 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,9999 Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:08 PM Judging by some posts from both males and females, the best parts of a few went either down their father's pants or out the window after the cut. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:01 PM Thank you for sharing your insights with us, Martin Gibson. It's obvious to all that when you were circumcised, the moyl threw away the wrong part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 24 Oct 05 - 03:22 PM As usual, dianavan shows how complete of a Jew hater she is. That, and a feminist pig. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 24 Oct 05 - 12:25 PM Ok, lerts. Fill yer boots, GUEST! You'll attract more attention on a new thread, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 05 - 11:24 AM Lerts talk about who prefers which kind of vagina. Types, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:51 AM GUEST, in my inexpert opinion and quite limited experience, there's an important difference between a vagina and a prepuce. To the best of my knowledge, the one is still a prerequisite for sexual intercourse, while the other is not. I'm sure you can figure out which is which. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Dosanjh Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:41 AM "Medicare covers only circumcisions required for medical reasons, the most common one being a treatment for phimosis, or a tight foreskin." If you're speaking about the Canadian system, then what Medicare covers varies from province to province. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:36 AM Vaginas: pros and cons. Tell us which YOU prefer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: bobad Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:28 AM " WOw - I wonder what the dollar value of a circumcision is these days." In the 1970's, a series of studies persuaded most health-care practitioners that there is no medical indication for circumcision. Those studies moved British Columbia in 1984 to remove infant circumcision from its list of eligible procedures under its medicare plan. Quebec and Alberta followed suit in 1987, and Ontario last October. Most clinics and hospitals in those four provinces now charge between $80 and $135 for an infant circumcision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: bobad Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:25 AM "Circumcision is covered by the gov't, like most other forms of surgery." Medicare covers only circumcisions required for medical reasons, the most common one being a treatment for phimosis, or a tight foreskin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:21 AM Pardon me, I just read that circumcisions - as well as eye examinations, wart removal and a number of other procedures - were "delisted" from OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) in 1994. And in 2005, even more health services have been delisted, including physiotherapy and chiropractic. Patients must now pay 100% of these costs out of their own pockets. WOw - I wonder what the dollar value of a circumcision is these days. If I'd had to fork out a thousand bucks X 3 way back in those less enlightened times, it would have presented quite the obstacle .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:18 AM Gypsies, tramps and thieves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:01 AM bobad, circumcision is much easier and less risky in infancy than it is later in life. And the foreskin presents problems for hygiene and disease in infancy too. So if it were my own body, I'd much rather have it done sooner than later. Even if this meant that my parents made the decision on my behalf. The procedure is much cheaper in infancy as well ... although in Canada that's not a concern. Circumcision is covered by the gov't, like most other forms of surgery. Apparently, for a few decades after WWII, neonatal circumcisions were performed routinely on all boys in Canadian hospitals. That's why most people I know are circumcised. Things changed in 1982 though - the same year my youngest sons were born - when the Canadian Paediatric Society declared The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. Click here for more info from the Canadian Paediatric Society re male circumcision; including these conclusions: "We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following. * There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%. * The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision. * Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required. * More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed. * Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood. * There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases. * When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief. * The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed. * When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: bobad Date: 24 Oct 05 - 08:11 AM Mark One big difference there - those women who have prophylactic mastectomies make that decision themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:28 AM Interesting, Kaleea. Can't find the webpage right now, but I was reading yesterday how circumcision was often performed on ancient Egyptian, African, and Middle Eastern armies just prior to battle, to protect the men from diseases. Apparently certain painful penile infections were quite a problem in those dry, hot, desert countries - sometimes to the point of taking out whole armies. And to this day, American soldiers line up for circumcision before being sent overseas (the Gulf War, Vietnam). Someone mentioned that the foreskin evolved in apes and early hominids to protect the glans while running through tall grasses. Found a couple references to that, including this one "The foreskin is a remnant of earlier stages of evolution (much as the appendix is) where it was necessary to protect the glans from abrasion from undergrowth and tree branches. Now that man travels on 2 legs rather than 4 and is generally clothed the foreskin serves no further purpose. The presence of a foreskin can lead to phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, urethritis, retained smegma, a higher risk for penile and cervical cancer, and a higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS." Other 'experts' claim that once humans learned to make clothing, the foreskin became redundant. Hmmm .... while I have no doubt about hygiene and protection against disease, I question the long grasses bit - not only because of what Mark just said about recently-discovered purposes of the appendix (thanks, Mark! Very cool!) but if that's the case, why then do elephants and horses have foreskins? Must be some mighty tall grasses in those locales! There's some pretty ridiculous claims on both pro and anti-circumcision sites ie circumcision reduces "bathroom splatter"!?! HA! :-D After living in an all-male household for almost 30 years, I can tell you without doubt that scuplted guys splatter all over too. Especially very young little sculpted guys. Peace, that's some pic! :-O I do see why you shave your beard! ANd let it hereby be known that notwithstanding all the evidence that women sacrifice so much more than men to pass on their genes, men's sacrifices in so many other areas of community life (and death) have been duly noted and are very much appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: alison Date: 24 Oct 05 - 04:24 AM well as a midwife I talk to mums each week going through the "should I or shouldn't I?" questions...... back in Ireland we didn't do circs on babies - they were only done for medical reasons on older kids (2-5 years) & under general anaesthetic........so it was a bit of a shock when I came to Oz and found it was done regularly.... & even more when they said "its your job to hold the bub down while the baby does it" - 14 years later and I can say I still haven't had to do that! the reason parents give for doing it which really annoys me is "I'm going to have it done so he looks like his dad" - I've got pubes & boobs..... doesn't seem to worry my daughter at all that we look different!! *grin* as to the question of what do women prefer?........ don't care as long as he knows what to do with it!!! but I will say that circ-ed in my experience aren't so sensitive & tend to last longer........ mind you on those occasions when you just want to get to sleep......... hahaha slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Metchosin Date: 24 Oct 05 - 04:17 AM Not so long ago, surgeons regularly removed and tossed the appendix, when doing other abdominal surgery, just in case the patient might get appendicitus some time in the future. Apparently that does not happen now if the appendix is healthy. As it turns out, the appendix is a very useful part to have about, because it can be used in future reconstructive surgery of the bladder and other related parts in the patient. Perhaps the jokes about using foreskins in reconstructive surgery are not that far fetched. LOL Also it has been discovered recently, that the appendix also serves a very important function during fetal development and in young adults, with regard to the immune system. So much for vistigial or superfluous bits. I'm certain we haven't quite learrned all there is to know about the wonderous design of the human body. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Mark Cohen Date: 24 Oct 05 - 02:17 AM Actually, bobad, there are some women who are undergoing prophylactic mastectomies, at their own request, because of a strongly unfavorable genetic predisposition to breast cancer. (one article, and another article.) It's still controversial. Again, I'm not arguing in favor of circumcision, just in favor of backing up arguments with facts. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Kaleea Date: 24 Oct 05 - 12:23 AM Well, um, er. I once had a beau who was uncircumcised. (Kaleea sheepishly admits she was not always the most prim & proper of ladies.) He was a wonderfully satisfying man. He entered the service, & for some reason decided to get circumsied. When we reunited, he had grown, but was not as satisfying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: bobad Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:15 PM Mark At the risk of beating a dead horse......why is it that we never hear about the medical benefits of prophylactic hysterectomies or mastectomies yet there is still controversy about the prophylactic removal of a perfectly healthy and functional portion of the male anatomy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:13 PM However, I have never started an IV and I have no idea about needle sizes. Was only ever an EMR--like a low-level EMT in the US. (Advanced First Aid is comparable.) But, I liked your tale about the firehall. Thanks again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:11 PM No offense, but that was probably 1 1/2" and 2 1/2". LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:02 PM Yeah, Mark. We watch "Backdraft" every few years just to have a good laugh. Hollywood does misrepresent the true nature of emergencies, both in and out of the ER. Thanks for saying that. Got a kick out of it. True, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Mark Cohen Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:56 PM So, Clinton, I'm still waiting for those references to the "reams and reams of medical opinion and research" that contradicts what I said about the medical benefits of circumcision. If you're going to make a statement like that, it would be helpful if you could back it up. By the way, Peace, your comment about the ladder reminds me of the summer job I had while I was in medical school, teaching CPR to firemen and running with the rescue squads--this was in 1974, when there was only one MICU and half a dozen paramedics in the entire city of Philadelphia. I spent a lot of time in firehouses that summer. One of the firemen's favorite TV shows was "Emergency!", later renamed "Emergency 911." I'd be watching the show with them, and would be saying things like, "Hey, you can't give that medication intramuscularly, it has to be given IV." And the firemen would say things like, "Hey, you'd never go into a building that size with a 2 1/2 inch hose...gotta be at least a 3 1/2!" Aloha, Mark (PS Note that I'm not saying that those medical benefits justify the procedure, only that they exist.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:18 PM Serious for a second: (whether or not I am circumcized is something I don't discuss): How the hell come I could manage two tanks in a row--once did three--yet after finding out the gear weighed more than I thought it did now makes the gear fell heavier? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:13 PM Mom always liked you best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM I donated it to medical science--they were looking for a faster way to make politicians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:06 PM "All of a sudden I feel weighed down." You still have your foreskin, Bruce? ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:46 PM Also, the mind is a funny thing. For years I had accepted that our gear with air tanks weighed about 50 pounds. I found out recently that it really weighs between 65 and 72 pounds (depending on the type of air tank a guy uses). All of a sudden I feel weighed down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:44 PM Also, the ladder is not positioned correctly--the angle is wrong. The angle at the foot of the ladder should be 75 degrees. It looks more like 40 degrees to me. "The phenomenon of flashover, in its generic sense, is a significant killer of firefighters. In the USA, for example, NFPA statistics recorded between 1985 and 1994 demonstrated a total of 47 US firefighters lost their lives to flashover." Sorry to have got off topic here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:31 PM Estimate the temperature at about 2000 degrees F. If that had happened with the guys inside, it would have killed them. The guys in the picture all made it out alive and unscathed. I imagine the bunker gear for two of them had to be replaced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 05 - 12:59 PM I tried wearing one once too. It didn't look that great, it itched, and it bugged me as well. If I'd grown up as a traditional Sikh or Afghan tribesman, though, I would no doubt be wearing a full beard right now (scruffy in my case) and loving it. That's culture for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 12:52 PM "WHy do men shave their faces? IS that a form of 'abuse' too? Self-inflicted every day because they've been conned into believing it looks better??" 1) I look like shit with facial hair. 2) Beards interfere with breathing apparatus masks. 3) Very often parts of our faces are exposed to tremendous heat, and hair goes up in a flash. 4) I have worn a beard and it bugged me because it itched and required almost as much time as shaving. FYI |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 05 - 11:35 AM I'm not saying Mother Teresa had NO opinions, I'm just saying she had fewer opinions on fewer things than most people do. ;-) Most people have an opinion on every f**king thing under the sun. Just ask 'em... (and then be sorry you did...) Since it is more comfortable and less smelly to shave the hairy areas of the body, I am now recommending that we ALL shave our heads nice and clean too! Yes indeed. Just like Jean-Luc Picard. No more dandruff or greasy, smelly hair. No more money spent uselessly on shampoo. You first, Daylia! I am going to see if I can talk Chongo Chimp into shaving himself all over. Think how much cleaner and nicer he will be then. What about Adam? (assuming the existence of such a being in the first place) Did Adam have a foreskin? Hmmmm. If not, where did it go? If so, did Eve find it objectionable? Did Eve shave those smelly, itchy legs and armpits???? Do I really care? Bigger "hmmmm". Ummm, well, no I guess not! LOL! Daylia, the fact is...almost everything we do is arbitrary...socially conditioned...and we make up a million reasons and excuses afterward for why it's such a good idea. Men's habit of shaving the face is definitely among such arbitrary customs. I do it simply because I am culturally accustomed TO doing it, and for no other reason whatsoever. It costs me money, it's not necessary, it's 100% arbitrary, and I KNOW it. I like it because I'm used to the idea. For the same reason, I wear trousers rather than a skirt or a kilt or a Roman toga or a zippered jumpsuit. For the same reason, I am willing to bare the upper half of my torso in public (in the right setting), but not the lower. For the same reason, I usually eat with cutlery...when it's clearly not necessary to do so. In India, people usually eat with their hands (well, one hand to be exact), and it is considered perfectly normal to do so. Almost none of this stuff actually MATTERS. People defend customs because it is customary to do so, and because those customs are a part of their own conscious (or unconscious) identity. To know this is to laugh at the pretentiousness and self-importance of the human mind in the face of the Great Mystery of Life, which it does not comprehend at all. We are playing games here. Kid's games. The pity of it is that everybody takes those games (and themselves) so damned seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:10 AM And I just can't resist this ... The Holy Prepuce The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium) is one of several relics purported to be associated with Jesus. At various points in history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess it, sometimes at the same time. Various miraculous powers have been ascribed to it... There was also some theological dispute as to whether Jesus can really be said to have ascended wholly into Heaven if this part of his body was actually missing. This was resolved by noting that his foreskin was no more an obstacle to this than the hair and fingernails that he had cut throughout his life or the blood he shed... A related theological issue questions whether Jesus' foreskin was restored to him in his resurrected body ... According to 17th century theologian Leo Allatius, the Foreskin may have divinely ascended to become the rings of Saturn. Ah. Gives "around the world" a whole new meaning, don't it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 23 Oct 05 - 07:50 AM PS I was just enjoying the drama there, LH, so not to worry about "guilt". Might be rewarding to bear the weight of thousands of years of tradition on these little shoulders though ... (not!) If they had never heard of such a thing, it wouldn't be a problem, would it? ??? People suffer diseases and dysfunctions whether they've heard of them or not, LH. WHy do men shave their faces? IS that a form of 'abuse' too? Self-inflicted every day because they've been conned into believing it looks better?? RE removing unwanted hair from legs and underarms - it seems silly to people with different customs or those who've never tried, but those who do soon discover they're more comfortable, less itchy, much less stinky, as well as more pleasing to the eye and to the touch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 23 Oct 05 - 05:27 AM Mother Teresa had opinions too, ie The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Oct 05 - 11:52 PM Opinions. There's nothin' else like 'em! They cling like barnacles, they WILL not give up, and they won't change for nothin'. They are ruthless, unforgiving, and impervious. Everybody's got a few and they won't part with 'em for love or money or if their life depended on it. They would much rather be "right" than be happy. They would much rather be "right" than be kind or merciful or understanding or loving or patient or helpful or any other given virtue. Find me a man or woman with no opinions. It would be so refreshing for a change. Such a person would either have to be totally innocent and free of all cultural brainwashing...or be a spiritual Master. I used to love it when they'd ask Mother Teresa her opinion on all kinds of political hassles and stuff (the kind of controversies that drive the news and employ legions of lawyers), and she'd shrug and say, "I don't know anything about that." And she'd get back to talking about what really matters. I'm not gonna try to tell you what that is. Go read about her yourself and find out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Charlie Baum Date: 22 Oct 05 - 09:06 PM To the tune of "I wish I was a mole in the ground": I wish I was a mohel at your bris I wish I was a mohel at your bris If I was a mohel at your bris, I'd cut it off like this I wish I was a mohel at your bris Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl Put in on his lap, In case the baby crawl Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl I cannot believe that the Mudcat has actually provided a thread that gives me the opportunity to post this parody, which I never thought I'd get a chance to share in public. Glossary: Bris or Brith milah is the Jewish circumcision ceremony, held when the male child is eight days old. Sandek is the person who holds the baby in his lap (or on the table, these days) during the bris. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:06 PM Then they should have the good sense to stay with the uncircumcized ones, shouldn't they. What a classless remark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Mrrzy Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:01 PM Most women I know prefer the uncircumcized one, if they've had both. And about comments that the shape of the AIDS belt in Africa "probably has a great deal to do with poverty, prostitution, and a promiscuous lifestyle among transient, underemployed workers" rather than circumcision, that's just it - proportions of poverty and prostitution and all that fun stuff has a completely different shape than the AIDS belt. The non-circumcision shape matches it exactly. I will try to find the reference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Oct 05 - 12:11 PM I don't doubt that most girls prefer the circumsized variety... ;-) If they had never heard of such a thing, it wouldn't be a problem, would it? I mean, hell, in a culture where people are as afraid of "dirt" and "germs" as they are in this one it's inevitable, isn't it? Besides, they are accustomed to the idea of circumsized penises. Naturally they prefer them. For similar reasons, people prefer women to have shaven legs and shaven armpits. They think the hair looks coarse, dirty...whatever. Is that rational? No, it's culturally induced thinking. Anyway, Daylia, I wouldn't go around carrying a load of guilt about your sons being circumsized if I were you. There's absolutely NO use carrying guilt about things that can't be changed, so why bother? But you already knew that, right? You state that most males are promiscous. True. But it's all a bit annoying to hear that for those males who are not, specially when they have acquired some girlfriends in the past who ARE promiscuous! Then it's damned annoying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:59 AM WOrks for me! ;-) There are vast differences in the biological and temporal "costs" of sex and reproduction for males and females in all but very few species of mammals. Simply put, Mother Nature's design is that females 'pay' maximum, males 'pay' minimum to pass on their genes. Click here for more info re natural gender differences in the "costs of sex" "In terms of time and energy, the male expends virtually nothing in sexual contact compared to the female (Trivers 1972; Dewsbury, 1981): a few tens to a few thousand calories per contact, depending on body size, and from as low as 2-3 seconds (the bluewhale) to a few hours (the giant tree sloth) (both figures are time from intromission to ejaculation; we won't count foreplay).(4) Females, on the other hand, have a far greater physical, physiological and temporal stake in the production of offspring, particularly among the mammals (Trivers 1972). In mammals the female must carry the fetus within her body, nourishing it with her own body tissues. She must withstand the not insubstantial rigors of birth. She must then continue to nourish and protect the offspring until it can support itself, often to puberty. All this can take a lot of time, from weeks to years, and burn millions of calories.(5) The difference in the amount of time and energy males and females must devote to reproduction leads to a difference in how they regard sex. (Bell, 1980; Calow, 1979; Daly, 1978, 1983; Ghiselin, 1974) This in turn leads to a difference in their reproductive strategies ... Most males are promiscuous (Bateman 1948; Leakey, 1978).(6) Genetically, it is the most practical course of action. The more females with which a male mates, the greater number of offspring containing his genes are possible. In addition, the cost of sex in terms of time and energy is considerably lower for the male than the female. It is therefore in the male's (and thus the male's genes') best interest for the male to mate with as many females as he can. In most species, females bear the brunt of the cost of sex in both time and energy: up to millions of calories and years of time. Among mammals, she must not only produce the young, she must rear them to the point of self-sufficiency. Thus, unlike the male, she doesn't have the choice of promiscuity, of creating as many offspring as possible as quickly as possible; she cannot abandon offspring as soon as they are born, or her genes die with the infant (Daly 1983)." Biologically speaking, men are 'designed' in a way that not only presents problems for hygiene, but makes promiscuity - and therefore spreading of deadly STD's - much more likely. So anything that helps make the experience safer, cleaner, and more pleasurable / satisfying for her - (and ultimately for him, too) - is well worth the aggravation imo. Quite possibly, the traditional 'sacrifice' made by men via circumcision (which does, imo, parallel in a very small way the physical sacrifices demanded of women simply through their biology) - was an important step forward in the social/sexual evolution of this species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: bobad Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:05 AM Now there's a great reason to mutilate your babies, ladies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 22 Oct 05 - 07:24 AM During a private moment yesterday, I decided to Heart in mouth, I nervously watched as this little shadow passed over his features. THe seconds ticked by like hours, and then he finally said "Well, I haven't got anything to compare it to now, do I? So I can't really say ..." That IS the one thing I'd regret about it, if I were a man ... stab stab stab ... my heart sank ... and the Inner Accusers struck up this triumphant chorus "You ABUSER! Mutilator! Ignorant Savage!" and my motherly soul started wilting in grief ... till my son's voice broke the spell, and he finished his thought "... but girls like it better. I know that. A couple of my girlfriends have been with - you know, both kinds - and they told me they prefer it, uh, my way." Oh praise be! I asked if they told him why, and he said "Something about making it easier to, uh, you know ... OH FORGET IT, sMother! Enough!!" Yup, it was. Thank you sweet girlies, oh thank you .... eight years ago I'da had your pretty little heads but today? Thank you thank you ... and I do know EXACTLY where you're coming from! (no pun intended) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:36 AM Toque or Helmet? I had a girlfriend once who said she was glad I was circed because she didn't like giving head to an uncut dink. And women never lie to their men about anything involving sex, do they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:44 PM You betcha, Dianavan. ;-) It's always those filthy foreigners who do awful and capricious things, isn't it? We need to send over some Christian missionaries...and a whole lot of well-armed soldiers...and get those bloody heathens straightened out right quick. Tally ho, chaps! They'll thank us for it in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: dianavan Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:37 PM Littlehawk - Regardless of sex, ts easy to villify African customs and traditions but not as easy to condemn our own abusive customs and traditions. It seems to be a little easier to point the finger at others. Maybe. Just a thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:24 PM Ah, but if it were being done to female infants!!!! (and it is in some places...) Then you would hear the same voices here who approve it being done to males raising quite a hue and cry about it. Yes indeedy. It seems that there is a strong prejudice around these days in favour of seeing women as victims, but not men... Strange, isn't it? Must be an over-reaction to the past few thousand years of patriarchal rule, methinks. The most ironical part, as far as I'm concerned, is that we've probably all BEEN both male and female in various of our past incarnations...so why waste energy now on being prejudiced against either gender, just because you're stuck in one of them at the moment? * (those who do not believe in such stuff please just ignore that last paragraph...it'll save us both a lot of hot air if you do) ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: michaelr Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:06 PM Allie Kiwi, reread the thread. Your question about pulling it back to clean was answered quite a while ago. (Yes you can and should in most cases). Cheers, Michael |
.jpg){kind=link}