etc.) It is interesting to note that seventeen boys simultaneously
naked in front of one another, are not paying any attention at all to
the naked kid in front or to the side of them.

My son learned the differences between his penis and his nephew's penis
when he was four and his nephew was two. I have asked him many times
over the years if anyone has ever made a comment about his penis while
he's been in the hockey locker room. The answer, as recent as the beginning
of this hockey season, has always been "no".

I did have a conversation with a few of the parents while waiting for
our sons to get dressed, about circumcision and three out of the four of us
had boys who were circumcised. One parent, a father, said that he'd noticed
that many of the boys were not circumcised. He thought it surprising
because he'd always thought that the majority of boys were circumcised.
A discussion ensued about the state of California and the circumcision
rates dropping consistently over the years. He had said he never would
have believed it had he not seen the the boys in the dressing room.

The other parent had her son done only due to a Muslim tradition
but she said she was never happy with the decision and had regrets.
Another parent said she had it done and has never thought twice
about it but she said no one had ever really discussed it around
her till now.

Full nudity amongst boys may not be as prevalent in schools as it
once was but sports activities sure haven't diminished the occurrence.

H.


Terrie

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
In article <20000104055950...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,

alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) wrote:
>>He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
>>really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks
like I'm going to
>>lose this one.
>
>Jeanne, why have you decided you're going to lose? Isn't
this the kind of
>thing both parents need to consent to, otherwise the
default (do nothing) wins?
>
>> I'm hoping we'll have a girl and it won't be an issue!
>
>I've heard a lot of people say this. It's too bad
circumcision has turned so
>many people off of even having boys....
>
>Alan
>
I don't want to get into the pros and cons of circumcision,
I simply want to state that I think that people are
misinformed if they think that you need consent from mother
and father. Both of my boys were circumcised, and all it
took was a verbal confirmation to my OB that I wanted it
done. With my first son, I had the option of bringing him
in to the office after we were discharged in order to get
it covered under my insurance (I opted to just have it done
at the hospital and pay out of pocket).

I have also read some responses here that discussed the
boys crying in pain every time they urinate or have their
diaper changed, until it heals. We had none of that with
either of my boys. A gauze pad with a little petroleum
jelly kepps the diaper from sticking and maybe even
protected it from the urine. They both healed quickly (1-2
days).

Luckily my husband and I didn't disagree on this issue, we
actually didn't even have to discuss it. It must be a
difficult discussion for couples and I can't imagine that
there is any sort of "compromise". It's pretty much an all
or nothing sort of thing. Best of luck to those trying to
come to an agreement.

Terrie

John Pritchard

unread,
4 Jan 2000, 03:00:0004/01/2000
to
Jane Elizabeth wrote:
>
> In article <hnm27s89bbrmniff0...@4ax.com>, Erin Marsh
> <ejm...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > This was a nice friendly discussion about Bridgets problem before
> > you
> > chimed in. Please keep your pro-circ opinions in the real circ
> > threads. Your opinion does nothing to help Bridget and Jane with
> > their
> > decisions
>
> Yeah, Erin!!
>
> I totally tuned out these guys when I was pregnant and trying to decide
> whether to circ or not; DH and I made the decision based on our own
> research. But, **sigh**, unfortunately they have to keep butting in, in
> their ugly fashion......

If your method is to *barrage* people until you break them down, small
wonder you tune out those who disagree with you.

If you wish to preach and proselytize privately then do so privately -
by e-mail. But when you preach and proselytize in a public forum, then
your preaching and proselytizing is obviously for public consumption.

I am not promoting neonatal circumcision. I couldn't care less what you
do. But I don't understand people who are proud of *barraging* others
with misinformation until they break down and agree with them. That to
me is *persuasion* in a rather *ugly fashion*.

> Jane
> mum to Zeff 10/27/99
>

M.Zeini

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to

tecia <te...@tecia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wUctPAA+...@tecia.demon.co.uk...

> In article <84ojkn$d0u$2...@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>, M.Zeini
> <m_ha...@pacbell.net> writes
> >Not to be picky, but as I know the Moslem country where I have lived
> >routinely circ's boys, and I would guess that many other Moslem
countries,
> >and maybe (???) Israel do also. I would just guess that when the
majority
> >of the citizens are Moslem (or Jewish) , circumcision is a routine thing.
>
>
> Sorry - yes, OK. But Jews and Moslems circumcise for religious
> reasons, which as far as I am concerned is a different ball-game. If that
> is what your religion tells you to do, then that is a *reason* to do it.
> America is not a Jewish or Moslem country, and therefore there is no
> justification for routine newborn circumcision that I can see.
>
I understand and pretty much agree. : )

Megan
Köln, Germany

Neal

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:25:43 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
wrote:

...


>I hope as the child gets older you will be capable of making some
>decisions, preferably wise, on your son's behalf dealing with his
>well-being.

I'm sure she will.

She has made a very good start.

--
Neal

Note: To contact, remove the ".NS" from address

Neal

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to
On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 13:58:43 -0700, Jeanne Nielsen Clelland
<j...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu> wrote:

>Bridget,
>
>I'm with you on this one! I have a variant on this problem: DH's father had to
>be circumsized in his 70's because his foreskin had stopped retracting and was
>getting infected regularly.

His doctor, in his infinite, circumcised, ignorance, probably did not
try more conservative treatments. For instance, there is a pruplasty
(sorry about the spelling), where they make a small incision at the
edge of the foreskin, in a North-South direction (so to speak) and
then open it a little and sew it up East-West.

...


>He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
>really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks like I'm going to
>lose this one.

This is very common from circumcised men.

Neal

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 21:13:39 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
wrote:

...


>If your method is to *barrage* people until you break them down, small
>wonder you tune out those who disagree with you.
>
>If you wish to preach and proselytize privately then do so privately -
>by e-mail. But when you preach and proselytize in a public forum, then
>your preaching and proselytizing is obviously for public consumption.
>
>I am not promoting neonatal circumcision. I couldn't care less what you
>do. But I don't understand people who are proud of *barraging* others
>with misinformation until they break down and agree with them. That to
>me is *persuasion* in a rather *ugly fashion*.

Oh! You don't promote neonatal circumcision? Then why do you make
statements like these?

"We see evidence that the 'big lie' told often can become accepted as
truth."

"You give one of the better descriptions of brain-washing I have seen
so far."

"I hope as the child gets older you will be capable of making some


decisions, preferably wise, on your son's behalf dealing with his
well-being."

John: Please compare the number of her posts on circumcision in this
group over the past year to the number you have made and let's see who
"barrages" others over circumcision.

Julie M

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:08:41 -0500, "Bridget Smith"
<Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>It's funny that we were all talking about this, and it comes up in my house
>yesterday [insert Twilight Zone theme here].

Yikes! Too bad you aren't both of the same mind on this issue.

[snip]

>If any of you have any suggestions on how I can avoid a huge fight the next
>time this comes up, while at the same time saving my son from being
>circumcised, I'd appreciate it.

Some of the ideas that you mentioned in your post are good ones.
As to avoiding a fight, well it takes two to have one. Just keep
your cool, and listen to his concerns. Don't dismiss them out of
hand, even if you don't agree with him. After all, given his age
and the fact that the vast majority of his peers are circumcised,
the natural penis probably does seem odd to him.

You've already expressed some of your thoughts to him, such as the
pain issue. I really wonder how much that resonates with a man who
was circumcised as an infant? After all, he can easily come back
with "but I don't remember it at all..." He's concerned about
teasing, and you were right to point out that your son will not be
the only intact boy in the locker room. But beyond that, your
boyfriend is advocating for circumcision for cosmetic reasons (so
your son will look like the other boys). Circumcision is surgery,
and one that will forever alter your boy's body. Surgery carries
risks. Furthermore, this is a surgery that is not recommended as
routine for any compelling medical reason. Does it seem right to
consent to surgery for someone else, absent any compelling medical
indication? How many adults would agree to that for themselves?

As to hygiene, well it doesn't take much to clean an uncircumcised
baby's penis. When he's a little older, just instruct him to
retract and rinse during bathtime. It's really no different than
telling a girl to clean her vulva at bathtime. My daughters and
son all keep themselves perfectly clean with no help from me (other
than forcing them into the tub from time to time!).

[snip]

> Maybe, since the baby will be
>nowhere near a hospital, there is the possibility of "forgetting" to get
>this done....and then "finding out" that it's too late. In other words,
>ignore the discussion and it will go away.

Nice idea, but do you *really* think that this strategy will work?
If so, go for it! Of course, you know it won't ever really be "too
late", and your boyfriend probably know that as well. So maybe
another talk is a good idea. I hope it goes well for you.

Julie

Jeanne Nielsen Clelland

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to

AlanKngsly wrote:

> >He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
> >really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks like I'm going to
> >lose this one.
>

> Jeanne, why have you decided you're going to lose? Isn't this the kind of
> thing both parents need to consent to, otherwise the default (do nothing) wins?

Well, honestly I don't know what would happen if I just refused to give my consent
(other than a *big* fight!). We actually discussed this again last night, and I
got him to agree to at least do some further research rather than relying on a
sample size of one (his father) for making the decision. I also suggested (thanks
to whoever mentioned it here!) that we should try to observe a circumcision ahead
of time so he'd understand what he was asking the babay to go through, and he
seemed willing to do that. So it ain't over yet!

> > I'm hoping we'll have a girl and it won't be an issue!
>
> I've heard a lot of people say this. It's too bad circumcision has turned so
> many people off of even having boys....

Well, I guess that was kind of a flip comment on my part. I'm actually kind of
hoping for a girl anyway, but of course I'll be thrilled with whatever we get!

-Jeanne

wadi

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to

Don <see.address@below> wrote in message
news:jWZxOLT=W8XbG0O4DG...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 16:33:46 -0500, "Bridget Smith"
> <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In spite of all this, he claims that our son will get
> >stared at, and will get made fun of if he's not circ'd...which makes you
> >wonder just who is doing all this looking.
>

Who notices?
Well put it in a context you may understand better.
Went out on New Years Eve.
In post event discussions I have been amazed at the detail remembered by the
womenfolk.
Every hairstyle, every ear-ring, every necklace, every dress -cut, colour,
style, shoes, accessories, nail polish etc etc NOTICED and remembered.
I didn't notice any staring by the women during the evening.
But they certainly didn't miss a damn thing.

Make no mistake people notice.
But it is more the case of the self conciousness of the individual when
naked.
That may be because of a number of reasons.
General body issues - fat, skinny etc.
Penis issues - too small, different etc.

So it has more to do with the selfconciousness of the individual than any
overt staring or comments made by others.

wadi

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to

<freez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:84qngs$h1o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

>
> Most of the therapeutic circumcisions done are not necessary, even in
> the UK. Often they fail to implement conservative treatments for
> phimosis. See http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
>

So in the opinion of a handful of US based skin freaks (with no medical
training) the UK medical establishment are incompetent in their treatment of
foreskin delinquencies.

heh heh
I must admit to a sort of grotesque fascination with the crap posted by the
4skincentric.
Weird people, weird thoughts.

wadi

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to

Geoffrey T. Falk <"gtf["@]cirp.org> wrote in message
news:tzgc4.2292$G55....@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> In article <38710D7E...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu>,

> Jeanne Nielsen Clelland <j...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu> wrote:
> >BTW, we discussed this with our midwife at our last visit, and while she
thinks
> >it's an unnecessary procedure, she suggested that if we have it done, we
should
> >consider using a moyle (sp?). Apparently they can do it very fast with
> >minimal pain.
>
> Most mohels do not use any aneesthetic, except for a bit of wine.
>
> Even if an anaesthetic is used, studies have shown that it will only
reduce
> pain during part of the procedure. See http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/
> There will also be extreme pain after the anaesthetic wears off, until
> it heals, 1 week later.
>

I notice with interest the change in the thrust of the use of the pain scare
tactic.
From the "excruciating pain" of the procedure we have moved to the "extreme
pain after the anaesthetic wears off".
Subtle but significant.

The question is how long does it take for the wound to "seal" to the extent
that the infant does not experience urine sting on the area.
The second is that with the application of Vaseline petroleum jelly to the
site such direct contact leading to pain is much reduced.

Terrie wrote (in another thread):

"I have also read some responses here that discussed the
boys crying in pain every time they urinate or have their
diaper changed, until it heals. We had none of that with
either of my boys. A gauze pad with a little petroleum
jelly kepps the diaper from sticking and maybe even
protected it from the urine. They both healed quickly (1-2
days)."


But one should not expect Geoffrey and his ilk to give up this weapon (the
pain scare tactic) which seems to have served them so well.


wadi

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to

AlanKngsly <alank...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000104055950...@ng-fi1.aol.com...

> >He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
> >really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks like I'm going
to
> >lose this one.
>
> Jeanne, why have you decided you're going to lose? Isn't this the kind of
> thing both parents need to consent to, otherwise the default (do nothing)
wins?
>

So if you can't agree on where to go on holiday ..... you just stay at home?
LOL

> > I'm hoping we'll have a girl and it won't be an issue!
>
> I've heard a lot of people say this. It's too bad circumcision has turned
so
> many people off of even having boys....
>

And this all because of some pretty bizarre theories about the supposed
functions of the foreskin?


j47

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to
wadi wrote in message <84ui23$13m$2...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>...

>
><freez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:84qngs$h1o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>>
>> Most of the therapeutic circumcisions done are not necessary, even in
>> the UK. Often they fail to implement conservative treatments for
>> phimosis. See http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
>>
>
>So in the opinion of a handful of US based skin freaks (with no medical
>training) the UK medical establishment are incompetent in their treatment
>of foreskin delinquencies.

No, in the opinion of pediatric urologists. There are references on the web
page shown above. You just have to click on them to view. Try it.
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/shankar1/


The urologist conclude: The incidence of pathological phimosis in boys was
0.4 cases/1000 boys per year, or 0.6% of boys affected by their 15th
birthday, a value lower than previous estimates and exceeded more than
eight-fold by the proportion of English boys currently circumcised for
'phimosis'.

Now, how many of these 0.6% need a circ? Click on another reference and you
see less than 5%. http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/chu1/
That is 3 out of 10,000 by age 15. Both of these are 1999 articles. Based on
this updated info, how many infant circs would one have to do to prevent one
necessary circ at an older age for phimosis? 3,333. At what cost? $999,900
at $300 US per, plus pain and suffering.


Bridget Smith

unread,
5 Jan 2000, 03:00:0005/01/2000
to
"wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:84ui22$13m$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...

>
> Make no mistake people notice.
> But it is more the case of the self conciousness of the individual when
> naked

I think that we are harder on ourselves than others are. But, the hardness
with which you treat yourself is a direct result of how you grow up - the
mindset you develop. I have a close friend who was born with an extra
nipple. It looks just like a tiny nipple and is about 5" below her right
breast. It's a pretty common physical quirk, in the realm of extra fingers
or toes, and looks like a mole with slightly darker skin surrounding it -
almost like a mole. Her parents had the option of having it removed when
she was a child, and they declined. She grew up with it, and was told over
the years that it was just an extra thing she was born with and it wasn't
worth making a big deal over. If it wasn't broken, why fix it? The scar
that she'd have if she got it removed would be far more unsightly than the
nipple is. She got teased by some people while we were growing up, because
you can see it if she wears a bikini or a halter top. But her stock answer
was always, "What is your problem?!! It's an extra nipple, idiot. Lots of
people have them." Now that we're adults, no one thinks twice about it.
She's never lacked for boyfriends, so it hasn't hurt her relations with the
opposite sex, either.

Foreskins, the same way. I plan to raise my son to have a positive
self-image. If anyone teases him, I want him to have enough confidence to
be able answer back, "It's a foreskin, idiot. All men are born with them."
--
Bridget in Connecticut
Due 2/22/00 with #1
It's A Boy!

wadi

unread,
7 Jan 2000, 03:00:0007/01/2000
to

Bridget Smith <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:85167l$kvf$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...

>
> Foreskins, the same way. I plan to raise my son to have a positive
> self-image. If anyone teases him, I want him to have enough confidence to
> be able answer back, "It's a foreskin, idiot. All men are born with
them."
>

And I sincerely hope you succeed.

But I am left wondering what value you have discovered in the foreskin which
makes this worth the effort and of course which is sufficient to override
the religious, cultural and medical factors relating to a circumcision
decision?


Neal

unread,
7 Jan 2000, 03:00:0007/01/2000
to
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:38:20 -0500, "Bridget Smith"
<Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

...
>Foreskins, the same way. I plan to raise my son to have a positive
>self-image. If anyone teases him, I want him to have enough confidence to
>be able answer back, "It's a foreskin, idiot. All men are born with them."

That is exactly correct.

But you should also arm him with "softer" replies for boys who are
inquiring, not teasing.

Bridget Smith

unread,
7 Jan 2000, 03:00:0007/01/2000
to
"wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:8540at$1358$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...

>
> > But I am left wondering what value you have discovered in the foreskin
which
> makes this worth the effort and of course which is sufficient to override
> the religious, cultural and medical factors relating to a circumcision
decision?
>

Basically, it's not my choice to make. If I were carrying a girl, I
wouldn't get her ears pierced as an infant, either. It's not my body to
mess with. If my son were born with a heart problem, lung defects, or some
other serious physical problem that would impact, shorten, or pain his life,
then I would OK any surgery needed to get it fixed. But, to cut off a
harmless body part because others don't agree with its being there? Nope.
It's his body, and he can make the choice for himself when he is old enough
to decide for himself. If societal pressures get too great for him, then he
can figure out how to handle it in a way that is best for him. My job is to
give him the people-skills to be able to do this. There are many people
who, when pressured by society to do what they perceive as being wrong,
thumb their noses at it. All I can do is raise my son to have strength of
character, intellegence, and self-respect, so if he has to "thumb his nose,"
he can, rather than feel that his only option is to cave in. You have to do
what is right for you, and I'm giving my boy the option...just waiting until
he's old enough to take it.

John Pritchard

unread,
7 Jan 2000, 03:00:0007/01/2000
to
Bridget Smith wrote:
>
> "wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:8540at$1358$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...
> >
> > > But I am left wondering what value you have discovered in the foreskin
> which
> > makes this worth the effort and of course which is sufficient to override
> > the religious, cultural and medical factors relating to a circumcision
> decision?
> >
>
> Basically, it's not my choice to make.

But you are making a choice. You can't avoid it. A decision to evade a
decision is in itself a decision.

He will live with *your* decision throuogh his adolescent,
impressionable and formative years and until he is an adult. (unless of
course you would agree to letting him have a circumcsion at, say, age 12
if he asked for it.)

He will be denied the benefits of neonatal circumcision which while
small in number can be serious for those unfortunate enough to develop
or contract them.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am simply saying that you did in fact
make a choice for which there can be consequences.


deletion

> You have to do
> what is right for you, and I'm giving my boy the option...

In this case, who is *you*? Is this done for the kid's welfare or to
make *you* feel good?

Grace Boockholdt

unread,
7 Jan 2000, 03:00:0007/01/2000
to
In article 1E...@escape.ca, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> writes:

}He will live with *your* decision throuogh his adolescent,
}impressionable and formative years and until he is an adult. (unless of
}course you would agree to letting him have a circumcsion at, say, age 12
}if he asked for it.)
}
}He will be denied the benefits of neonatal circumcision which while
}small in number can be serious for those unfortunate enough to develop
}or contract them.

As he would be denied of the benefits of neonatal appendectomy,
which can eliminate ruptured appendices--which can cause death
(quite serious, wouldn't you say?)

Grace Boockholdt


Grace Boockholdt

unread,
7 Jan 2000, 03:00:0007/01/2000
to
In article D590...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu, Jeanne Nielsen Clelland <j...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu> writes:
}Bridget,
}
}I'm with you on this one! I have a variant on this problem: DH's father had to
}be circumsized in his 70's because his foreskin had stopped retracting and was
}getting infected regularly. He's not one to talk about such things, but after
}the operation, he told DH definitively, "Have your sons circ'ed at birth." For
}DH, this is the end of the argument.

Ask DH, "So...if your father had a ruptured appendix and
nearly died from it, should we arrange for a neonatal appendectomy
while the baby is strapped down for the circ? After all...problems
with the appendix occurs more frequently and are more serious
than any problems that 'might' occur with the foreskin."

Oh...and I would have brought up: Ok--if it's ok to perform
preventive surgery on a son's genitals--I suggest we also do
so for a girl. After all--we women frequently get these painful
nasty infections. They deserve equal "protection". What do
you think his reaction would be to that? ;)

}I've tried all sorts of reasoning with
}him: I'd rather it be later in life when he can understand why and participate
}in the choice rather than be subjected to this trauma as a newborn, etc., etc.
}But DH just says "I had it done at birth, don't remember a thing, clearly
}suffered no long-lasting ill-effects,

He can never feel the sexual pleasures that is derived
from the foreskin.

}and Dad says have it done, so we're
}having it done."

Not a sufficient reason. Cultures that believe in female
circ have similar situations: "parent says have it done,
so it's done". Do you think he would find that "reasonable"
to have it done to your daughter? After all, the majority
of circ'd females feel the same way your DH feels: I
don't feel I have suffered any long-lasting ill-effects--
I like it just fine".

}He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
}really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks like I'm going to

}lose this one. I'm hoping we'll have a girl and it won't be an issue!

While I was fortunate not to have had a spouse who was
adamantly opposed to leaving a son intact like you are
describing, even if I did, it would not stop me from preventing
the circumcision.

Grace Boockholdt


***Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed hereinabove are mine
alone and not necessarily those of my employer.

Fragile: Do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate. Not recommended for
children. Do not purchase if seal has been tampered with. May be too
intense for some viewers. May be hazardous to your health. Not
responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages
resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. Batteries not
included. For recreational use. An equal opportunity employer. Some
settling of contents may occur during shipping. Use only as directed.
No other warranty expressed or implied. No postage necessary if mailed
in the United States. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Slightly
higher in California. Keep away from fire or flame. Any rebroadcast,
reproduction, or other use of this game without the express written
consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. Please keep your hands
and arms inside the car while ride is in motion. Any resemblance to
real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Contestants have
been briefed before the show. Do not write below this line.*** :)


Grace Boockholdt

unread,
7 Jan 2000, 03:00:0007/01/2000
to
In article 43...@escape.ca, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> writes:
}Erin Marsh wrote:

}>
}> On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:25:43 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
}> wrote:
}>
}> >Jane Elizabeth wrote:
}> >>
}> >> Hi Bridget,
}> >>
}> >> My husband is 38 and it took a little convincing on my part to get him
}> >> to change his mind. He's circ'ed, but he's fairly open-minded, so I
}> >> barraged him with literature,
}> >
}> >BARRAGED? Is he still 'open-minded' or have you corrected him of that?
}> >
}> >let him see for himself. He changed his
}> >> mind and now regrets that he was circ'ed at birth!
}> >
}> >Yes, the anticirc Cause gains recruits by *barraging* men with
}> >literature, teaching and convincing them that they are mutilated and
}> >sexually substandard - even though there is unlikely to be a shred of
}> >truth in the whole campaign.
}>
}> This was a nice friendly discussion about Bridgets problem before you
}> chimed in. Please keep your pro-circ opinions in the real circ
}> threads. Your opinion does nothing to help Bridget and Jane with their
}> decisions
}
}No but it may save other men from being *barraged* with misinformation

Mighty presumptuous of you to ASSume that she
"barraged" him with *misinformation*. Nice to see
yet another pro-circ'er claim that if it's anti-circ--
it's only "misinformation".

wadi

unread,
8 Jan 2000, 03:00:0008/01/2000
to

Grace Boockholdt <gra...@wolfclan.corp.sun.com> wrote in message
news:855jrs$fdb$1...@corpnews1.corp.sun.com...

> In article D590...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu, Jeanne Nielsen Clelland
<j...@NOSPAM.euclid.colorado.edu> writes:
> }Bridget,
> }
> }I'm with you on this one! I have a variant on this problem: DH's father
had to
> }be circumsized in his 70's because his foreskin had stopped retracting
and was
> }getting infected regularly. He's not one to talk about such things, but
after
> }the operation, he told DH definitively, "Have your sons circ'ed at
birth." For
> }DH, this is the end of the argument.
>
> Ask DH, "So...if your father had a ruptured appendix and
> nearly died from it, should we arrange for a neonatal appendectomy
> while the baby is strapped down for the circ? After all...problems
> with the appendix occurs more frequently and are more serious
> than any problems that 'might' occur with the foreskin."
>
> Oh...and I would have brought up: Ok--if it's ok to perform
> preventive surgery on a son's genitals--I suggest we also do
> so for a girl. After all--we women frequently get these painful
> nasty infections. They deserve equal "protection". What do
> you think his reaction would be to that? ;)
>

heh heh
Back on that one again Grace.
I thought you would have had a new line by now.
It is quite simple really.
Male circumcision provides medical benefits.
Female circumcision does not.
So just more hot air from you as usual Grace.

> }I've tried all sorts of reasoning with
> }him: I'd rather it be later in life when he can understand why and
participate
> }in the choice rather than be subjected to this trauma as a newborn, etc.,
etc.
> }But DH just says "I had it done at birth, don't remember a thing, clearly
> }suffered no long-lasting ill-effects,
>
> He can never feel the sexual pleasures that is derived
> from the foreskin.

LOL
What sexual pleasures would these be Grace?
Real or fictional or just a "speculative possibility"?


> }and Dad says have it done, so we're
> }having it done."
>
> Not a sufficient reason. Cultures that believe in female
> circ have similar situations: "parent says have it done,
> so it's done". Do you think he would find that "reasonable"
> to have it done to your daughter? After all, the majority
> of circ'd females feel the same way your DH feels: I
> don't feel I have suffered any long-lasting ill-effects--
> I like it just fine".
>

Oh dear the daughter line again.
LOL
Getting a bit thin on analogies Grace?

What you consider to be sufficient reason or not is not important.
The underlying fact is that neonatal circumcision is medically beneficial.
Therefore it can not be "wrong".
Now I know you have made a few decisions not to circumcise.
And I accept that it is natural and understandable that you will defend that
decision.
But it is becoming clear that you decisions were made on a pretty shallow
basis.
Don't take your angst out on others Grace.
You made the decision you learn to live with it.


> }He's not usually so unwilling to discuss things, so I'm
> }really surprised at how stubborn he's being, but it looks like I'm going
to
> }lose this one. I'm hoping we'll have a girl and it won't be an issue!
>
> While I was fortunate not to have had a spouse who was
> adamantly opposed to leaving a son intact like you are
> describing, even if I did, it would not stop me from preventing
> the circumcision.
>

Well that's more than we can say for your less than fortunate husband.
Poor guy.
I guess you always get your way.

All that remains is to hear the real reasons why you were so adamant about
not circumcising your son's.
But you are not going to tell us that are Grace?


wadi

unread,
8 Jan 2000, 03:00:0008/01/2000
to

Grace Boockholdt <gra...@wolfclan.corp.sun.com> wrote in message
news:855j8d$d5g$2...@corpnews1.corp.sun.com...

> In article 1E...@escape.ca, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca> writes:
>
[snip]

> }
> }He will be denied the benefits of neonatal circumcision which while
> }small in number can be serious for those unfortunate enough to develop
> }or contract them.
>
> As he would be denied of the benefits of neonatal appendectomy,
> which can eliminate ruptured appendices--which can cause death
> (quite serious, wouldn't you say?)
>
> Grace Boockholdt
>

Grace.
Now that you are back is there any chance that you are going to make an
intellectual contribution to this thread?


wadi

unread,
8 Jan 2000, 03:00:0008/01/2000
to

Grace Boockholdt <gra...@wolfclan.corp.sun.com> wrote in message
news:855k15$fdb$2...@corpnews1.corp.sun.com...

>
> Mighty presumptuous of you to ASSume that she
> "barraged" him with *misinformation*. Nice to see
> yet another pro-circ'er claim that if it's anti-circ--
> it's only "misinformation".
>

Well lets review some of the foreskin friendly facts shall we Grace.

Go ahead Grace give me one intelligent example of an anti-circ truth which
you are able to substantiate.


wadi

unread,
8 Jan 2000, 03:00:0008/01/2000
to

Bridget Smith <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:854r6s$cft$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...

> "wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:8540at$1358$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...
> >
> > > But I am left wondering what value you have discovered in the foreskin
> which
> > makes this worth the effort and of course which is sufficient to
override
> > the religious, cultural and medical factors relating to a circumcision
> decision?
> >
>
> Basically, it's not my choice to make. If I were carrying a girl, I
> wouldn't get her ears pierced as an infant, either. It's not my body to
> mess with.

This is bizarre.
You as a parent are rquired to provide your child with the highest standard
of health possible.
That is why you take him for his shots.
To suddenly shy away from the medical benefits accruing through circumcision
on the basis of it not being your choice is not consistent.
You do "mess" with his body and you do "mess" with his mind.
That is what parents do.
But what is expected of parents is to do what is in the best interests of
their child.


> If my son were born with a heart problem, lung defects, or some
> other serious physical problem that would impact, shorten, or pain his
life,
> then I would OK any surgery needed to get it fixed. But, to cut off a
> harmless body part because others don't agree with its being there? Nope.

Harmless.
At the times of receiving his shots there is unlikely to be any clear and
present danger.
That does not stop us does it.
And despite vociferous minority (not unlike the 4skincentric) who warm us of
the harm, danger and lack of necessity we continue to get the kid his shots.

The foreskin is not as benign as some would have us believe.
There are a number of delinquencies and maladies which are specific to
uncircumcised boys and men.
I don't see any reason why or how the mere presence of the foreskin would be
considered desirable to the extent that the boy must be subjected to any
foreskin related risk whatsoever.


> It's his body, and he can make the choice for himself when he is old
enough
> to decide for himself. If societal pressures get too great for him, then
he
> can figure out how to handle it in a way that is best for him. My job is
to
> give him the people-skills to be able to do this. There are many people
> who, when pressured by society to do what they perceive as being wrong,
> thumb their noses at it. All I can do is raise my son to have strength of
> character, intellegence, and self-respect, so if he has to "thumb his
nose,"

> he can, rather than feel that his only option is to cave in. You have to
do
> what is right for you, and I'm giving my boy the option...just waiting


until
> he's old enough to take it.
>

This would follow from a belief that there is some intrinsic value to having
a foreskin.
What is it?
This is a health, religious, cultural issue not a game of chance.
I am finding it difficult to understand how it is possible for anyone to
deliberately place their child at medical risk on the basis of such a vague
concept such as you attempt to articulate.

Of course you will do what you see fit.
And that is your right as a parent.

Marie & Stephen

unread,
8 Jan 2000, 03:00:0008/01/2000
to

wadi <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:856ns4$1jvu$8...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...

>
> The foreskin is not as benign as some would have us believe.
> There are a number of delinquencies and maladies which are specific to
> uncircumcised boys and men.
> I don't see any reason why or how the mere presence of the foreskin would
be
> considered desirable to the extent that the boy must be subjected to any
> foreskin related risk whatsoever.
>
> This would follow from a belief that there is some intrinsic value to
having
> a foreskin.
> What is it?
> This is a health, religious, cultural issue not a game of chance.
> I am finding it difficult to understand how it is possible for anyone to
> deliberately place their child at medical risk on the basis of such a
vague
> concept such as you attempt to articulate.
>
Wadi,
I understand(but don't agree with) your views on circumcision being for
religious or cultural reasons being acceptable......but explain this to me.
If you think the foreskin is so unhealthy to keep intact and causes so many
health problems, why then are hospitals in Ireland, UK and all the other
countries where circumcision is not carried out as routine or for preventing
health problems, not overflowing with men with foreskin problems, which they
are not. The vast majority of men over here are NOT circumcised. Are
American men unique in not being able maintain foreskins? I doubt it.

--
Marie, in Ireland
Mum to Caoimhe (16/03/98) & Ciarán (08/11/99)
>
>

Bridget Smith

unread,
8 Jan 2000, 03:00:0008/01/2000
to
"wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:856ns4$1jvu$8...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...
>
> This is bizarre. You as a parent are required to provide your child with
the highest standard
> of health possible... To suddenly shy away from the medical benefits

accruing through
> circumcision on the basis of it not being your choice is not consistent.

I'll tell you what IS bizarre...me even responding to this. Wadi, we all
know you don't agree with circumcision, and that is fine. But I don't feel
as if my capabilities as a parent or as a rational human being hinge on my
agreeing or not agreeing with this thread. You an apply the same logic to
tests like AFP and amnio - some of us opt, and some of us don't. You can
rationalize any decision you want to make, and if your language skills are
especially developed, you can even sound intellegent about it. So, I'm just
going to wave the white flag. You don't agree with me...I don't agree with
you. Neither of us are changing our opinions. And so be it.

cox clan

unread,
8 Jan 2000, 03:00:0008/01/2000
to
And that's how it will always be...
Tracy

Bridget Smith wrote in message <857r4f$3n5$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
:"wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

:
:
:

wadi

unread,
9 Jan 2000, 03:00:0009/01/2000
to

Marie & Stephen <ma...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:0ZHd4.4274$J9....@news.indigo.ie...

>
> wadi <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:856ns4$1jvu$8...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...
> >
> > The foreskin is not as benign as some would have us believe.
> > There are a number of delinquencies and maladies which are specific to
> > uncircumcised boys and men.
> > I don't see any reason why or how the mere presence of the foreskin
would
> be
> > considered desirable to the extent that the boy must be subjected to any
> > foreskin related risk whatsoever.
> >
> > This would follow from a belief that there is some intrinsic value to
> having
> > a foreskin.
> > What is it?
> > This is a health, religious, cultural issue not a game of chance.
> > I am finding it difficult to understand how it is possible for anyone to
> > deliberately place their child at medical risk on the basis of such a
> vague
> > concept such as you attempt to articulate.
> >
> Wadi,
> I understand(but don't agree with) your views on circumcision being for
> religious or cultural reasons being acceptable......but explain this to
me.

So you would favour a ban on the procedure?
Have you considered that there may well be aspects of your religious and
cultural practices that others may well find unacceptable?


> If you think the foreskin is so unhealthy to keep intact and causes so
many
> health problems, why then are hospitals in Ireland, UK and all the other
> countries where circumcision is not carried out as routine or for
preventing
> health problems, not overflowing with men with foreskin problems, which
they
> are not. The vast majority of men over here are NOT circumcised.

That is an old line.
It is the same as saying that the majority of people who drive a vehicle
while over the alcohol limit are not involved in an accident so it makes
drunk driving OK.

What we do know is that there are certain risks relating to the foreskin.
In fact some 30,000 under 5's are circumcised for medical reasons under the
NHS in England and Wales every year.
We also know that between 8-12% of all men will develop a foreskin related
delinquency which will require some degree of medical interevention in their
lifetime.
We also know a number of other things about the risks of being uncircumcised
both to the man himself and to his wife/partner.

In a non-circumcising culture one tends to accept these problems as
"normal".
And maybe because of the "reserve" of the people from your islands little
Johnny's foreskin delinquency is not considered a polite topic for
conversation over tea you may not be aware of the scale of the occurrance
within your own community.

There are people who differ from you.
They have a strong ethic in taking action to prevent illness and disease.
They are preventative orientated rather than relying on the curative.
They immunise their children.
They will consent to orthodontic corrective action if their children have
bad teeth.
Etc etc
In the absence of any intrinsic value in the foreskin they are not willing
to enter their son in the great foreskin delinquency lottery.
A safe and simple procedure will provide their son with a net medical
benefit.
And you want it banned because you don't do it in Ireland?


Marie & Stephen

unread,
9 Jan 2000, 03:00:0009/01/2000
to

wadi <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:858kae$1vii$5...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...

> > Wadi,
> > I understand(but don't agree with) your views on circumcision being for
> > religious or cultural reasons being acceptable......but explain this to
> me.
>
> So you would favour a ban on the procedure?
> Have you considered that there may well be aspects of your religious and
> cultural practices that others may well find unacceptable?
>
You picked me up wrong ( and subsequently made an assumption as to what my
thoughts were)
I meant that I can take religion and cultural circumsion as (almost)
acceptable and understandable.
I practice my religion ( RC), I have faith but don't practice, I don't cut
bit's off my body or my children's body's, and don't do anything else
controversial as a matter of fact.

> > If you think the foreskin is so unhealthy to keep intact and causes so
> many
> > health problems, why then are hospitals in Ireland, UK and all the other
> > countries where circumcision is not carried out as routine or for
> preventing
> > health problems, not overflowing with men with foreskin problems, which
> they
> > are not. The vast majority of men over here are NOT circumcised.
>
> That is an old line.
> It is the same as saying that the majority of people who drive a vehicle
> while over the alcohol limit are not involved in an accident so it makes
> drunk driving OK.

An intact foreskin does not kill other people, and more than likely will not
kill it's owner, as in the case of drunk driving.
Not really a relevant analogy.

>
> What we do know is that there are certain risks relating to the foreskin.
> In fact some 30,000 under 5's are circumcised for medical reasons under
the
> NHS in England and Wales every year.

Have a look at;
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/rickwood2/
and
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/williams/
states that
2 Gairdner reported that the foreskin develops entirely normally and free of
all problems in all but 1% of boys by the age of 15.3 Rickwood and Walker,
however, suggest that up to 6% of boys in the Mersey region are circumcised
by the age of 15.1 This highlights a discrepancy in the expected and
observed rates of circumcision. To address this we audited all referrals
from general practitioners for penile problems to this unit.
So therefore, your claim that 30,000 circumcisions may be carried out in the
UK each year may be true, it doesn't meant that they are necessary.
I cannot come up with actual numbers regarding circumcision in Ireland, but
leave it with me, I will prove myself correct, regardless of the fact that
it's not a teatime discussion.

> We also know that between 8-12% of all men will develop a foreskin related
> delinquency which will require some degree of medical interevention in
their
> lifetime.

Still not high enough to warrant routine neonatal circumcision.

> We also know a number of other things about the risks of being
uncircumcised
> both to the man himself and to his wife/partner.
>

Wadi, that somewhat rectangular shaped item on the wall in your bathroom, is
a sink, that, between your legs, is a penis, wash it...........problem
solved. Educate young boys on the importance of hygiene. Needless to say
their mothers will.
This is extracted from
http://www.norm-uk.co.uk/
Phimosis 44% - 91%.A recent article published in the British Journal of
Urology International,(1999, 84,101-102) stated "The number of boys in
England as a whole currently circumcised for `phimosis', at 3.3/1000 per
year consequently exceeds by more than eight times that expected from the
present estimate of the incidence of pathological phimosis..."

BXO (Balanitis xerotica obliterans) 1% - 16% (many Health Authorities
reported 0%). Circumcision has been reported as being ineffective in
preventing or treating BXO. It responds to corticosteroids, topical
testosterone or carbon dioxide laser treatment.

Balanoposthitis <1% - 12% . Balanitis and posthitis are both infections.
Recurring infections can be treated conservatively with antibiotics.

Religious/Ritual <1% - 12%. The NHS Patients Charter (1995) states "You have
a right to...receive health care on the basis of your clinical need, not on
your ability to pay, your lifestyle, or any other factor."

Guidelines and Audits: Guidelines provide direction and procedures for the
medical profession. Audits check practices within a Health Authority meet
the current policies or guidelines.

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (LONDON)Volume 306, Pages 1-22,
2 January 1993.

SAVE THE NORMAL FORESKIN
By Andrew Gordon and Jack Collin

The increased number of urinary tract infections seen in uncircumcised young
children may be due to "hospital strains" of p fimbriated Escherichia coli
acquired in the unnatural environment of modern obstetric units9 rather than
being directly related to the foreskin. Paraphimosis is rare in children and
unlikely to account for a substantial number of circumcisions.

No respondent supplied a Policy for the Management of Foreskin Problems.
No Health Authority could provide an audit of their circumcision practices.
Age at time of surgery: 30% of circumcisions performed are on patients
between 0 - 6 years of age. 45% are performed before the age of 10.


> In a non-circumcising culture one tends to accept these problems as
> "normal".
> And maybe because of the "reserve" of the people from your islands little
> Johnny's foreskin delinquency is not considered a polite topic for
> conversation over tea you may not be aware of the scale of the occurrance
> within your own community.

True enough, but we all have brothers, dads, uncles and male cousins, and if
any of those had penis problems, through the female relation grapevine, I am
sure we would get to hear it, you would be amazed what we discuss over a pot
of tea. I have never heard of Irish people to be 'reserved'.
Not saying there are NO circumcisions, just that there is no outbreak of
penis problems over here, as you would have us believe.

> There are people who differ from you.

Really, gosh I would never have knownl.

> They have a strong ethic in taking action to prevent illness and disease.

As do I, but cutting a part of my son's penis 'in case' he develops problems
due to it being there, doesn't figure, because
a. he can get it sorted it out when and IF it does happen
b. the incidence of it happening is quite low
I may as well get his nose removed just in case he picks up my really
annoying rhinitis.

> They are preventative orientated rather than relying on the curative.
> They immunise their children.

I do and will continue to immunise my children because they can die from the
diseases they could pick up if not, but that's a whole different kettle of
fish.

> They will consent to orthodontic corrective action if their children have
> bad teeth.

Yes, but who sees 5 year old children with braces, it's not until problems
begin to arise in the adult teeth that corrective action is pursued.

> Etc etc
> In the absence of any intrinsic value in the foreskin they are not willing
> to enter their son in the great foreskin delinquency lottery.
> A safe and simple procedure will provide their son with a net medical
> benefit.

But perhaps many psychological problems to boot.

http://www.hayward.co.uk/bjsm/bjsm25no5
Psychosexual aspects of circumcision
Michael Harbinson MA(Oxon) MB BS DRCOG GP, Stanley County Durham'It is not
things themselves, but opinions concerning things that disturb the minds of
men'

The operation of circumcision is as old as humanity itself, but from the
very beginning it has been regarded with ambivalence. In Ancient Egypt, it
was used as an alternative to castration to mark slaves, but it was also
associated with purity and the priesthood. The poet Juvenal regarded those
Romans who experimented with circumcision as degenerate. Yet, by improving
genital hygiene and preventing balanoposthitis, circumcision developed an
aesthetic and spiritual significance still manifest in our language today.
No other normal part of the human anatomy is afforded the prefix 'un-', as
in 'uncircumcised'.

Key points
The operation of circumcision is as old as humanity itself, but from the
very beginning it has been regarded with ambivalence.
In spite of the activity of the anti-circumcision groups, the operation is
still fashionable in the USA.
Women believe that circumcision offers a visual guarantee of male hygiene.
During sex, perceptions of body image are crucial - the fact that many women
prefer circumcised partners is entrenched in our psychosexual history.

> And you want it banned because you don't do it in Ireland?

Show me where I said that......
I don't agree with circumsion fro medical reasons.
Religious and cultural reasons, are a completely separate issue.
Take care

wadi

unread,
9 Jan 2000, 03:00:0009/01/2000
to

Marie & Stephen <ma...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:xKRd4.4405$J9....@news.indigo.ie...

>
> wadi <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:858kae$1vii$5...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...
> > > Wadi,
> > > I understand(but don't agree with) your views on circumcision being
for
> > > religious or cultural reasons being acceptable......but explain this
to
> > me.
> >
> > So you would favour a ban on the procedure?
> > Have you considered that there may well be aspects of your religious and
> > cultural practices that others may well find unacceptable?
> >
> You picked me up wrong ( and subsequently made an assumption as to what my
> thoughts were)
> I meant that I can take religion and cultural circumsion as (almost)
> acceptable and understandable.
> I practice my religion ( RC), I have faith but don't practice, I don't cut
> bit's off my body or my children's body's, and don't do anything else
> controversial as a matter of fact.
>

It is interesting that you do not consider that anything in your Irish
culture or the practice of RC would be found to be controvesial by anyone.
Interesting rather than strange.
Interesting in that it perfectly illustrates my point.
So you hear that about 25% of males in the world get circumcised.
Response ..... "we don't do that".
It's then a small step to "if we don't do it it must be unneccessary".
Again a small step leads to "it's not only unneccessary it's downright
wrong".

In following the circ related threads over time I have come to realise that
a number of the arguments both pro and con are developed after the fact.

A good example of this exists here in this group.
There is a woman who came from a circumcisiong family/environment and who
got married to a man from South America (uncircumcised).
When the topic was raised hubbie said "over my dead body".
That was that.
Subsequently our lady has become quite the expert on the subject.
Like you she can cite chapter and verse from all the skin freak websites and
put what she thinks is a pretty coherent case together.
But all she really has to do is convince herself.
To allay any angst she may still have over their decision.

My approach is that it is a perfectly acceptable option for parents for
religious, cultural and medical reasons.
If the first two don't apply to you and you are unaware or unconvinced
of/about the third then you don't make the decision.
I don't have a problem with that.
When I see a post from a skin freak to a woman, who had her son circumcised,
calling her a "mutilating abusive bitch" it kind of gets right up my nose
and I go after them.


[snip]


> >
> > That is an old line.
> > It is the same as saying that the majority of people who drive a vehicle
> > while over the alcohol limit are not involved in an accident so it makes
> > drunk driving OK.
>
> An intact foreskin does not kill other people, and more than likely will
not
> kill it's owner, as in the case of drunk driving.
> Not really a relevant analogy.
>

Really?
You obviously are not keeping current with evidence emerging from the
HIV/AIDS epidemic.
It has been established through a number of studies that the lack of male
circumcision is one of the risk factors for women being infected by HIV.

==========================
(HCG) Women and HIV
Clinical Care Options for HIV; Wednesday, October 8, 1997
Alexandra Levine, M.D.

"Women now constitute approximately 40% of all AIDS cases worldwide, and
approximately 20% of cases in the United States. ........ Risk factors for
such heterosexual transmission include presence of another
sexually-transmitted disease; lack of circumcision; cervical ectopy;
intercourse during menses; high viral load in the HIV positive partner."
==========================

The increased risk of HIV infection for women has been pegged at 3 times
higher when their husband/partner is uncircumcised.

And the increased risk of HIV infection for an uncircumcised man is between
3-8 times depending on the timing of the circumcision and the amount of
residual foreskin remaining.

So I think the analogy is quite good.

> >
> > What we do know is that there are certain risks relating to the
foreskin.
> > In fact some 30,000 under 5's are circumcised for medical reasons under
> the
> > NHS in England and Wales every year.
> Have a look at;
> http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/rickwood2/
> and
> http://www.cirp.org/library/general/williams/

Oh yes cirp.org
Guaranteed to find all the foreskin friendly stuff there.
But you need to be careful of what and how Geoffrey posts stuff there.
In fact it is a good example of how one can make a case for something by
carefully selecting some information and cunningly omitting other.
Be aware, with our Geoffrey it is not a case of what you see is what you
get, unfortunately.


> states that
> 2 Gairdner reported that the foreskin develops entirely normally and free
of
> all problems in all but 1% of boys by the age of 15.3 Rickwood and Walker,
> however, suggest that up to 6% of boys in the Mersey region are
circumcised
> by the age of 15.1 This highlights a discrepancy in the expected and
> observed rates of circumcision. To address this we audited all referrals
> from general practitioners for penile problems to this unit.

You see the danger of accepting the carefully selected stuff from the skin
freak websites?
What did Gairdener really say?


==========================
DEC. 24, 1949
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 2, 1433-1437

THE FATE OF THE FORESKIN
A STUDY OF CIRCUMCISION
BY
DOUGLAS GAIRDNER, D.M., M.R.C.P.

relevant quote:
"Prepuce of the Older Child. - Of 200 uncircumcised boys aged 5­-13 years
from three different schools, 6% had a non­retractable prepuce; in a further
14% the prepuce could be only partially retracted. In the majority of boys
in this age group non­retractability depends upon the persistence of a few
strands of tissue between prepuce and glans, so that minimal force is
required to achieve retractability. In this age group, however, retraction
of a hitherto unretracted prepuce discovers inspissated smegma, which, in
contrast to that found in the younger child, is in some cases malodorous.
This, together with the facts discussed under penile cancer, indicates that
a different view ought to be taken of the non­retractable prepuce in the
child over about 5 years, and that, whereas a non­retractable prepuce in the
young child should be accepted with equanimity as normal, after about 3
years of age steps should be taken to render the prepuce of all boys
retractable and capable of being kept clean."
==========================

So where did the 1% delinquency rate come from?
Either from you or from Geoffrey not from Gaidener.
You get the benefit of the doubt because I would not put anything past that
nasty piece of work.

OK so in fact it is 20% not 1% (6% totally nonretractable and 14% partially
nonretractable).
Now the skin freaks, very few of which are doctors, will tell you to just
leave the foreskin alone.
Don't force it, leave it to nature.
But that is not what Gairdener said at all.
Read again what Gairdener said: ".... after about 3 years of age steps
should be taken to render the prepuce of all boys retractable and capable of
being kept clean."

See what I mean about the selective use and in this case the misuse of
references?


> So therefore, your claim that 30,000 circumcisions may be carried out in
the
> UK each year may be true, it doesn't meant that they are necessary.

It is not my claim.
Your Williams stated that in the piece at the the URL you posted above.
He said:
"Most of the 30 000 circumcisions performed in the United Kingdom each year
are done on boys aged under 15"
Now I had that as under the age of 5.
(I will try to check which is correct.)

And of course the skin freaks will tell you that most were/are unneccessary.
They don't want you to learn that your uncircumcised son will have a 8-12%
(or as Gairdener found 20%) chance of a retractile problem that will require
medical intervention do they?
But there is more to it.

It has been noted that medical inspection of boys for the ability to retract
the foreskin are carried out when the penis is in the flaccid state. This
fails to identify boys who are able to squeeze the glans out while flaccid
but are unable to retract at all when erect.
And where medical inspections are not carried out parents are unable to
observe what is happening with their son as long before the age of 15 they
have ceased to bath him let alone physically wash his penis.
And all this together with the reticence of parents to discuss such imtimate
details with their sons there is little wonder why three independent
researchers found as follows:

=========================
Saitmacher studied 229 boys (aged between 14 and 19). He reported 8.7% where
"the foreskin could be retracted only with difficulty or with pain,".
Saitmacher noted: "It was completely unknown to some of the examined boys
that the foreskin could be retracted."

Osmond reports 8% of 1,000 British soldiers had foreskins which could not be
retracted. He writes "The ignorance of these young soldiers is remarkable;
many of them expressed surprise at the condition revealed when they
retracted their foreskins : some of them had apparently never done so in
their lives."

Parkash studied 1,000 men and reported an incidence of 12% with phimosis, he
wrote: "Since most patients were unaware that the prepuce was retractable,
the history of phimosis often appeared to be from birth."
==========================

> I cannot come up with actual numbers regarding circumcision in Ireland,
but
> leave it with me, I will prove myself correct, regardless of the fact that
> it's not a teatime discussion.
>

While you are doing that, try an find out how many males in Ireland know
that (as Gairdener recommended) the foreskin should be "retractable and
capable of being kept clean."


> > We also know that between 8-12% of all men will develop a foreskin
related
> > delinquency which will require some degree of medical interevention in
> their
> > lifetime.
>
> Still not high enough to warrant routine neonatal circumcision.
>

That's just from phimosis and retractile problems.
What about the other foreskin related maladies?

8-12% delinquency rate not enough for you?
I'm astounded.
Well we differ on that.


> > We also know a number of other things about the risks of being
> uncircumcised
> > both to the man himself and to his wife/partner.
> >
> Wadi, that somewhat rectangular shaped item on the wall in your bathroom,
is
> a sink, that, between your legs, is a penis, wash it...........problem
> solved. Educate young boys on the importance of hygiene. Needless to say
> their mothers will.
> This is extracted from
> http://www.norm-uk.co.uk/

Yes I know the place.
Pop in there from time to time to see what the skin freaks are up to.
And of course I am waiting with baited breath for:

"Circumcision does not prevent AIDS or HIV infection."

They have been promising this for some months now, but all we get is:

"Circumcision and HIV
List of Articles Showing That HIV is Not Prevented by Circumcision
Coming soon."

heh heh
heh heh heh

Promises, promises.

But in the meantime if you are really interested goto www.aegis.com and do
searches under "circumcision", "foreskin" and "langerhans cells" and see
what the facts are.

{some stats and stuff snipped as can't see the relevance}

If you want to take that stuff a stage further you can reintroduce it if you
like.


> > In a non-circumcising culture one tends to accept these problems as
> > "normal".
> > And maybe because of the "reserve" of the people from your islands
little
> > Johnny's foreskin delinquency is not considered a polite topic for
> > conversation over tea you may not be aware of the scale of the
occurrance
> > within your own community.
>
> True enough, but we all have brothers, dads, uncles and male cousins, and
if
> any of those had penis problems, through the female relation grapevine, I
am
> sure we would get to hear it, you would be amazed what we discuss over a
pot
> of tea. I have never heard of Irish people to be 'reserved'.
> Not saying there are NO circumcisions, just that there is no outbreak of
> penis problems over here, as you would have us believe.
>

I am not wanting you to believe anything.
My belief is that a neonatal circumcision for religious, cultural and
medical reasons is an absolutely acceptable option for parents.
Personally I believe it to be desirable.
If you seek your information from the likes of cirp and norm I put it to you
that you will end up woefully misinformed on the issue.
Surely there must come a time when you ask yourself why if the case against
circumcision was so persuasive is it necessary for the skin freak websites
to indulge in such an astounding level of misinformation, deceit and lies?
Why don't you discuss THATover tea?


> > There are people who differ from you.

> Really, gosh I would never have knownl.
>

My, my we are sarky today aren't we.

> > They have a strong ethic in taking action to prevent illness and
disease.

> As do I, but cutting a part of my son's penis 'in case' he develops
problems
> due to it being there, doesn't figure, because
> a. he can get it sorted it out when and IF it does happen
> b. the incidence of it happening is quite low
> I may as well get his nose removed just in case he picks up my really
> annoying rhinitis.
>

That was my point about the difference between a preventative approach and a
curative one.
Some people take a different view.
They say, no way am I going to just sit back and wait for disease to strike,
I am going to take preventaive action.
And then they get shots for their kids and the like.


> > They are preventative orientated rather than relying on the curative.
> > They immunise their children.

> I do and will continue to immunise my children because they can die from
the
> diseases they could pick up if not, but that's a whole different kettle of
> fish.
>

No it is not a whole different kettle of fish.

Which shots is your kid going to get?

BCG, Chicken Pox, Cholera, Diphtheria, Encephalitis, Hepatitis A, B, Hib,
Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Meningitis, Pneumococcal, Polio, Rabies, Rota
Virus, Salmonella, Tetanus, Tick-borne Encephalitis, Typhoid, Whooping
cough, Yellow Fever?

The AAP recommends as follows:
"By making sure that your child gets immunized on time, you can provide the
best available defense against many dangerous childhood diseases.
Immunizations protect children against: hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps,
rubella (German measles), pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, tetanus
(lockjaw), Haemophilus influenzae type b, and chickenpox. All of these
immunizations need to be given before children are 2 years old in order for
them to be protected during their most vulnerable period. Are your child's
immunizations up-to-date?"

So you are only going to immunise your son against diseases which will lead
to certain death if contracted?
If you did you would be consistent.

But that is not the idea is it.
He will get what the Health Service recommends.
This is inconsistent with your approach to the foreskin and it's
delinquencies..
And is a contradiction that you appear to fail to acknowledge.


> > They will consent to orthodontic corrective action if their children
have
> > bad teeth.

> Yes, but who sees 5 year old children with braces, it's not until problems
> begin to arise in the adult teeth that corrective action is pursued.
>

But it is purely cosmetic.
You know, the Hollywood smile and all that.
You are happy enough for the guy to get amongst your child's teeth with
hammer and chisel and wire but not to touch the sacred foreskin?
Again an inconsistency.


> > Etc etc
> > In the absence of any intrinsic value in the foreskin they are not
willing
> > to enter their son in the great foreskin delinquency lottery.
> > A safe and simple procedure will provide their son with a net medical
> > benefit.

> But perhaps many psychological problems to boot.
>
> http://www.hayward.co.uk/bjsm/bjsm25no5
> Psychosexual aspects of circumcision
> Michael Harbinson MA(Oxon) MB BS DRCOG GP, Stanley County Durham'It is not
> things themselves, but opinions concerning things that disturb the minds
of
> men'
>

[snip]


> In spite of the activity of the anti-circumcision groups, the operation is
> still fashionable in the USA.

heh heh
He and obviously you underestimate the intelligence of the average American.
Do you really believe Americans can not see through the lies, deceit and
misinformation as put out by the notorious "anti-circumcision groups"?
Another thing you may not know about the Americans is that they get as mean
as a rattle snake when they realise that someone is is attempting to
bullshit them.
Standby for the backlash.


> Women believe that circumcision offers a visual guarantee of male hygiene.

I would say visual AND olfactory.

> During sex, perceptions of body image are crucial - the fact that many
women
> prefer circumcised partners is entrenched in our psychosexual history.
>

Well that may be true.
The little fireman is quite popular around here too.
All this does not contribute to the self esteem of the uncircumcised does
it?


> > And you want it banned because you don't do it in Ireland?

> Show me where I said that......

Did you see the question mark?
I was querying if my deduction was correct.

> I don't agree with circumsion fro medical reasons.
> Religious and cultural reasons, are a completely separate issue.
> Take care
>

Now you have really got me confused.
So it is fine to circumcise as part of a religious ritual but not to
circumcise on the basis that you want to honour your child's right to the
highest possible standard of health?


Carolann G Lazarus

unread,
10 Jan 2000, 03:00:0010/01/2000
to
UM - I don't usually get involved in these threads, but I know I read in
my local paper about a year ago that the US Pediatricians (sorry, I don't
remember the formal group name) have stopped recommending routine circs
for health prevention reasons. The numbers were just not compelling
enough. The vast majority of men will have no problems if they practice
good hygeine, and most other problems would be minor (say an infection).

They didn't say to actually stop doing them, just that doing them for
health reasons isn't compelling.

Also, over 15 years ago I read an article in Time Magazine that said many
of the studies linking uncirc'd men and cervical cancer had been faulty.
Followup with the men and women noted that they didn't know if the men had
been circ'd or not, so were guessing on their responses. I remember this
vividly because I couldn't believe grown men wouldn't know - but of the 3
men in the room at the time, only one knew, and he was not. So much for
being teased in a locker room - these 2 guys went thru grade school and
college without ever looking at the other guys in the locker rooms.

Anyway - that's my .02

(I'm from the - it's your decision, but have you thought about it at all -
school of thought. I think most people do it because they don't know why
they are doing it - it is just the norm.)
--
Carol
laz...@acsu.buffalo.edu

John Pritchard

unread,
10 Jan 2000, 03:00:0010/01/2000
to
Carolann G Lazarus wrote:
>
> UM - I don't usually get involved in these threads, but I know I read in
> my local paper about a year ago that the US Pediatricians (sorry, I don't
> remember the formal group name) have stopped recommending routine circs
> for health prevention reasons. The numbers were just not compelling
> enough. The vast majority of men will have no problems if they practice
> good hygeine, and most other problems would be minor (say an infection).
>
> They didn't say to actually stop doing them, just that doing them for
> health reasons isn't compelling.

Perhaps this is the report you had in mind:

http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html

Policy Statement


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pediatrics Volume 103, Number 3 March 1999, pp
686-693
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850)

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

Task Force on Circumcision

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of
newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to
recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there
are
potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the
child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best
interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male
infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be
provided
the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision
is
made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
end quote
> --
> Carol
> laz...@acsu.buffalo.edu

Grace Boockholdt

unread,
10 Jan 2000, 03:00:0010/01/2000
to
In article 1...@lucia.acsu.buffalo.edu, laz...@lucia.acsu.buffalo.edu (Carolann G Lazarus) writes:
}UM - I don't usually get involved in these threads, but I know I read in
}my local paper about a year ago that the US Pediatricians (sorry, I don't
}remember the formal group name) have stopped recommending routine circs
}for health prevention reasons. The numbers were just not compelling
}enough. The vast majority of men will have no problems if they practice
}good hygeine, and most other problems would be minor (say an infection).
}
}They didn't say to actually stop doing them, just that doing them for
}health reasons isn't compelling.
}
}Also, over 15 years ago I read an article in Time Magazine that said many
}of the studies linking uncirc'd men and cervical cancer had been faulty.
}Followup with the men and women noted that they didn't know if the men had
}been circ'd or not, so were guessing on their responses. I remember this
}vividly because I couldn't believe grown men wouldn't know - but of the 3
}men in the room at the time, only one knew, and he was not. So much for
}being teased in a locker room - these 2 guys went thru grade school and
}college without ever looking at the other guys in the locker rooms.
}
}Anyway - that's my .02
}
}(I'm from the - it's your decision, but have you thought about it at all -
}school of thought. I think most people do it because they don't know why
}they are doing it - it is just the norm.)

The "your" in "it's your decision" ought to be the
male individual himself. "It's the norm" applies
for people who believe in female circ (all forms--
there's more than one, folks) and yet, parents
can't make that decision as in "it's your decision".

John Pritchard

unread,
11 Jan 2000, 03:00:0011/01/2000
to
Grace Boockholdt wrote:
>
> In article 1...@lucia.acsu.buffalo.edu, laz...@lucia.acsu.buffalo.edu (Carolann G Lazarus) writes:

> }Anyway - that's my .02
> }
> }(I'm from the - it's your decision, but have you thought about it at all -
> }school of thought. I think most people do it because they don't know why
> }they are doing it - it is just the norm.)
>
> The "your" in "it's your decision" ought to be the
> male individual himself. "It's the norm" applies
> for people who believe in female circ (all forms--
> there's more than one, folks) and yet, parents
> can't make that decision as in "it's your decision".
>
> Grace Boockholdt

The male and female part are quite different and what may be appropriate
and beneficial for one may not be for the other. We have seen medical
benefits for males which because of anatomy are not available to
females. Should males be denied the benefits on this basis along?

A parent cannot avoid a decision. A decision to do nothing is in itself
a decision. The child must live with that decision through his formative
years in addition to being denied those benefits which are only
available with neonatal circumcision.

The parents should be careful as to whether they are more interested in
their own self-satisfaction or the welfare of the child.

Neal

unread,
13 Jan 2000, 03:00:0013/01/2000
to
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:54:59 GMT, John Pritchard <jpri...@escape.ca>
wrote:

...


>A parent cannot avoid a decision. A decision to do nothing is in itself
>a decision.

I only wish my mother had made such a decision.

>The child must live with that decision through his formative
>years in addition to being denied those benefits which are only
>available with neonatal circumcision.

Yes! I could have grown up whole. Spared the shock when I discovered
I was circumcised. Avoided the corrective surgery when I was 25.

>The parents should be careful as to whether they are more interested in
>their own self-satisfaction or the welfare of the child.

Yes!! Doesn't that come into play when they circumcise so he will
match his father?

Neal

unread,
13 Jan 2000, 03:00:0013/01/2000
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:03:32 +0200, "wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

...


>Male circumcision provides medical benefits.
>Female circumcision does not.

The people who perform circumcision on their daughters believe that it
has medical benefits, just like the people who have male circumcisions
performed believe that it has medical benefits.

...


>What you consider to be sufficient reason or not is not important.
>The underlying fact is that neonatal circumcision is medically beneficial.

But no reputable medical society believes that there is enough benefit
(and the finding of benefit is lessening every time they do a new
study) to justify infant male circumcision.

>Therefore it can not be "wrong".

HUH????

Neal

unread,
13 Jan 2000, 03:00:0013/01/2000
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:49:24 +0200, "wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>
>Bridget Smith <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:854r6s$cft$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...

...
>This is bizarre.
>You as a parent are rquired to provide your child with the highest standard
>of health possible.

That's what she is trying to do.

>That is why you take him for his shots.

>To suddenly shy away from the medical benefits accruing through circumcision
>on the basis of it not being your choice is not consistent.

There is no comparison between immunizations and circumcision except
at a very shallow level.

>You do "mess" with his body and you do "mess" with his mind.
>That is what parents do.

>But what is expected of parents is to do what is in the best interests of
>their child.

That's what she is doing.
...
>The foreskin is not as benign as some would have us believe.
>There are a number of delinquencies

Please quote a medical study that speaks of "delinquencies" or please
stop using the term.

>and maladies which are specific to
>uncircumcised boys and men.
>I don't see any reason why or how the mere presence of the foreskin would be
>considered desirable to the extent that the boy must be subjected to any
>foreskin related risk whatsoever.

But somehow, virtually all the people in the world, less those who
circumcise religiously, and pockets of circumcisers in the
English-speaking countries, consider the presence of the foreskin
desirable. Please explain.

...


>This would follow from a belief that there is some intrinsic value to having
>a foreskin.
>What is it?
>This is a health, religious, cultural issue not a game of chance.
>I am finding it difficult to understand how it is possible for anyone to
>deliberately place their child at medical risk on the basis of such a vague
>concept such as you attempt to articulate.

Medical risk?
Parents leave a male infant at a greater risk of testicular cancer
when they do not castrate him before puberty.
Parents leave a male infant at a greater risk of breast cancer if they
do not have his breasts removed at birth.
There are potentially hundreds of things that we could do to prevent
future health problems that are not done.
When the medical societies state that there is not enough benefit in
circumcision to recommend it, then I think that the risk is acceptably
small.

>Of course you will do what you see fit.
>And that is your right as a parent.

No it isn't. If I think that the fit thing to do is beat my kids with
a belt, in public, every day, the state will interfere. Doing what
they see fit is not an absolute right of a parent.

A thought problem: What is you were not my kid, and that when and in
the place that you were born mutilation by removing the nose and ears
was not 1) believed by most to have medical value and 2) accepted by
the culture. If I had known how you would turn out, I would have done
it. And later given you weak excuses about "I had to make a decision,
I did as I thought best" when you moved into a culture where you were
the only one mutilated.

Darrell Reamer

unread,
13 Jan 2000, 03:00:0013/01/2000
to
Something everyone seems to be missing out on here is that it is still a
choice made by the parents. Granted, they are supposed to be educated
regarding the risks and benefits by their health practitioner. But that
doesn't always address the issue of why they should/should not have the circ
done. Personally, I feel that whatever decision is made, anesthesia should
be offered to those kiddos who are circ'd. Even though, many do not protest
during the procedure itself.
Diana
due 3/26/00 (boy)

Neal

unread,
14 Jan 2000, 03:00:0014/01/2000
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:58:10 -0900, "Darrell Reamer"
<darrell...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Something everyone seems to be missing out on here is that it is still a
>choice made by the parents.

Yes, it is. Just like female circumcision is a choice made by the
parents in Somalia, Egypt, and a few other countries. And there the
"medical practitioners" honor the choice of the parents, just like
they do here. Does that make it right?

>Granted, they are supposed to be educated
>regarding the risks and benefits by their health practitioner. But that
>doesn't always address the issue of why they should/should not have the circ
>done. Personally, I feel that whatever decision is made, anesthesia should
>be offered to those kiddos who are circ'd.

But most circumcisions are done by OB/GYNs, who are the least likely
to use anesthesia.

Neal

unread,
14 Jan 2000, 03:00:0014/01/2000
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:35:13 -0800, Don <see.address@below> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:58:02 GMT, Neal
><neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> wrote:
>
>>There is no comparison between immunizations and circumcision except
>>at a very shallow level.
>

>There is as much or more of a comparison to be made between
>immunizations and circumcision as there is between the male and
>female circumcision (which comparison is quite popular with some
>anticircumcision activists). According to the anti-immunization
>crowd, at least some routine immunizations are not only
>unnecessary but far more damaging to health than is an ordinary
>neonatal circumcision.

My youngest child is 24, so we were not offered a shot for chicken
pox, etc., I'm not sure we would have accepted. So I can't speak for
some of the newer immunizations for some of the more minor diseases.

I was visiting my sister in North Carolina around this past
Thanksgiving. I clipped these news items from the paper. When was
the last time you saw articles like these? They speak very strongly
for the value of immunization. Have you ever seen fines imposed for
an uncircumcised man coming into a city?

Begin excerpts form the 100 years ago, 75 years ago features:

City Restricts Travel from Area with smallpox outbreak

100 YEARS AGO
From the. Greensboro Evening Patriot, Nov. 24-30, 1899

An outbreak of smallpox at the Pomona Terra Cotta Works has prompted
Greensboro aldermen to pass an ordinance restricting travel to the
city from the Pomona area.
The ordinance requires that, for the next 30 days, anyone from that
area coming into the city must have a doctor's certificate of
vaccination against smallpox. The penalty for violating the ordinance
was set at $2,000.
Nineteen persons who either work at or live near the Terra Cotta Works
have smallpox. The cases are all of a mild form, and none of the
patients is dangerously ill.
The county commissioners urged everyone not already vaccinated to get
a shot at once. The commissioners said the county will pay the
vaccination cost for those who can't afford it.
If their warning is ignored and the disease spreads, "it may become
necessary for us ... to order compulsory vaccination," the
commissioners said.
...
Two more students of State Normal and Industrial College have died of
typhoid since an epidemic of the fever broke out there earlier this
month. Most of the girls suffering with the fever are reported
improving but here remain two or three seriously ill, including a
sister of Miss Sara Bailey of Mooresville who died this week. Cause
of the outbreak still has not been determined....
...
75 Years Ago - From the Greensboro Daily News, Nov 24-30, 1924.

Dr. C.C. Hudson, city public health officer, said about 1,500 school
children have been vaccinated against smallpox this year, bringing to
9,000 the number of students in the system who are inoculated against
the disease.

shmily

unread,
27 Jan 2000, 03:00:0027/01/2000
to

<anonymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86r6pg$epm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <84ui23$13m$2...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>,
> "wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > heh heh
> > I must admit to a sort of grotesque fascination with the crap posted
> by the
> > 4skincentric.
> > Weird people, weird thoughts.
> >
>
> Wadi...I have no idea who you are, nor what your problem is, nor where
> your preposterous arrogance and flippant rudeness on this difficult
> subject came from. I simply invite you to search "foreskin restoration"
> on the net. NOBODY needs to "propagandize" or "brainwash" the men who
> were involuntarily circumcised at birth, and who have experienced (as
> adults) deep feelings of sexual trauma and violation, to undertake the
> arduous task of having their natural foreskins restored, either
> surgically or by weighted stretching. I was circumcised at birth. And
> although I haven't undertaken foreskin restoration, I would do so in a
> flash, if the process were not so demanding. Your description of men who
> mourn the involuntary loss of their foreskins as "weird people" is
> almost too insulting to rejoin. While I can support circumcision for
> devout religious reasons, I heartily urge all prospective moms and dads,
> for whom religious belief is not an issue, to led the boy DECIDE FOR
> HIMSELF whether he wishes to be cosmetically circumcised as an
> adolescent (or later in life). Your ignorant arrogance has, frankly,
> infuriated me. The parents and parents-to-be engaged in a serious and
> generally sober discussion in this thread deserve more consideration and
> respect than the rude and arrogant sniping in which you're engaged. What
> IS your problem? Knock it off. And grow up.
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Excellent post.

Norma

anonymo...@my-deja.com

unread,
28 Jan 2000, 03:00:0028/01/2000
to

wadi

unread,
28 Jan 2000, 03:00:0028/01/2000
to

shmily <shm...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ObBkB3Ua$GA.300@cpmsnbbsa02...

>
> <anonymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:86r6pg$epm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
>
> Excellent post.
>
> Norma
>

Gee Norma you are really starting to keep strange company.
You rush to support the post with a child like glee.
Yet who is this "anonymoose2000"?
I promise you as the mother of (I believe) 4 boys you don't want to know.
And I guess once you find out you and every other parent or future parent
will want to distance themselves from him and his ilk instantly.

I have attempted to explain to the folk here that despite some overtly
"reasonably sounding" arguments these genitally obsessed creatures do in
fact have a hidden agenda.
And this agenda is sexual and not as they attempt to portray themselves as
child rights activists.
Yes they are very interested in children but not in the way you and others
have been led to believe but in an altogether more disgracefully
unacceptable way.

So who is this "child rights activist" you believe made such an excellent
post and what company does he keep?

Try a search and find that he sometimes hangs out in alt.support.boy-lovers.
So please do the search and confirm what I am saying.
But in the meantime read the post below.

=========================
> (beginning of original message)
>
> Subject: Re: porn
> From: anonymo...@my-deja.com
> Date: 1999/08/04
> Newsgroups: alt.support.boy-lovers
> In article <29014-379...@newsd-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> gv...@webtv.net (Joseph Signorelli) wrote:
> > older white male l WOULD LOVE SEE PICTURES OF UNCUT BOYS
> > 14 AND YOUNGER IM REALLY ATRACKED TO LITTLE FRENCH
> > CANADIAN BOYS I LOVE WATCHING THEM AT THE BEACH IN FLORIDA
> AND
> > LOOKING AT THEIR BEAUTIFUL PEE -PEES THROUGH THE HOLE IN
> > THE BATHROOM STALL I STAY IN THERE HOURS AND HOURS WITH THE BOOR
> > LOCKED JERKING OFF AS I WATCH HUNDREDS OF LITLE FRENCH
> CANADIAN
> > BOYS PEE PEES SOME OF THE OLDER BOYS 13 TO16 START JERKING OFF SOME
> > OF THE YOUNGER START TOUCHING THEMSHELFS LIKE 7TO12 SOME
> STAND
> > THERE LONG A LONG TIME AFTER THEIR DONE PEEING AND LOVE TO BE
> > TOUCHED AND SUCKED THEY HAVE SUCH BIG PEE PEES EVEN WHEN
> > THEIR LITTLE LITTLE BOYS I LOVE THEM SO MUCH I LOVE TO
> WATCH
> > THEM AS MUCH DO YOU
> >
> Hmmmm...I take your point. I understand Quebec families like to vacation
> in Florida, for some reason. And Quebec boys do seem to be a lot more
> open and relaxed about "being boys" in the way they use their natural
> fixins', without being unduly inhibited or self-conscious. This was
> my experience growing up in a French-Canadian community. The culture
> in some ways is a lot more laid back and free-spirited. American kids,
> on the other hand, are increasingly conditioned to be overly private,
> defensive and paranoid about their "stuff".
>
> This site seems to run a thin line between sleaze and legitimate social
> commentary. But since I went to a French Canadian elementary school
> myself, I just can't resist sharing some of my own memories from the
> boys' "basement" as we called it. Looking back on it now, I realize what
> idyllic and fun times they really were. The reports that follow are all
> true, by the way...not made-up fantasy!
>
> To begin with, I've heard that at some all-male Catholic schools,
> especially those run by religious Brothers, the main corridors often had
> a row of urinals close by, so that boys in need could stop for a quick
> pee between classes, while the traffic bustled around them. I don't know
> if it was just a "Catholic school" thing or what. I've also heard it was
> done to prevent boys in diestres from peeing on radiators, or in
> stairwells, especially in large all-boys' schools...something which
> evidently did happen!
>
> Come to think of it, I do remember the smell of pee in my own boys'
> elementary school corridors from time to time...though I never caught a
> classmate in the act! Except for the boy in second grade (named, believe
> it or not, Henry Ford!), who simply got up, walked over and pissed into
> the wastebasket in front of his classmates, and then casually returned
> to his seat, after "Uber-Nun" denied him permission to leave the room
> and use the regular boys' room urinals. Hmmmmm....come to think of it
> some more...there WAS another kid who used to delight in pissing in rain
> puddles in the school yard...and sometimes on the floor of the boys'
> room...just for sport! There was also the way that most of the boys
> would mischievously line up to "piss into the flood" of the one
> full-length urinal (out of a row of about fifteen) which had plugged up
> at the toe-level floor drain, and was spilling its amber contents into
> the room. Often several boys would cluster around it and "go" together
> in a huddle, three or four at a time, crossing their streams together as
> they filled up the "liquid lake"! And then there was the way boys would
> "double-deck" or "tandem" when all the urinals were in use...with one
> boy standing behind a boy who was already at the urinal, and deftly
> pissing through the "v-shaped" opening made by the front boy's
> "legs-apart" stance! Talk about intimate "buddy-sharing"...it doesn't
> get much "buddier" than that! I never did see the predictable accident,
> in which the front boy turned suddenly to leave...and walked smack into
> the still-flowing stream of the boy in the rear who was pissing through
> his legs! But it must have happened occasionally. Ah, yes...the angelic
> days of our masculine youth! Boys will be boys...God love 'em! (As I'm
> sure He does.)
>
> Anyway (returning to my original comment), one thing I have seen with my
> own eyes in public schools is a very similar placement of casual urinals
> in the corridors of the boys' designated locker rooms. Once again, guys
> can grab a quick pee right there at the lockers, while everyone else is
> retrieving their books, etc. I believe practical experience involving
> some boys' mischievous tendency to piss in sheltering corners, in
> low-slung water bubblers, or in the vent holes of another boy's locker
> (!!), may have provoked this concession to both practical necessity AND
> male vanity. (I know all of these tricks have happened. I've been
> there.)
>
> No matter how these "casual urinals" came to be installed in traffic
> corridors, I've always felt that their welcoming and explicit social
> permission, indicating that it's perfectly OK for boys to pee in a
> relaxed way, without guilt or inhibition, at least in the presence of
> other boys, is WAY COOL! It makes a refreshing statement against the
> absurd sexual prudery and repression of our much-too-sanitized society.
> But it also presumes a level of natural physical and emotional openness
> which is becoming increasingly rare, as social paranoia in the schools
> reaches new heights of armed violence. Boys now say that they fear being
> knifed from behind by gang members when using the "regular" boys' room
> urinals. What a tragic commentary on the loss of childhood innocence.
>
> FYI, two comments about the original message to which this is a
> response:
>
> 1. Simply reporting on what ANY guy would normally see while using any
> designated "male space" (where he is perfectly entitled by his "gender
> equipment" to be!) is one thing. But fantasizing about "touching and
> sucking" the "pee-pees" of underage boys is rather over the line. It's
> also dangerous on the net...given the fascist homophobic police gestapo
> thugs out there who think they have some "right of power" to piss on
> constitutionally protected free speech. Be warned and advised.
>
> 2. I've observed that an inordinate number of rude, crude and
> questionable sexual postings, in all kinds of forums, come from guys
> (almost always guys) with "WebTV" black boxes. My theory is that people
> who are otherwise uninterested in computers pick up these "black boxes"
> at K-Mart or Wal-Mart, and soon discover that they can use them to "talk
> dirty" around the world. Which is what they begin using them to do.
> WebTV seems to be the net equivalent of CB radio...and not entirely
> uplifting in the effect it's having on Usenet/BBS. Anybody else like to
> weigh in on the subject?
>
> Cheers,
> Anonymoose2000


>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
>
> (end of original message)

wadi

unread,
28 Jan 2000, 03:00:0028/01/2000
to

Don <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aTeRONtAUmqF3HLbEDahFpAt=e...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:07:33 -0800, "shmily"
> <shm...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Excellent post.
> >
> >Norma
>
> ... said the choir director to the preacher.
>

And some preacher he is.
Quite disgraceful.

high...@yahoo.com

unread,
29 Jan 2000, 03:00:0029/01/2000
to
In article <86slfv$j58$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>,
"wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

[unauthorized cross-posting by non-originating party deleted]

Wadi, I've also sampled YOUR OWN thousands of messages on other sites
which most folks here would not have occasion to visit. I've yet to
find a single one of yours which is not venomous and hateful. But I also
have better manners than to re-post your messages without
proper permission and authorization.

I agree with Norma. The basic point is that not all messages are
intended for all audiences. Each message should be evaluated on its own
terms for its relevance, helpfulness and usefulness. The message to
which she responded is RIGHT ON in my book.

You have spent phenomenal time and energy posting THOUSANDS UPON
THOUSANDS of comments about circumcision in many wayward forums, in
which you habitually smear, insult and attack the motives of folks who
disagree with you. In fact, I cannot find a kind, helpful or even humane
word to parents in any one of those thousands of messages. Your archive
speaks for itself. You're either a troll, or a deeply emotionally
disturbed invididual, or both.

I suppose you'll now try to "punish" me as well, by combing through MY
message archive and making hostile renegade re-posts without my
permission. But I think folks will henceforth regard anything you say
and do with appropriate discounting for your obvious emotional and/or
psychological state. Again, your own archive speaks for itself. You are
in NO ethical position to be criticizing the places where other folks
have posted. To say that your posting behavior is outrageously rude and
disruptive is the understatement of the century.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

wadi

unread,
29 Jan 2000, 03:00:0029/01/2000
to

<high...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:86tqeo$bfi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <86slfv$j58$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>,
> "wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >
> [unauthorized cross-posting by non-originating party deleted]
>

Unauthorised cross posting?
You must be joking.
heh heh
But why would you want to cover that one up?
You also got something to hide as well bud?

> Wadi, I've also sampled YOUR OWN thousands of messages on other sites
> which most folks here would not have occasion to visit. I've yet to
> find a single one of yours which is not venomous and hateful. But I also
> have better manners than to re-post your messages without
> proper permission and authorization.
>

Go for it.
This is the usenet.
Unlike some I have nothing to hide.
What to see is what you get, warts and all.


> I agree with Norma. The basic point is that not all messages are
> intended for all audiences. Each message should be evaluated on its own
> terms for its relevance, helpfulness and usefulness. The message to
> which she responded is RIGHT ON in my book.

You mean that when he posts in the "mode" of a caring "child rights
activist" concerned about subjecting an infant to the surgical removal of
his foreskin we should take him on face value?
Why should we do that when we know better?
You don't think people should know what the base motivation is behind the
crusade to "save the foreskin"?
My dear friend there are well intentioned people right here in this
newsgroup who have been deceived by these creatures when they have
"evaluated each message on its own merits" without being aware of what lurks
behnd the mask.

> You have spent phenomenal time and energy posting THOUSANDS UPON
> THOUSANDS of comments about circumcision in many wayward forums, in
> which you habitually smear, insult and attack the motives of folks who
> disagree with you. In fact, I cannot find a kind, helpful or even humane
> word to parents in any one of those thousands of messages. Your archive
> speaks for itself. You're either a troll, or a deeply emotionally
> disturbed invididual, or both.

heh heh
You find a good thing to say about "anonymoose2000" and his ilk and I will
eat my hat.
In fact I frustrate myself that I am unable to express myself more strongly
as to how I feel about this scum.

So what must Norma think everytime one of her sons goes to the mensroom?
That some foreskin obsessed boy-lover is drooling over her boys from the
next stall while jerking off?
And the same son of a bitch comes onto the usenet at night and claims that
circumcision is child abuse.
And I am supposed to forget his mensroom activities and "evaluate his post
on its merits"?

The problem with these bastards is that to jail them they would have had to
have laid their hands on someones son.
No we have to stop them before they do.
And the first step towards that end is to expose them for the scum they are.
And on the usenet ever once in a while one lets his mask slip and shows his
hand.

Like this recent one:
----------------------------------------
Great anti-circ argument. Better a sucked penis that a mutilated penis.

Nothing is lost, and it doesn't hurt. It won't scar the baby for life
emotionally, they are too young to know what's going on. Yet, it's
considered, sick, evil, maybe even satanic.

Circ can scar one for life, there will be a resentment towards the
circed child's parents, and the society that condones it, they have lost
an integral part of their body, and they have been unnecessarily tortured.
----------------------------------------

You like that one do you?
"nothing is lost" ... "it doesn't hurt"
What do you call him and his ilk?
Huh?
A "child rights activist"?
A loving caring individual?
Huh?
Take each post on its merits?
OK then tell me about this one then.
The mask is off.
What you say now?
You piece of shit.

> I suppose you'll now try to "punish" me as well, by combing through MY
> message archive and making hostile renegade re-posts without my
> permission. But I think folks will henceforth regard anything you say
> and do with appropriate discounting for your obvious emotional and/or
> psychological state. Again, your own archive speaks for itself. You are
> in NO ethical position to be criticizing the places where other folks
> have posted. To say that your posting behavior is outrageously rude and
> disruptive is the understatement of the century.
>

Do you really think I give a rats arse about what people like you think
about me?
Oh yea ... you.
You seem to have a thing about urinals and peeing as well.
Birds of a feather.

high...@yahoo.com

unread,
30 Jan 2000, 03:00:0030/01/2000
to
In article <86vgps$15fh$4...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za>,
"wadi" <wa...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Unauthorised cross posting?
> You must be joking.
> heh heh
> But why would you want to cover that one up?
> You also got something to hide as well bud?
>

> Unlike some I have nothing to hide.
> What to see is what you get, warts and all.
>

> You find a good thing to say about "anonymoose2000" and his ilk and I
> will eat my hat.
> In fact I frustrate myself that I am unable to express myself more
> strongly as to how I feel about this scum.
>
> So what must Norma think everytime one of her sons goes to the
> mensroom?
> That some foreskin obsessed boy-lover is drooling over her boys from
> the next stall while jerking off?
> And the same son of a bitch comes onto the usenet at night and claims
> that circumcision is child abuse.

> The problem with these bastards is that to jail them they would have
> had to have laid their hands on someones son.
> No we have to stop them before they do.
> And the first step towards that end is to expose them for the scum
> they are.
> And on the usenet ever once in a while one lets his mask slip and
> shows his hand.

> You piece of shit.


> Do you really think I give a rats arse about what people like you
> think about me?

Wadi: Your response was, and is, absolutely predictable, and precisely
as predicted. Let the sovereign jury of our contributors decide who is
practicing civilized, sane and reasonable posting manners here. You are
clearly a severely emotionally disturbed individual. This may explain
your hatefulness, but it does not render it any more palatable to the
parents who use this forum. Cross-posting other people's messages from
alt.support.boy-lovers into THIS forum, where they clearly do not belong
and are not welcomed, is totally abusive and disrespectful to the people
who use this forum. I hope you'll eventually obtain the therapeutic help
you need, and leave peaceable folks to chat in peace.

Aster


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

shmily

unread,
30 Jan 2000, 03:00:0030/01/2000
to
Wadi wrote:
> > So what must Norma think everytime one of her sons goes to the
> > mensroom?
> > That some foreskin obsessed boy-lover is drooling over her boys from
> > the next stall while jerking off?


NOW YOU LISTEN TO ME YOU LITTLE PRICK!!!!

YOU KEEP MY LITTLE BOYS OUT OF YOUR STUPID FUCKING LAME-O CIRCUMCISION
POSTS!!!!

MY SONS ARE YOUNG SO THEY GO INTO THE BATHROOM WITH ME OR MY HUSBAND AND WE
ARE VERY CAREFUL OF PERVERTS (LIKE YOURSELF!).
WE TEACH THEM TO STAY AWAY FROM STRANGERS AND TO PEE IN THE STALLS FOR
PRIVACY!

I DON'T NEED A STUPID SAD LITTLE FUCK LIKE YOURSELF TO USE MY SONS AS A SICK
EXAMPLE FOR CIRCUMCISING, BECAUSE WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU AND YOUR
SAD PATHETIC LITTLE POSTS THAT CAN ONLY MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE OR
ALLUDE THAT IF A LITTLE BOY IS INTACT AS GOD MADE HIM HE WILL BE MORE AT
RISK FOR SEXUAL PREDATORS.

THIS IS NOT FUNNY AT ALL, BECAUSE 10 MILES FROM ME A LITTLE BOY WAS KILLED
IN A BATHROOM STALL, HIS NAME IS MATTHEW CHETCHI (sp?) AND HIS MURDERER LAID
IN WAIT FOR A RANDOM VICTIM IN A PARK BATHROOM, MAY HE DIE A THOUSAND DEATHS
IN THE FIRES OF HELL.

I THINK YOU ARE SO SICK TO USE INTACT LITTLE BOYS AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN EASIER
OR MORE DESIRABLE TARGET FOR SEXUAL CRIMES! YOU ARE SO SICK WADI YOU
LITTLE PRICK AND I HOPE YOU GET YOUR PRUNY LITTLE ASS KICKED BY SOMEONE WHO
HAS HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR SAD CRAP IN THEIR FACE.

FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


> > You piece of shit.


***YOU*** ARE THE PIECE OF SHIT YOU LITTLE PRICK!!!

(With apologies to everyone else, I am just so damn tired of this little
prick)
Norma

Jackie M.

unread,
31 Jan 2000, 03:00:0031/01/2000
to
<snip all of it>
Good for you Norma! I couldn't have said it better myself!
NOBODY messes with me or mine!
It's amazing that morons like that feel the incessant need to crawl out from
under their rocks and under our skin!

--
Jackie M.
SAHM to three wonderful kids
(and 12 fish!! ... well 14 if you count the 2 goldfish!!)
http://www.geocities.com/jackiemulroy


Lynne Murnane

unread,
31 Jan 2000, 03:00:0031/01/2000
to
Norma, really, shame on you. I know there are disgusting people
in the world, and really sick people as well, but when you sound
like one of them you're just wallowing in the slime with them.
Some folks just like to talk big on the internet and some people
just like to see if they can provoke others by talking dirty.

Remember that you cannot reason with unreason, and you cannot
talk mentally ill people out of their sickness, so you are really
wasting your time and letting them upset you. The more you ignore
them, the sooner they go away. (And yes, I do understand why such
talk would be upsetting.)

Lynne


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


high...@yahoo.com

unread,
1 Feb 2000, 03:00:0001/02/2000
to
In article <006f90aa...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>,
Lynne Murnane <murnane...@my-dejanews.com.invalid> wrote:

> Remember that you cannot reason with unreason, and you cannot
> talk mentally ill people out of their sickness, so you are really
> wasting your time and letting them upset you. The more you ignore
> them, the sooner they go away. (And yes, I do understand why such
> talk would be upsetting.)

Hi Lynne...and thanks to all of you who have gone to bat in dealing with
this obnoxious pest. But Lynne, in this case, I have to agree with
Norma's anger, and with her approach. Sometimes it IS necessary to
scream back at a troll like this...for the same reason that a political
candidate, even one who normally takes the "high road", is sometimes
forced to "attack back" when confronted with vicious and obnoxious
sliming by an unscrupulous opponent. Sometimes NOT to reply with
appropriate anger is to appear like a total wuss...and thereby let the
slimeball gloat that he's successfully "shut down" all civilized
opposition. Anger is not the same thing as hatred. Jesus got angry. And
he showed his anger. But he didn't harbor hatred.

Elsewhere in his 3000+ message archive, Wadi has called for mandatory
female genital mutiliation (a/k/a "female circumcision"), a practice
which has been condemned as a human rights violation by the United
Nations. He has made contemptuous remarks about "the smell" of female
genitalia. And after Anonymoose referred him (apparently in good faith)
to sites discussing foreskin restoration, Wadi immediately went to
alt.foreskin.restoration (a forum which apparently had escaped his
notice until then), and began sending rude, insulting and abusive
messages to the participants in THAT NG. Needless to say, those guys
gave him a mighty angry drubbing, and he now seems to have abandoned his
"ministry" there. My point: The man is clearly a sexually wounded
sociopath, and potentially a psychopath as well. If screaming at him in
righteous anger, as Norma has done, helps to drive him away, it's a
perfectly legitimate response, under the circumstancs. I attempted in
two messages to reason with him in a polite, calm and civil manner. He
responded with barnyard expletives...thus showing the true nature of his
"moral concern" for children and parents. We know what we're dealing
with now. Let's hope this marks the end of his "ministry" here as well.

Love to all,
Aster


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Lynne Murnane

unread,
1 Feb 2000, 03:00:0001/02/2000
to
In article <876vit$k6r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, high...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>Hi Lynne...and thanks to all of you who have gone to bat in

dealing with
>this obnoxious pest. But Lynne, in this case, I have to agree
with
>Norma's anger, and with her approach. Sometimes it IS necessary
to
>scream back at a troll like this...for the same reason that a
political
>candidate, even one who normally takes the "high road", is
sometimes
>forced to "attack back" when confronted with vicious and
obnoxious
>sliming by an unscrupulous opponent. Sometimes NOT to reply with
>appropriate anger is to appear like a total wuss...and thereby
let the
>slimeball gloat that he's successfully "shut down" all civilized
>opposition. Anger is not the same thing as hatred. Jesus got
angry. And
>he showed his anger. But he didn't harbor hatred.

And I appreciate your reasoning, but still disagree. People
who are either trolls or nuts will gloat that they have won no
matter what you do or don't do, and they *love* attention. Once I
decide, rightly or wrongly, that there is no figuring out how
someone else's mind works, I don't (or try not to) waste any more
time on them. And I think some of these folks are, pardon the
phraseology, basically playing with themselves in public.

Clearly there are people who go from NG to NG trying to stir up
fights. The fact that they don't hang around and participate
in serious discussions is one of my big clues that they don't
really have much of a life, and certainly aren't interested in
the topics being discussed. I just hope they're getting out what
they need to get out on the Internet. yuck. (And I certainly
don't want to see him around, either).

wadi

unread,
1 Feb 2000, 03:00:0001/02/2000
to

shmily <shm...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OT7p#q3a$GA.201@cpmsnbbsa03...

> Wadi wrote:
> > > So what must Norma think everytime one of her sons goes to the
> > > mensroom?
> > > That some foreskin obsessed boy-lover is drooling over her boys from
> > > the next stall while jerking off?
>
>

Wow that was quite something Norma.
Interesting that you blow off at me on this one.
The quoted post was a verbatim transcript of what your "ally"
anonymoose2000 posted in the newsgroup alt.support.boy-lovers.

Now go check out the message sources of his and his friend and ally
"highmusic".
They are one and the same.
They are the same person!!!!!!!!!!!

So now before you feel the need to blow off steam at me.
Consider again just how this piece of slime and his ilk continue with their
deceit.
With friends like that you don't need enemies.


wadi

unread,
1 Feb 2000, 03:00:0001/02/2000
to

<high...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:876vit$k6r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <006f90aa...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>,

Hi Mr multi-alias.
One would have thought that for one so aware of the as you put it in your
warning to your pal Joseph Signorelli you would have been more careful to
avoid being so easily traced.

> It's
> also dangerous on the net...given the fascist homophobic police gestapo
> thugs out there who think they have some "right of power" to piss on
> constitutionally protected free speech. Be warned and advised.

So who do you think you are kidding by using one alias to defend the
excesses of the other.
LOL

[snip]


>
> Elsewhere in his 3000+ message archive, Wadi has called for mandatory
> female genital mutiliation (a/k/a "female circumcision"), a practice
> which has been condemned as a human rights violation by the United
> Nations.

No I did not.
Put up or shut up.


> He has made contemptuous remarks about "the smell" of female
> genitalia.

No I did not.
Put up or shut up.


> And after Anonymoose referred him (apparently in good faith)
> to sites discussing foreskin restoration, Wadi immediately went to
> alt.foreskin.restoration (a forum which apparently had escaped his
> notice until then), and began sending rude, insulting and abusive
> messages to the participants in THAT NG.

Never posted to a foreskin restoration NG.
I think those pathetic individuals have enough problems without any
assistance from me.


> Needless to say, those guys
> gave him a mighty angry drubbing, and he now seems to have abandoned his
> "ministry" there.

As I said.
Never posted to such a site.
So put up or shut up.


> My point: The man is clearly a sexually wounded
> sociopath, and potentially a psychopath as well. If screaming at him in
> righteous anger, as Norma has done, helps to drive him away, it's a
> perfectly legitimate response, under the circumstancs. I attempted in
> two messages to reason with him in a polite, calm and civil manner. He
> responded with barnyard expletives...thus showing the true nature of his
> "moral concern" for children and parents. We know what we're dealing
> with now. Let's hope this marks the end of his "ministry" here as well.
>
> Love to all,
> Aster
>

We have had one showing of a "true nature" here my friend.
And that is yours.
I am by now quite used to these vicious attacks from you and your ilk.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to influence "the fascist homophobic
police gestapo thugs" as you term them to investigate your "special
interests" but you will have to be more careful in the future.
There are people with a genuine interest in the welfare of children who are
now on your case.
And as sure as God made little apples you are going to trip up again.
Then ... gotcha.


high...@yahoo.com

unread,
2 Feb 2000, 03:00:0002/02/2000
to
In article <0e043ba4...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com>,

Lynne Murnane <murnane...@my-dejanews.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> I appreciate your reasoning, but still disagree. People
> who are either trolls or nuts will gloat that they have won no
> matter what you do or don't do, and they *love* attention. Once I
> decide, rightly or wrongly, that there is no figuring out how
> someone else's mind works, I don't (or try not to) waste any more
> time on them. And I think some of these folks are, pardon the
> phraseology, basically playing with themselves in public.
>
> Clearly there are people who go from NG to NG trying to stir up
> fights. The fact that they don't hang around and participate
> in serious discussions is one of my big clues that they don't
> really have much of a life, and certainly aren't interested in
> the topics being discussed. I just hope they're getting out what
> they need to get out on the Internet. yuck. (And I certainly
> don't want to see him around, either).
>
> Lynne

Hi Lynne,

We can agree to disagree about tactics. As you'll see, our resident
troll is back with two new incitements to fight. But, like you, I'm now
quite finished with him. I've said my peace and given it my best shot.
He denies he wrote the things he wrote about female genital mutilation,
and his harassment of the men at alt.foreskin.restoration. But his
archive is open to browse...unless he's retrospectively deleted those
recent posts, which is perfectly possible, since he owns the "delete"
codes.

"May a host of heavenly angels exorcise the controlling demons from this
troubled man's soul, and give him (and the rest of us) a modicum of
peace."

Love,
Aster


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Neal

unread,
3 Feb 2000, 03:00:0003/02/2000
to
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:31:19 GMT, high...@yahoo.com wrote:

...


>[unauthorized cross-posting by non-originating party deleted]
>

>Wadi, I've also sampled YOUR OWN thousands of messages on other sites
>which most folks here would not have occasion to visit. I've yet to
>find a single one of yours which is not venomous and hateful. But I also
>have better manners than to re-post your messages without
>proper permission and authorization.

Wadi is now publically posting private email. Everyone should be very
carefull what they send him as a private email. You may see it posted
in very public places. If we can believe that he correctly posts what
is sent him.

Bridget Smith

unread,
3 Feb 2000, 03:00:0003/02/2000
to

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:31:19 GMT, high...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >Wadi, I've also sampled YOUR OWN thousands of messages on other sites
> >which most folks here would not have occasion to visit. I've yet to
> >find a single one of yours which is not venomous and hateful.

I am the originator of the original thread on this subject. Heck, all I was
looking for was some honest advice. And I got flamed by Wadi - accused of
not caring for my unborn son's welfare because I don't want him circ'd.
What I would like to know is *what* the guy's deal is. WHY does he care
soooooo much about circumcision? Why does he get so militant with those
that don't think like him? I doubt he's a parent - what is he even *doing*
in this ng?
--
Bridget in Connecticut
Due 2/22/00 with #1
It's A Boy!

high...@yahoo.com

unread,
4 Feb 2000, 03:00:0004/02/2000
to
In article <ipic9s4bg8k70585m...@4ax.com>,

Neal <neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:31:19 GMT, high...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ...
> >[unauthorized cross-posting by non-originating party deleted]
> >
> >Wadi, I've also sampled YOUR OWN thousands of messages on other sites
> >which most folks here would not have occasion to visit. I've yet to
> >find a single one of yours which is not venomous and hateful. But I
also
> >have better manners than to re-post your messages without
> >proper permission and authorization.
>
> Wadi is now publically posting private email. Everyone should be very
> carefull what they send him as a private email. You may see it posted
> in very public places. If we can believe that he correctly posts what
> is sent him.
>
> --
> Neal


Hi Neal! Thanks for the tip...but nothing surprises me concerning Mr.
Alien Lizard. I've vowed not to respond to our dear troll any more...but
I'm still happy to chat with the other folks who post here.

We've tried reasoning with him. We've tried screaming at him. Maybe we
ought to try clowning on him, the way the guys at alt.circumcision did!

<foli...@aol.com> wrote:

"Wadi for President! His motto will be 'Female Circumcision in 2000'!"

To which <Ma...@thelabyrinthe.net> replied:

"I'm fully in favor of electing Wadi President...that is, with the
provision that we can parade him past the book depository in Dallas!"

I figured Norma would get a great laughing jag out of that one!

Courage. This too shall pass. And hopefully be flushed.

Love all,
Aster

(With apologies to the guys at alt.circumcision for the "unauthorized
cross-posting"...but in THIS case, I don't think they'll mind in the
slightest!)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

wadi

unread,
4 Feb 2000, 03:00:0004/02/2000
to

Neal <neal_...@rocketmail.NS.com> wrote in message
news:ipic9s4bg8k70585m...@4ax.com...

>
> Wadi is now publically posting private email. Everyone should be very
> carefull what they send him as a private email. You may see it posted
> in very public places. If we can believe that he correctly posts what
> is sent him.
>

I am publicly posting emails?
I have posted two.
Both were unsolicited email flames received by me.
They were posted in the newsgroup where the thread was at the time.

So what is your point Neal?

After your futile attempts to refute the connection between the lack of
circumcision and a higher rate of HIV infection you resort to this sort of
innuendo?

BTW bigfoot.com have informed me that someone made numerous attempts to
crack my password and enter my members area.
If they can pick up the IP address of the offender from their log I will be
sure to post that information as well.
Now who do you think that was Neal?


wadi

unread,
4 Feb 2000, 03:00:0004/02/2000
to

Bridget Smith <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:87dbmp$2ul$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
>
[snip]

>
> I am the originator of the original thread on this subject. Heck, all I
was
> looking for was some honest advice. And I got flamed by Wadi - accused of
> not caring for my unborn son's welfare because I don't want him circ'd.
> What I would like to know is *what* the guy's deal is. WHY does he care
> soooooo much about circumcision? Why does he get so militant with those
> that don't think like him? I doubt he's a parent - what is he even
*doing*
> in this ng?
> --
> Bridget in Connecticut
> Due 2/22/00 with #1
> It's A Boy!
>

Bridget why don't you cut the crap.

I don't care whether or not you circumcise your son.
But I am interested in why you seem so desperate and intent on "saving" your
unborn son's foreskin.
In your posts you come up with all the standard foreskin retention rhetoric
(as if straight off the skin freak websites).

Did I say skin freak?
Well your post below gives insight into your true motivations on this issue.
As you say:

"To me, an uncircumcized penis is erotic and animalesque
(also more fun to play with)."

So Bridget give us abreak will you.
And given your peculiar interest in the foreskin of course you would not
dream of having it removed from your son.

(This is yet another example of the deceit of the 4skincentric, and I am
left wondering how many parents and expecting parents are yet to see through
this calculated and relentless promotion of these peoples favourite sex toy
through the use of deceit, lies, innuendo, misinformation and
misrepresentation).


========================
(beginning of original message)

Subject: Re: Modded Circumcision Planned!
From: brid...@ix.netcom.com(Bridget Smith)
Date: 1999/03/10
Newsgroups: rec.arts.bodyart
In <36E42EED...@bigfoot.com> Clive <SPAMma...@bigfoot.com>
writes:
>
>Today finally saw surgeon at local discount hospital about a
>circumcision under local anesthetic
>
>
Clive, why do you want to do this?!! I can understand if you're doing
it for medical reasons (like a foreskin that's too tight), but if
you're just doing it for aesthetics, please please reconsider.

I had a boyfriend a long time ago that was uncircumcized. Obviously, I
liked him for other reasons, but just speaking bodily - I loved that!!
I'm 30, and I've only seen one "natural" penis in my life, which is a
damn shame. To me, an uncircumcized penis is erotic and animalesque
(also more fun to play with). Heck, if you keep it clean, it's no
different than the "tampered-with" variety.

Just my 2 cents....

Bridget

who, if she has any sons, will have the foresight
not to mess with the foreskin)


(end of original message)
=========================

Steve McDonald

unread,
4 Feb 2000, 03:00:0004/02/2000
to
"Bridget Smith" <Brid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:31:19 GMT, high...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> >Wadi, I've also sampled YOUR OWN thousands of messages on other sites
>> >which most folks here would not have occasion to visit. I've yet to
>> >find a single one of yours which is not venomous and hateful.
>

>I am the originator of the original thread on this subject. Heck, all I was
>looking for was some honest advice. And I got flamed by Wadi - accused of
>not caring for my unborn son's welfare because I don't want him circ'd.
>What I would like to know is *what* the guy's deal is. WHY does he care
>soooooo much about circumcision? Why does he get so militant with those
>that don't think like him? I doubt he's a parent - what is he even *doing*
>in this ng?
>--
>Bridget in Connecticut
>Due 2/22/00 with #1
>It's A Boy!
>

Hi Bridget. Ignore that Wadi character. Take my word for it:
circumcision *is* a sexual mutilation. I'm 49 years old and
never circ'd, for which I'm *very* grateful. But guess what:
My late father (1916-89) chose to be circ'd at age 17, just
because he "wanted to be" so he once told me. If it was
such a great idea, why did he leave me intact? If sane
parents would never dream of amputating their children's
eyelids in order to lessen their sense of vision, nor run
hot pokers up their noses to lessen their sense of smell,
then why would they think circumcision is a good idea?
Can a penis function as a reproductive organ without
first being a sensory organ? Of course not. Circumcision
is a big ugly sexual neurosis! -- Steve M, Atlanta-GA-USA


catheytexas

unread,
4 Feb 2000, 03:00:0004/02/2000
to
Well put, Steve.

Bridget, while it's commendable that you're trying to
understand what motivates wadi's overwrought baloney, I
think you have your answer re: what's wrong with wadi.

With some people who post, you have to deal with them the
way you do the babbling degenerates you see on the street.
As they approach you, cursing and ranting loudly at their
own invisible demons, you try to ignore them, you DON'T
make eye contact, and, whatever you do, you don't let
yourself get drawn into their ravings. It's worse than
pointless, and it'll just screw up your day, if you allow
it to. Just let 'em pass, and try to have some compassion
for each misfortunate nutjob. Be grateful you don't live in
his head. Or even next door.


* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

Matthew LEITER

unread,
4 Feb 2000, 03:00:0004/02/2000
to
Why don't you just give it up circ if you want to don't if you don't. We
are all adults we can make these decisions. Never let anyone make you feel
like a bad person because of your choice. If you don't beat your child then
don't worry about what others say. My son is circ'ed that was my and my
husbands choice. My sister's boys are not circ'ed that was her and her DH's
choice. It is one of many hard choices parents have to make. If both
disagree well compromise. Say ok we will not have him circ'ed now however
when he is older we will discuss this with him and he will then make the
choice. Either way your son will not die. You are not killing him if you
decide to circ or even if you decide not to. I firmly believe that others
should never condemn parents for their choices in this and many other
matters. Shoot you all act like you are actually discussing cutting off his
entire genitals. Well you are not. I am sorry if I offend anyone however
this has been talked to death. Parents will never agree about how to parent
your children. We are all individuals with differing opinions. That is
what makes the world so colorful.

Jennifer

AlanKngsly

unread,
4 Feb 2000, 03:00:0004/02/2000
to
>And given your peculiar interest in the foreskin of course you would not
>dream of having it removed from your son.

Nothing peculiar about it, Wadi. But I know you need to tell yourself that in
order to avoid feeling terribly jealous. Poor wounded thing....

>(This is yet another example of the deceit of the 4skincentric, and I am
>left wondering how many parents and expecting parents are yet to see through
>this calculated and relentless promotion of these peoples favourite sex toy
>through the use of deceit, lies, innuendo, misinformation and
>misrepresentation).

Wadi, I don't recall that Bridget ever tried to claim the foreskin was not used
for sex. NEWS FLASH: the foreskin is part and parcel of a (ready, Wadi?)
SEXUAL ORGAN.

Alan

AlanKngsly

unread,
5 Feb 2000, 03:00:0005/02/2000
to
>Why don't you just give it up circ if you want to don't if you don't. We
>are all adults we can make these decisions.

Well, all of us, that is, except, you know, the little guy who may or may not
get his penis surgically altered, likely without anesthesia.....

Never let anyone make you feel
>like a bad person because of your choice. If you don't beat your child then
>don't worry about what others say.

The Jennifer Book of Childcare: "Don't beat your children. Anything else is
okay."


>Shoot you all act like you are actually discussing cutting off his
>entire genitals. Well you are not.

Ohhh....it's not his *entire* genitals! Only part of his genitals! Well, hey
then, where do I sign up? I better get going and get part of my son's genitals
surgically removed, and while I'm at it I oughtta get some of that partial
genital removal. LOL

Alan

wad...@bigfoot.com

unread,
6 Feb 2000, 03:00:0006/02/2000
to

> > Wadi is now publically posting private email. Everyone should be
very
> > carefull what they send him as a private email. You may see it
posted
> > in very public places. If we can believe that he correctly posts
what
> > is sent him.


earthbound wadi, this is a message from your oversoul in a higher
dimension. you are behaving like a satanic brat, and creating horrible
karma for yourself by insulting and rashly accusing people who mean you
no harm. just because you have suffered from acute masturbation guilt
all your life is no reason for you to behave so wretchedly to your
fellow humans. you know that what i tell you is true. i urge you to mend
your ways and return to a path of prayer and compassionate service
before you do any more damage to your soul. i will remind you of the
damage you are doing to your soul until your misbehavior ceases.
ultimately i am responsible for the higher direction of your spirit. so
it is my duty to correct you when you need correction.

your eternal wadiii

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

dolfi

unread,
6 Feb 2000, 03:00:0006/02/2000
to
Is circumcision painful? Are there any advantages or
disadvantages? Please limit the response to children's issues
not adult's issues? I would like to hear from parents not
activists.

catheytexas

unread,
6 Feb 2000, 03:00:0006/02/2000
to
You ARE kidding, right?
It's loading more messages.
0 new messages