Register
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 370
  1. #181

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside2009 View Post
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You complained loudly enough when you thought anti-circumcisionists were making jibes at pro-circumcisionists, by calling them, mutilated, monsters and child molesters. Yet you engage in the same inflammatory behaviour yourself. Your apology has been notable by its absence.

    Civility doesn't cost anything.
    and your ignorance is blindingly obvious.....

    acknowledging that her opinion IS valid, as a mother, parent, caregiver, lover, pro rights advocate, etc... is something I have done, darkside....
    lack of ownership of a penis nor not being circumcised, DOESN'T invalidate her opinion and nor did I say it did...... that was your understanding of what I said

    you are the one saying that I implied that katjas opinion is invalid.. I have stated clearly it isn't and on what grounds, and even shown where the same statement applied to me as well......

    now I would suggest you apologise to both of us...
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  2. #182

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Katja View Post
    And I say to you LDD, why would I want to? It has no bearing, but if it did, I repeat, it would certainly reinforce my beliefs regarding routine infant circumcision.

    I do believe most women, and men for that matter, were they to experience your hypothesis would feel precisely the same where they were pro or anti routine infant circumcision at the outset.
    and yes, i would be inclined to agree.....

    the following is strictly personal feelings and doesn't make any other parent or person wrong....... and nor it is pro or anti circumcision, its anti surgeries

    pre emptive surgery is great as risk reduction.... but honestly, I would want a 100% money back quarantee that my child would have a medical need for a operation at 8-9 etc etc and want proof of it if I was to agree to a infant circumcision.... but I would perfer a non medical option that would be quaranteed to eliminate any need of surgery for any reason

    I personally am sick to death of having surgeries so I would not want to inflict that on a child, if possible.. and even if it was medically needed, I would be looking at ways to reduce any pain and suffering on a child, so they do not suffer in any way...... and that comes from my own experiences as a child, my first op was at age 5 and I suffered badly for 2 weeks

    I have watched a number of my partners, friends and family go thru multiple operations.... and if possible I would love to be able to remove surgery as a option and have miracle healing in its place....but I am realistic in that, its not going to happen any time soon

    if we could find a way to have foreskins that regen like a lizards tail, that would be a compromise.... but again, I would perfer that nobody has to have surgery at all for any reason......
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  3. #183

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong View Post
    I never said it was actual slavery.... I said by defination...
    Who cares?

    This has absolutely NOTHING to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or any type of surgery, mutilation, or even actual valid medical procedure (which female and male circumcisions are not since they're mutilation of the genitals), at all.

    If you want to go off on tangents about completely different subjects like this complete with pointless navel gazing that are not about the topic in the main thread why not just make a completely new thread?


    Stop trying to pointlessly brag. I've been involved with BDSM, BDSM and leather groups and organizations, and even total power exchange Master/slave and other type of relationships for longer than you've been alive; but you don't see me pretending to know it all, or going off on tangents, navel gazing, and other topics out of nowhere that have nothing to do with the main topic in the thread.

    BDSM and even Master/slave relationships even if they are 24/7, involve any sort of bondage, and even if they are doing Gorean BDSM Master/slave total power exchange relationships are not a type of slavery and therefore are not included in the actual legal definition of "slavery" (as in Chattel slavery or other types of illegal slavery that's non-consensual) since they're agreed upon by all the people involved, contracts are even made up in many cases and signed, and it's entirely consensual unlike chattel slavery which is not consensual or roleplay at all.

    Back to what this topic is actually about, here's an informative essay I found.

    Each and every single day, thousands of innocent, helpless, newborn baby boys are taken into an operating room, strapped onto a restraining table, arms and legs firmly bound, and literally have their penises 'skinned alive'.

    First, surgical instruments are used to tear the skin loose from the head of the penis. This delicate, highly-innervated, extremely erogenous tissue is then peeled back from the helpless baby's tiny penis, like ripping a fingernail off a finger.

    The peeled-back tissue is then placed in a vise-clamp, and the tissue is crushed for approximately 10 to 20 minutes, while the baby screams in abject horror, his poor body twisting and convulsing from the pain. His tiny heart nearly explodes as his heartbeat soars to a staggering two hundred or more beats per minute.

    Then, as shock begins to set in, his breathing stops and his body turns blue. A doctor then takes a knife and amputates all this exquisite tissue from the baby's penis, forever altering that innocent child's life.

    There are no painkillers, no sedatives, no anesthesia - the baby is wide awake through the entire horrific experience. All the while, the unrelenting, inescapable pain permeates every fiber of that little baby's mind. If he's one of the more fortunate ones, he'll lapse into a comatose, catatonic state as his body shuts down while trying to escape the bombardment of his senses with unimaginable pain.

    After the amputation, there are no sedatives, no painkillers, no magical soothing ointments, lotions, or salves. His tiny, bloodied, nearly-skinless penis is a giant open wound - raw, bleeding, and extremely painful - and it is left in agony, to 'heal itself' over the course of the next several weeks or months.

    And while the penis heals, each and every time the baby urinates he is subjected to incredible pain, as the uric acid comes in contact with the exposed flesh.

    This 'procedure' is euphemistically referred to as a 'simple circumcision'.

    Every year more than a million and a half helpless baby boys are sexually mutilated in North America. These children have the most private and personal parts of their bodies amputated for the sole purpose of depriving them of their natural right to experience the exquisite range of sensual pleasure God intended them to have. All other excuses put forward in the hopes of justifying this butchery, whether medical, religious, or otherwise, are lies designed to perpetuate the mutilations.

    Society will not permit circumcision of a girl's clitoris, but the foreskin is a man's clitoris ... they are sexually analogous. The foreskin is the primary erogenous zone on a man's body! It is an abomination that this atrocity continues to be perpetrated in every hospital in North America, day in and day out, with such impunity!
    Last edited by BiDaveDtown; Jun 2, 2011 at 10:14 PM.

  4. #184

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    The 1999 British Journal of Urology featured a study of American women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised partners. "The results of the survey are truly astonishing. Among other things, the vast majority of women indicated that they overwhelmingly prefer intercourse with a man with a natural penis (approximately 90%). More astonishing is the fact that many women actually rated circumcised intercourse a negative experience when compared to natural intercourse." The following is a summarization, excerpted from the report.

    For tables/charts that don't translate well onto this web forum see the original page.

    www. webmagician.com/pubservice/circinfo/bju_excerpt.html

    Quote Originally Posted by British Journal of Urology International
    British Journal of Urology International, Volume 83, Supplement 1, Pages 79-84, January 1, 1999.

    The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner

    K. O'HARA and J. O'HARA

    Male circumcision, the most commonly performed surgery in the USA, removes 33 - 50% of the penile skin, as well as nearly all of the penile fine touch neuroreceptors. To date no study has investigated whether this dramatic alteration in the male genitalia affects the sexual pleasure experienced by the female partner or whether a woman can physically discern the difference between a penis with a foreskin. The impact that male circumcision has on the overall sexual experience for either partner is unknown.

    The tip of the foreskin, and some or all of the frenulum, are routinely removed as part of circumcision. This tissue contains a high concentration of the nerve endings that sense fine touch. After circumcision, the surface of the glans thickens like a callus. The glans is innervated by free nerve endings that can only sense deep pressure and pain.

    The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man's sexual appetite. Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman's sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up. The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary 'sexual' organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman's ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.

    The survey included 40 questions; the results were analyzed for age, number of lifetime partners, preputial status of the most recent partner, preference for vaginal orgasms (as defined below) and their preference for a circumcised or intact penis. The survey defined 'vaginal orgasm' as 'an orgasm that occurs during intercourse, brought about by your partner's penis and pelvic movements and body contact, along with your own body's pelvic movements, with no simultaneous stimulation of the clitoris by the hands'. Premature ejaculation was defined as the man 'usually (50-100% of the time) has had his orgasm within 2-3 minutes after insertion'. The survey included three sets of responses for the respondents to rate their sexual experiences with their circumcised and unaltered male partners.

    The survey is continuing and this article reports the preliminary results.

    With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm. Conversely, women were more likely to have a vaginal orgasm with an unaltered partner. Their circumcised partners were more likely to have premature ejaculation. Women were also more likely to state that they had had vaginal discomfort with a circumcised partner either often or occasionally as opposed to rarely or never [with an intact partner]. More women reported that they never achieved orgasm with circumcised partners than with their unaltered partners. Also, they were more likely to report never having had a multiple orgasm with their circumcised partners. They were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners.

    During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with'. On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to 'want to get it over with' and considerably more likely to 'really get into it.'

    When the women were divided into those older or younger than 40 years, the older women were more likely to rate their frequency of orgasm as higher with an unaltered partner. Women 29 years or younger were more likely to prefer orally induced orgasms, while women over 40 years preferred vaginally induced orgasms more than those aged <29 years.

    Ratings of experiences with circumcised men compared with normal men (uncircumcised), overall (satisfaction) rating: 1.81 / 8.03 [ie: four and a half times more likely to consider the sexual experience satisfactory with an intact partner than with a circumcised partner].

    When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher, had more positive post-coital feelings with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall. These women were more likely to prefer being on top during coitus to achieve vaginal orgasm. They were also more likely to have an unaltered man as their most recent partner.

    The women who preferred circumcised partners were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered. These women had fewer unaltered partners, which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have a consequence of ... inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction.

    When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them. They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower and unaltered partners higher. When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.

    These results show clearly that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically complete penis over that with a circumcised penis; there may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin, in much the same way that a turtle's neck glides in and out of the folded layers of skin surrounding it. The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed against the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.

    As stated, circumcision removes 33-50% of the penile skin. With this skin missing, there is less tissue for the swollen corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum to slide against. Instead the skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured as a one-way valve pulls the vaginal secretions from the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn. Unlike the anatomically complete penis, there is no sensory input to limit withdrawal. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. The loss of these receptors creates an imbalance between the deep pressure sensed in the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum and the missing fine touch. To compensate for the imbalance, to achieve orgasm, the circumcised man must stimulate the glans, corpus cavernosa, and corpus spongiosum by thrusting deeply in and out of the vagina. As a result, coitus with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina, and decreases continual stimulation of the mons pubis and clitoris.

    Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.

    The responses in Sets 1, 2 and 3 are more a measure of intimacy than physical differences in thrusting patterns. While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin.

    In asking women to evaluate their experience based on all of their lifetime sexual partners, there may be an element of recall bias, but the circumcision status of the most current sexual partner did not alter the findings. Women who preferred vaginal orgasms had a strong preference for unaltered partners. Women who preferred circumcised partners were half as likely to prefer vaginal orgasms, but there were too few women preferring circumcised partners to make any valid statistical claims. This would suggest that the foreskin makes the most positive impact during vaginal intercourse.

    Another weakness of the survey is its preoccupation with vaginal intercourse. Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised counterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying.

    Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing 'informed consent' before circumcision.
    Last edited by BiDaveDtown; Jun 2, 2011 at 10:13 PM.

  5. #185

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Interesting articles, BIDave. I too, think the doctors probably become inured to the baby's distress, rather than experiencing some sexual gratification from it. One Dr. Mengele in the World was enough. The thoughts of the money they make from it probably salves their conscience.

    I am glad to hear there are a growing number of people and organisations in the US against this practice and hope that one day this stain against your national character will be removed completely.

    Hurrah! for Texas.

  6. #186

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown View Post
    The 1999 British Journal of Urology featured a study of American women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised partners. "The results of the survey are truly astonishing. Among other things, the vast majority of women indicated that they overwhelmingly prefer intercourse with a man with a natural penis (approximately 90%). More astonishing is the fact that many women actually rated circumcised intercourse a negative experience when compared to natural intercourse." The following is a summarization, excerpted from the report.

    For tables/charts that don't translate well onto this web forum see the original page.

    www. webmagician.com/pubservice/circinfo/bju_excerpt.html

    roflmao........ so foreskins make people better lovers ??? roflmao.... does that mean that lesbians are useless in bed for they do not have a foreskin....

    sorry... that study doesn't prove the validity of circumcision... it merely shows the personal preference of a study group.....but don't take my word for it.... start a poll in the site here.. and ask them if a foreskin makes you a better lover......
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  7. #187

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    No pain relief at all? What a fucking joke. I am done with this thread. This is no longer a debate on the merits of circumcision or even the merit of the proposed ban that was in the OP. It's just another opportunity for people who don't know jack about actual procedures to go post their personal opinions and have them stated as gospel. There are several methods of pain blocks used before the surgery. Yes SURGERY, not a mutilation. SURGERY. Do some more research don't just post anonymous people in anonymous blogs trying to make something sound like a Mengele experiment, which by the way was in very fucking poor taste to anyone on this board who has any family members involved in the Holocaust.
    Standing hand in hand with my love

    Cara ch' 'm blaidd



  8. #188

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown View Post
    Who cares?

    This has absolutely NOTHING to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or any type of surgery, mutilation, or even actual valid medical procedure (which female and male circumcisions are not since they're mutilation of the genitals), at all.

    If you want to go off on tangents about completely different subjects like this complete with pointless navel gazing that are not about the topic in the main thread why not just make a completely new thread?


    Stop trying to pointlessly brag. I've been involved with BDSM, BDSM and leather groups and organizations, and even total power exchange Master/slave and other type of relationships for longer than you've been alive; but you don't see me pretending to know it all, or going off on tangents, navel gazing, and other topics out of nowhere that have nothing to do with the main topic in the thread.

    BDSM and even Master/slave relationships even if they are 24/7, involve any sort of bondage, and even if they are doing Gorean BDSM Master/slave total power exchange relationships are not a type of slavery and therefore are not included in the actual legal definition of "slavery" (as in Chattel slavery or other types of illegal slavery that's non-consensual) since they're agreed upon by all the people involved, contracts are even made up in many cases and signed, and it's entirely consensual unlike chattel slavery which is not consensual or roleplay at all.

    Back to what this topic is actually about, here's an informative essay I found.
    ahh darkside was the first to bring it up in post 160, I replied in 163..... and yet, its my fault... snorts..... so am I responsible for darksides actions too ????

    I understand now.... slave and mistress has nothing to do with slavery even tho it uses the term slave......

    consenting slavery has nothing to do with slavery cos its consenting.....

    bondage has nothing to do with limiting freedom, cos you are only tying people up, they are not actually restricted in any way by being tied up

    quess I am wrong again, and the BDSM is right cos they talk about enjoying being slaves to masters, and thats not slavery.....

    so when are you going to join with the rest of the people that want to rewrite the dictionary definations to have new meanings..... IE your defination v's the rest of the worlds


    btw, extreme body modding can involve aspects of bdsm...... unless the sites that deal with that are wrong too, and the media and news reports are wrong too.... or shock horror.... they are all right... and I am wrong....
    Last edited by Long Duck Dong; Jun 2, 2011 at 11:35 PM.
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  9. #189

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown View Post
    The 1999 British Journal of Urology featured a study of American women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised partners. "The results of the survey are truly astonishing. Among other things, the vast majority of women indicated that they overwhelmingly prefer intercourse with a man with a natural penis (approximately 90&#37. More astonishing is the fact that many women actually rated circumcised intercourse a negative experience when compared to natural intercourse." The following is a summarization, excerpted from the report.

    For tables/charts that don't translate well onto this web forum see the original page.

    www. webmagician.com/pubservice/circinfo/bju_excerpt.html
    I just went and checked out your study....

    ACTUAL-STUDY-Do-Women-Prefer-Uncut-Cock

    This survey surveyed 138 women. Of that group 20 (14.5%) preferred non-intact circumcised sexual partners while 118 or (85.5%) preferred intact non-circumcised sexual partners. This means that about 6 out of 7 women preferred intact non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of seven preferred non-intact circumcised partners.]

    Of the 139 surveys returned, one considered a man who was undergoing foreskin restoration as having a foreskin; this survey was excluded from analysis. Not all questions were answered by all respondents. Contradictory answers showed that not all respondents understood the questions; the responses and unanswered questions were excluded from the analysis. The demographic profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1.

    Table 1 The demographics of the respondents


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Variable Mean/median number


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mean (SD) age (years) 37.3 (9.2)
    Number of partners;
    Mean (SD) 14.7 (11.2)
    Median (SD)
    Preferred vaginal orgasm 71
    Preferred position for attaining
    vaginal orgasm;
    woman on top 54
    man on top 54
    rear entry 4
    no preference 9


    While this study shows clearly that women prefer the surgically unaltered penis, it does have shortcomings. The respondents were not selected randomly and several were recruited using a newsletter of an anti-circumcision organization. However, when the responses from respondents gathered from the mailing list of the anti-circumcision organization were compared with those of the other respondents, there were no differences. This selection bias may be compensated to the degree that each respondent acted as her own control, using her subjective criteria on both types of penises. The findings cannot be completely attributed to selection bias.


    quess your study is built on limited people that did not answer all questions or understand them and that some data was removed from the study.....
    that would invalid it as a genuine case study, as the results have been altered while the findings were calculated........
    Last edited by Long Duck Dong; Jun 2, 2011 at 11:24 PM.
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  10. #190

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Found this interesting video on circumcision, by a Jewish guy. I think he is from Chicago, it contains an excerpt from a man that was circumcised as an adult. It is about an hour long, but bear with it :-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89x...eature=related

    And this second link to a video by a mother who had circumcised her first two sons:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u5qoRnxiyk&NR=1

    And a third link:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSSvB...eature=related
    Last edited by Darkside2009; Jun 3, 2011 at 3:27 AM.

  11. #191

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight


  12. #192

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong View Post
    and your ignorance is blindingly obvious.....

    acknowledging that her opinion IS valid, as a mother, parent, caregiver, lover, pro rights advocate, etc... is something I have done, darkside....
    lack of ownership of a penis nor not being circumcised, DOESN'T invalidate her opinion and nor did I say it did...... that was your understanding of what I said

    you are the one saying that I implied that katjas opinion is invalid.. I have stated clearly it isn't and on what grounds, and even shown where the same statement applied to me as well......

    now I would suggest you apologise to both of us...
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Katja is neither a mother or a parent, so who on Earth are you talking about now? As I suggested before, it might be a good idea if you reviewed and edited your posts before you posted them. It might clarify in your mind what you are trying to say. It will also make the task of trying to follow your line of reasoning a lot easier.

  13. #193

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    I've read enough of these opinions and so many of them is misguided. It sounds so nice to think we are protecting our children, but I wonder how many of those intactavist in San Franciso are against abortion? Not many, I bet. But beyond the religious aspect of circumscion, there a many reasons for it and you cannot equate the male circumscion with female genital mutilation. For the female, the removal of the clit causes infections and prevents orgasm, for the male, we circumsized men seem to perform pretty well. But more importantly, the World Health Organization recomends it. Circumsized men are 60 percent less likely to contract AIDS and less likely to get urinary tract infections. The health issues alone should make those in San Franciso notice.

  14. #194

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck1124 View Post
    I've read enough of these opinions and so many of them is misguided. It sounds so nice to think we are protecting our children, but I wonder how many of those intactavist in San Franciso are against abortion? Not many, I bet. But beyond the religious aspect of circumscion, there a many reasons for it and you cannot equate the male circumscion with female genital mutilation. For the female, the removal of the clit causes infections and prevents orgasm, for the male, we circumsized men seem to perform pretty well. But more importantly, the World Health Organization recomends it. Circumsized men are 60 percent less likely to contract AIDS and less likely to get urinary tract infections. The health issues alone should make those in San Franciso notice.
    No one is trying to stop people getting circumcised Chuck. We are trying to prevent infant circumcision of young children without their consent. Remove breast tissue and girls are 100&#37; less likely to develop breast cancer. No one is suggesting or would suggest removing young girls breast tiissue without their consent when they are healthy.

    The figures you quote are arguable and while you may be right that is insufficient reason too foist upon an infant something which should be his decision. The vast majority and I mean the overwhelming majority of uncircumcised men do not develop either penile cancer or urinary tract infection and the numbers do not justiify such a serious alteration of a penis. We are likely to develop many diseases in our lifetime. Must we start surgically removing every part of our body which is prone to disease?

    The argument of female and male circumcison is pertinent. It is true that the procedure for girls is far more invasive and destructive, but to deny that the two are not two peas from the same pod is an ill-advised and misconceived attempt by those in favour of infant circumcision of rationalising that one gender needs legal protection and the other should have his rights of choosing for himself removed from him.
    Last edited by Katja; Jun 3, 2011 at 6:38 AM.

  15. #195

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck1124 View Post
    I've read enough of these opinions and so many of them is misguided. It sounds so nice to think we are protecting our children, but I wonder how many of those intactavist in San Franciso are against abortion? Not many, I bet. But beyond the religious aspect of circumscion, there a many reasons for it and you cannot equate the male circumscion with female genital mutilation. For the female, the removal of the clit causes infections and prevents orgasm, for the male, we circumsized men seem to perform pretty well. But more importantly, the World Health Organization recomends it. Circumsized men are 60 percent less likely to contract AIDS and less likely to get urinary tract infections. The health issues alone should make those in San Franciso notice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chuck, I would suggest that you start from the beginning of the thread and read through it from the start, including the links provided. You will see it deals with this myth that circumcision prevents Aids and urinary tract infections, and the many so-called 'health benefits' it provides.

    A moments thought should be enough to convince you on the Aids argument. The US has the highest rate of HIV infection of all the Industrialised countries in the World, it is also the one industrialised country that routine circumcision is performed on infants.

    Now if routine circumcision provides this protection, why is the rate of HIV infection greater in the US than say France, Germany or the UK? Or even of the European Union as a whole, which has a greater amount of population.

    The simple answer is, it doesn't. Urinary tract infections in males are uncommon and can be easily treated with anti-biotics, there is no need to remove a part of the penis containing thousands of nerve endings.

    Lastly, the medical associations in all of the industrialised nations in the World do not advocate routine circumcision of infants. That includes the main medical associations in your own country.

    You don't need to take my word for that, just do the research yourself, google it.

    What the advocates in San Francisco are trying to do is make circumcision illegal for those under the age of eighteen. Once the person reaches eighteen they can decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their body, their decision, when they are old enough to make an informed choice. Not someone else's decision to perform an unnecessary operation on their body.

    That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your country makes people wait until they are twenty-one before they can legally start drinking in a bar. Isn't making a decision about their own body more important than deciding between a beer or a soft-drink?

    Similarly, the law makes it illegal before the age of eighteen, to walk into a tattoo parlour and get a tattoo. Isn't a decision about cutting off part of your own body more important than deciding which tattoo to have and which inks to use? At least a tattoo can be removed by laser, if you grow bored with it. You can't replace a foreskin with all those nerve endings.
    Last edited by Darkside2009; Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM.

  16. #196

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Circumcision cuts cervical cancer rates
    13:40 11 April 2002 by Emma Young
    Increasing the rate of male circumcision could slash cases of cervical cancer in women, according to a new report.

    A team led by Xavier Castellsagué at Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona reviewed seven studies from five countries on a total of almost 2000 couples.

    Women with "low-risk" partners - men who had previously had fewer than six sexual partners - had a similar risk of cervical cancer, whether their partner was circumcised or not. But women with "high-risk" partners were 58 per cent less likely to develop cervical cancer if their partner had been circumcised.

    The team also found that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was present in almost 20 per cent of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than six per cent of circumcised men. HPV is sexually transmitted and contributes to the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Circumcision is important because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be especially vulnerable to infection.

    Easily cured
    A link between male circumcision and reduced risk of cervical cancer has long been suspected. But the new study quantifies that risk.

    "If we assume that 25 per cent of men around the world are circumcised, then the general adoption of circumcision might lead to a further reduction in the incidence of cancer of the cervix of 23 per cent to 43 per cent," write Hans-Olov Adami of the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden and Dimitrios Trichopoulos of the Harvard School of Public Health, US, in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial accompanying the research paper.

    Worldwide, there are about 466,000 cases of cervical cancer each year. The disease is easily cured if detected early enough, and most deaths occur in the developing world.

    Castellsagué's team used data from Brazil, Spain, Thailand, Colombia and the Philippines.

    Journal reference: New England Journal of Medicine (vol 346, p 1105)

  17. #197

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    The information below is taken from this site:-

    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-c...cancer-vaccine

    I would suggest you note the dates, and the number of people involved in the study.

    Once again, why would you want to cut a piece of your child's body when a simpler option of a vaccine is freely available? It is being routinely offered to school-girls in the UK.


    HPV vaccines

    Can you tell me about the vaccine to prevent HPV (human papilloma virus)?

    This page is about the new vaccines to prevent HPV which prevents cervical cancer. There is information about

    What the human papilloma virus (HPV) is
    HPV and cancer
    Research into vaccines to prevent HPV
    The HPV vaccination programme
    Men and boys and the vaccine
    Research into views about HPV
    If girls are sexually active before having the vaccine
    Side effects of the vaccine
    Do we still need cervical cancer screening?


    What the human papilloma virus (HPV) is
    There are over 100 different types of human papilloma virus (HPV). It is sometimes called the wart virus or genital wart virus as some types of HPV cause genital warts. A number of HPV types are passed on from one person to another through sexual contact. Many women will be infected with the HPV virus at some time during their lifetime. Often the virus causes no harm and goes away without treatment.

    Back to top


    HPV and cancer
    Some types of HPV can increase the risk of developing cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is cancer of the neck of the womb. About 2,900 women are diagnosed with this type of cancer every year in the UK. Most women infected with HPV don’t go on to develop cervical cancer. But for some, infection with HPV can go on to cause

    Genital warts
    Changes in the cervix, which may develop into a cancer
    Changes in the vaginal tissues, which may develop into vaginal cancer
    Of the different types of HPV, types 16 and 18 cause about 7 out of 10 (70&#37 cancers of the cervix. Most of the remaining 30% of cervical cancers are associated with other high risk HPV types. HPV types 6 and 11 cause genital warts but are rarely linked to cancer. You can find out more about the risks and causes of cervical cancer in the cervical cancer section of CancerHelp UK. HPV is also a risk factor for other types of cancer including vaginal cancer, vulval cancer, anal cancer, cancer of the penis and mouth and oropharyngeal cancers.

    Back to top


    Research into vaccines to prevent HPV
    Several research trials have tested vaccines as a way of preventing infection with HPV. A trial testing Gardasil called FUTURE II reported its results in October 2005. This phase 3 trial involved over 12,000 women aged between 16 and 26. These women did not have HPV before the start of the trial. The women were divided into two groups. Half the women were given Gardasil and the other half had a dummy vaccine (placebo). Both groups of women had 3 injections of either the vaccine or placebo over six months. Over the following two years the women had regular checks to see if they had got HPV, or had any pre cancerous changes to the cells of the cervix, which could develop into a cancer. The group who had the vaccine showed no pre cancerous changes. Of the 5,258 women who had the placebo, 21 had pre cancerous changes, which is 0.4%. The researchers found that Gardasil protected against HPV types 6 and 11, as well as 16 and 18. Gardasil was licensed in the UK in September 2006 for girls and women aged between 9 and 26.

    Two phase 3 trials have tested the vaccine Cervarix. The first was for women under 26. It involved over 18,000 women from all over the world, including the UK. This study was called PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal to prevent Cervical cancer In young Adults). The second was for women of 26 and over. The trials found that Cervarix was useful in preventing HPV infection. Cervarix was licensed in the UK in 2007 for the prevention of pre cancerous changes in the cervix in girls and women between the age of 10 and 25. It is used in the NHS HPV vaccination programme, which started in Autumn 2008.

    There is not enough evidence at the moment that the vaccine prevents other types of cancer. Research has shown that Gardasil can prevent the development of anal warts which are caused by HPV types 6 and 11. At the moment we don’t know whether the vaccine will prevent HPV infection in the mouth. There is research going on to look at the link between HPV and these other types of cancer and how to prevent it.

    Back to top


    The HPV vaccination programme
    In the UK, girls in year 8 at school (aged 12 to 13) are offered the Cervarix vaccine. Girls have three injections over 6 months given by a nurse. A letter about the vaccine and a consent form is sent to the parents of the girl before she has the vaccine. It is up to her whether she has the vaccine.

    It is also possible to have the vaccination privately. The cost for private treatment varies from doctor to doctor. We are hearing reports of about &#163;500 being charged for a course of 3 injections.

    If girls take up the vaccination, the programme will prevent at least 7 out of 10 cancers of the cervix and possibly even more in the future. But it takes between 10 and 20 years for a cancer to develop after HPV infection. So any benefits in reducing cervical cancer won’t be seen for quite a long time. But the number of cases of pre cancerous changes in the cervix (CIN) will fall quite rapidly. It is not certain how long the vaccination gives protection for. So far the trials have followed people up for 6 years so we know that it lasts at least this long. It is expected that the vaccines should last for life but more research is needed to find out if this is the case. It may be that women will need a booster dose at some time.

    Back to top


    Men and boys and the vaccine
    The HPV vaccine is not licensed for men in the UK at the moment. HPV does increase the risk of other types of cancer including penile and anal cancers in men. However it is not the only cause of these cancers and we don’t know how many of these cancers would be prevented by having the vaccine. They are rare cancers and vaccinating all men would be very expensive. It is thought that by vaccinating girls it will reduce the number of men getting HPV because you become infected through sexual contact.

    Back to top


    Research into views about HPV
    A large project called The HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) Core Messages Study is looking at the scientific evidence about HPV as well as finding out people’s views about HPV testing. Based on this, the project aims to develop messages that could help people make informed decisions about HPV testing and vaccination. You can find information about HPV trials on the CancerHelp UK clinical trials database.

    Back to top


    If girls are sexually active before having the vaccine
    The vaccine is being offered to girls from the age of 12 because they are unlikely to be sexually active and to have caught HPV. The research so far has shown that the vaccine works best at preventing HPV infection in younger women. If you are sexually active before you have the vaccine you may already have HPV and the vaccine won’t get rid of it. But there are still benefits from having the vaccine. There are many different types of HPV so even if you have HPV it may not be HPV 16 or 18. Types 16 and 18 are the types that are most likely to cause cancer of the cervix and it is these types that the vaccine protects against.

    If girls become sexually active during the course of the vaccine injections it is important to complete the course of injections. There is no research yet into how much protection, if any, girls will have against HPV infection after the first or second injection. It is only after the 3 injections that we know the vaccine is protective.

    Back to top


    Side effects of the vaccine
    The side effects are usually mild and include

    Headache
    Aching muscles
    Redness and soreness around the site of the injection
    Fever
    Feeling and being sick
    Stomach pain
    Diarrhoea
    Itching, rash
    Dizziness
    Back to top


    Do we still need cervical cancer screening?
    Yes – we will definitely still need the cervical screening programme in the UK. The vaccines don't prevent infection with all types of HPV. Also from the research so far, we don't think the vaccines will help prevent cervical cancer in women already infected with HPV. And it takes about 10 to 20 years after HPV infection for a cervical cancer to develop. So it’s very important to remember that women will still need cervical cancer screening (smear tests) for many years to come. There is more information about cervical cancer screening in the cervical cancer section of CancerHelp UK.

    Back to top

    Increase text
    Decrease text
    Print this page
    Glossary
    E-newsletter
    Help
    Contact us
    Join Race for Life
    Print basket
    Save pages here and print in one go
    Add this page
    View basket
    What's this?

    What do you think of our website?
    Please complete our short user survey and let us know

    Mrs Ren&#233;e Dangoor


    CancerHelp UK is generously supported by Dr N E Dangoor OBE to honour the life of Mrs Ren&#233;e Dangoor

    Questions about cancer?
    Call our nurses on freephone 0808 800 4040 9am until 5pm Monday to Friday.

    Cancer Chat
    Visit our forum to talk to other people affected by cancer

    Updated: 19 April 2011

    About CancerHelp UK Terms and conditions Privacy Accessibility Contact us Site map
    Cancer Research UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (1089464) and in Scotland (SC041666).
    Registered as a company limited by guarantee in England & Wales No. 4325234.
    Registered address: Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD.
    Last edited by Darkside2009; Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 PM.

  18. #198

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Long Duck here are your own opinions and words about how male circumcision is a bad thing and how you do think that it's genital mutilation done to boys and their penises. You can try to deny it all you want or claim that you never said it but you did.

    I did a search and I found some of your own words and opinions on male circumcision, how you believe that yes it is genital mutilation and that you're not for parents' mutilating their sons' penises, and the lasting effects of what being circumcised did to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
    my penis has been mutilated from a botched circumcision
    Quote Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
    in a purely medical sense, the removal of the vulva and the clitoris is regarded as a form of mutilation of the human body... and the same can be applied to the removal of the foreskin

    mutilation is the unneeded removal of part of the human body.... circumcision for religious reasoning, is marking the human body to set a difference between people.....also using medical logic...circumcision is the removal of the foreskin to mark a person... and in 99% of cases, circumcision falls under the heading of mutilation

    the child has no choice in the matter......in the case of my parents, they chose... the circumcision was blotched and I was left scarred... and that has been proven medically... some areas of my penis have NO feeling due to scarring....and the doctor called it MUTILATION

  19. #199

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Gardasil side effects examined
    Published On Wed Aug 19 2009Email Print Rss Article

    Andrea Gordon
    Family issues reporter
    Thirty-two deaths and 12,424 adverse reactions ranging from dizziness to autoimmune disorders were reported in the United States in the two years after the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was launched, according to a new study.

    The study, published in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, said the rate of adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine reported between June 2006 and the end of 2008 was consistent with results from earlier clinical trials, and for other vaccines.

    But it noted the exception was a higher proportion of fainting and blood clots reported following the 23 million doses administered during that period.

    "It's generally a very safe vaccine and the benefits seem to continue to outweigh the risks," lead author Dr. Barbara Slade said in an interview from Atlanta. Only 6 per cent of the adverse reactions were serious, but the authors noted the need for ongoing long-term studies of the effects.

    Slade, a medical officer in the immunization safety office at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said this is the first major summary of reported side effects and gives physicians, parents and young girls who may be immunized a reference point for discussing the risks and benefits.

    Two other articles in the current issue of the journal sounded a cautionary note about the controversial vaccine, which has been introduced across Canada for girls ages 9 through 26 and involves three doses over six months.

    The vaccine is aimed at preventing four types of sexually transmitted HPV that are responsible for up to 70 per cent of cervical cancer and 90 per cent of genital warts.

    An editorial by Norwegian physician Dr. Charlotte Haug noted "the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain.

    "Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.

    ``So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine," she wrote.

    A separate article titled "Marketing HPV Vaccine" raised questions about manufacturer Merck & Co. Inc.'s aggressive campaign pitching Gardasil as an anti-cancer vaccine rather than to guard against the virus.

    It also raised concerns that professional medical associations in the U.S. received funding and company materials used for public education about the vaccine.

    "By making this vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to all adolescents maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored," wrote authors Sheila and David Rothman.

    In Ontario, this fall will mark the third year Gardasil is being offered to Grade 8 girls at no cost. During its first year, 49 per cent of eligible girls in the province received the first dose.

    Toronto Public Health statistics show a higher uptake, with 69 per cent of Grade 8 females receiving the first dose last fall, up from 63 per cent the first year.

  20. #200

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside2009 View Post
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Katja is neither a mother or a parent, so who on Earth are you talking about now? As I suggested before, it might be a good idea if you reviewed and edited your posts before you posted them. It might clarify in your mind what you are trying to say. It will also make the task of trying to follow your line of reasoning a lot easier.
    remember when you said that I was implying that katjas opinion was invalid.... and I told you to learn the difference between opinion and experience.....

    katjas opinion is valid.... her opinion that children should have a choice..... but any other opinion about what happens to a child that is being circumcised or is circumcised, or putting children thru surgery. why and how parents do it etc, is not based on any personal experience at all

    katjas opinion is still valid, most of her statements that are not based on personal experience, are hearsay.... as it is people like DD that are parents and mothers , that have valid opinions about what happens with a circumcision as they have been there and seen it happen in front of them.....

    now I did not imply that, its a simple fact, supported by your statement that katja is not a mother or parent....... so I would suggest you stop trying to make out that other people are trying to invalidate her valid opinion, when you are busy blowing holes in most of her statements by showing she has no experience in those areas......
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  21. #201

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy View Post
    Long Duck here are your own opinions and words about how male circumcision is a bad thing and how you do think that it's genital mutilation done to boys and their penises. You can try to deny it all you want or claim that you never said it but you did.

    I did a search and I found some of your own words and opinions on male circumcision, how you believe that yes it is genital mutilation and that you're not for parents' mutilating their sons' penises, and the lasting effects of what being circumcised did to you.
    smiles.....

    the first statement..... and the last sentence of the second statement.... read them carefully..... the DOCTOR called it mutilation... a bit like you, saying how circumcised males are mutilated....

    now read the part where I said, using purely medical sense and by medical logic..... where does it say, in MY OPINION
    my opinion, as stated clearly in this thread, is that all surgeries are forms of harm and mutilation of the human body etc......not just one form... cos surgery is generally the cutting and removing of healthy tissue.....

    I also refered to MY parents, not ALL parents.... it was a statement about my own experience and not applied to other parents, its why I said, in the case of my parents....
    as I have stated in this thread, any child lacks a choice in medical matters, the choice comes down to the doctors and the parents and in some cases, the courts... and that covers surgeries, not just circumcision

    the missing post which you seem to have neglected to add, is the one where I state it was found that the lack of sensation in my penis was not from the circumcision, as the doctors thought... it was in fact from a spinal injury that has affected the feeling in my legs and lower back / torso......


    how about a lil less word twisting and shit stirring, drugstore... or go back to school for some remedial reading classes......
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  22. #202

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong View Post
    remember when you said that I was implying that katjas opinion was invalid.... and I told you to learn the difference between opinion and experience.....

    katjas opinion is valid.... her opinion that children should have a choice..... but any other opinion about what happens to a child that is being circumcised or is circumcised, or putting children thru surgery. why and how parents do it etc, is not based on any personal experience at all

    katjas opinion is still valid, most of her statements that are not based on personal experience, are hearsay.... as it is people like DD that are parents and mothers , that have valid opinions about what happens with a circumcision as they have been there and seen it happen in front of them.....

    now I did not imply that, its a simple fact, supported by your statement that katja is not a mother or parent....... so I would suggest you stop trying to make out that other people are trying to invalidate her valid opinion, when you are busy blowing holes in most of her statements by showing she has no experience in those areas......
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your point is what?

    That DD's opinions are more valid than Katja's because DD had three son's circumcised and Katja didn't? That her opinions are less valid because she didn't personally experience them? That is illogical. It would invalidate everything we learned in life because we hadn't personally experienced it.

    In which case we need pay no attention to DD, or any other parent saying her son's didn't suffer any pain during the operation, for the simple reason she, and they, they didn't experience the pain themselves, their sons did.

    The whole point of education is to inform each of us sufficiently to give an informed opinion. To give a simple example, World War 2 finished before I was born, therefore I did not have any personal experience of the fighting. However from my education I still know what happened back then and have valid opinions on the matter, the causes and effects and the personalities involved.

    Part of the reason for becoming educated is to learn from past mistakes, so we don't continue to make them. It is not enough to have been there and not learned anything from the experience. If that were the case one might as well have slept through it.

    I suggest that prospective parents do the research themselves, so they are in the position of making an informed decision. Look at the reasons these circumcisions were introduced, look at the 'benefits' claimed for them; look at the evidence if any to support these claims; look at the evidence against; examine the moral and ethical implications; compare the results with other industrialised countries in the World; including whether any group has a vested financial interest in these operations continuing; what happens if the operation goes wrong. Why not leave it for your son to decide whether or not he wishes to be circumcised? His body, his choice.

    All these should be considered before the surgery, for it will be too late afterwards.

    Just as the Chinese once thought foot binding was a great idea, the practice died out, through education, increased awareness of the harm it was doing, and eventually law to make it illegal. Despite the personal experience of those that thought it was a great idea to bind the feet of their wives and daughters.

    I happen to think all children are entitled to the same consideration. For those parents who have already had their children circumcised, it is too late.

    For those hoping, or planning to have a family, the choice is still open, will you join the ranks of the foot-binders, or put the money you save to better use, such as your son's college education fund? Which do you think he will thank you for?

  23. #203

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    And here's another angle that no one has considdered...

    The main agruement against circumcision is that proper cleaning techniques taught to the young boy can conquer all the ill effects of poor hygene and STI transmission later in life, correct? Well, anyone who has kids can attest to the fact that kids and soap don't always agree and it is by shear repetition over the years of youth that a child will eventually learn to clean themselves properly. Aggreed?

    Has anyone considdered the psychological ramifications done to a young man whose first sexual stirrings are from memories of his mom tugging and scrubbing his weiner in the tub? Ewwwww!!! I bet the library shelves are full of text books dealing with this issue.

    I'm just sayin...

  24. #204

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    No, that is not the main argument against circumcision, as you are well aware, it is merely one of them.

    As an intact man, I had no difficulty as a child in washing myself, either in the bath or a shower. When I became old enough to do it myself, it was just another ingrained habit and really didn't pose a problem. It didn't and doesn't take any longer to wash my groin area than it does to wash my face, or my hands.

    I fail to see why it would prove of any more difficulty to Canadian or American boys than it would to Irish, English, or any other Nationality.

    Before circumcision became commonplace in America, and before the advent of indoor plumbing, people washed from a bowl or a bath that had to be filled with buckets of hot water. It didn't seem to present any insurmountable problem then either. No one thought of circumcision as an alternative to soap and water, not even the Jews who practised it for religious reasons.

    As to your Oedipus complex, I don't think we'll delve too deeply into that if it is all the same to you. lol God's pity on your poor Mother.

    Besides which, you informed us you thought you were becoming more Gay, it's your poor father I'm worried about. lol
    Last edited by Darkside2009; Jun 4, 2011 at 12:43 AM.

  25. #205

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Foreskin Amputation: What Is Lost Forever

    * ALL of that exquisite, highly erogenous, touch-sensitive nerve tissue is completed removed from the penis, thus robbing the man of all of the pleasure which would normally be derived through the normal, natural, touch stimulation of the penis.

    * In addition, virtually all of the pressure-sensitive nerve endings located on the surface of the glans, are also stripped from the penis, because the foreskin is literally torn from the glans during the circumcision amputation, and the bulk of those glans nerve endings are ripped from the glans in the process.

    * A man who has been circumcised at birth,
    o can never experience a true orgasm;
    o it is physiologically impossible, because the normal development of that specialized pleasure centre within the brain requires nerve triggers from the maturing foreskin tissue in order to form. Without those foreskin triggers during the child's adolescent development, that pleasure centre atrophies.

    * The female sexual partner is also affected by circumcision.
    o Because the circumcised penis no longer has any skin mobility, the shaft of the penis rubs directly against the delicate tissue inside the vagina, creating friction and causing chaffing during intercourse.
    o The foreskin of a normal penis produces natural emolliants which lubricate the penis, reducing friction, thereby making intercourse more comfortable. The circumcised penis is no longer capable of producing that lubrication, which leads to friction and chaffing, making intercourse painful.
    o The majority of erogenous nerve endings within the vagina are located in the first inch to inch and a half of the mucosal lining just inside the vagina. The contact between the foreskin - which is also mucosal tissue - and the mucosal tissue within the vagina, produces a highly-pleasurable interaction for both sexual partners. The absence of the mucosal foreskin tissue means there is no interaction, and therefore none of the pleasurable sensations which would normally be felt.
    o The foreskin also plays a MAJOR role in the stimulation of the female "G-spot". As the penis moves back and forth, sliding within its foreskin, the foreskin continuously stretches and collapses along the length of the shaft. Inside the vagina, at a point just behind the female pubic bone, the foreskin gets "bunched up" as the shaft glides in and out. As the foreskin "bunches up", it applies pressure on the vaginal tissues in that spot. That spot of tissues is known as the female "G-spot". A circumcised penis has no foreskin, and therefore is incapable of putting pressure on the female's "G-spot". While it is possible to stimulate the G-spot via other methods (eg: finger(s)), nature designed the penis for this role, as it was meant to strengthen the intimacy and sexual bonding between the two partners.

  26. #206

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Circumcision Removes More Than Just Skin

    When an infant's penis is 'circumcised', this is what is forever lost:

    * 50 to 80% of the total penile skin system, radically immobilizing the remaining shaft skin. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin measures 15 to 20 square inches, about the size of a postcard.

    * Most of the erogenous nerve tissue on the penis. The foreskin contains between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture. The amputation of this highly-innervated tissue reduces the sensitivity of the penis to that of ordinary skin.

    * The densely innervated Ridged Bands, a specialized, extremely erogenous section of the prepuce located at the juncture of the outer foreskin and inner mucosal tissue.

    * Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the Dartos fascia.

    * Thousands of coiled, fine-touch receptor cells, including Meissner's Corpuscles.

    * An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.

    * Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and portions of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, severely damaging its natural function.

    * Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within the body's immune system.

    * The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa which produces antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, the same as found in mother's milk, and plasma cells which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.

    * Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate, moisturize, and regulate a healthy pH balance, thereby maintaining the erotogenic sensitivity of the glans.

    * The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful, silent, invisible sexual signals/stimulants.

    * Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component.

    * Estrogen receptors - the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.

    * The connective synechiae, which fuses the foreskin to the glans while the penis develops during infancy. It is destroyed when the foreskin is torn from the glans during the circumcision operation.

    * The frenulum, the sensitive 'V'-shaped tethering structure at the base of the glans on the underside of the penis, is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed.

    * The protective covering of the glans, which is actually an internal organ. The foreskin shields the glans from abrasion, drying, and callusing, and protects the glans from dirt and other contaminants.

    * Loss of sexual sensitivity in the glans. The glans of an intact penis is normally a soft, moist, delicate organ, similar in texture to the smooth skin lining the inside of the lips of your mouth. When the foreskin is amputated it no longer provides protection to the glans against abrasion, or even exposure to the air. This causes the glans to dry out - imagine what would happen to your eyeballs if your eyelids were removed. It also causes the skin on the glans to thicken and harden as a protection against abrasion. This 'callousing' effect - known as keratinization - causes any remaining nerves on the glans to become buried under many layers of skin cells, severly reducing the sensitivity of the glans to external stimulation - such as a soft touch. The sensitivity continues to decrease over time, until eventually all sensitivity is lost.

    * 10% to 20% of the penis's circumference, because its double-layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis thinner.

    * As much as one inch of the erect penis's length due to scarring, and shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly-vascularized foreskin.

    * The gliding action of the penis within its foreskin. The foreskin's abundance (15-20 sq.in.) of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its anatomically unique ability to smoothly slide back and forth within itself, thereby permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without drying out the vagina.

    * The deep pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.

    * There is considerable evidence that a circumcised penis loses its capacity for subtle electromagnetic communication that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes, an interaction which contributes to the sense of the healing power of sexual ecstasy. In other words, circumcision forever diminishes the intensity of both the male and female orgasm and its physical, psychological, and spiritual benefits.

    * Many babies die as a result of circumcision, a fact the circumcision industry obscures and conceals.

  27. #207

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    The circumcisors within the medical profession offer various and sundry lies in order to promote circumcision, and they denounce any ill-effects. But one only has to look at what is happening in society to see the consequences of circumcision. The facts cannot be hidden by the lies.

    First, the vast majority of circumcised men are NOT AWARE of the PHENOMENAL LOSS their bodies have been subjected to. This is not the same as saying that the vast majority of circumcised men do not have problems with their circumcised penises. In fact, quite the contrary is true. 20/20 News (ABC TV) featured a special segment in their March 20th, 1998 telecast. They reported the current statistics that over 18 million men‡ in the United States suffer from impotence, and that tens of millions of other men suffer from various other sexual dysfunctions. The facts clearly indicate that millions of men are indeed experiencing sexual problems because of their circumcisions. The problem is that men do not talk publicly about these problems - except of course to their doctors, who are busy either denying that any problem exists or blaming it on "old age".
    ‡ Note: The January 2003 issue (pp. 51-52) of Good Housekeeping magazine reports it's now estimated that between 20 and 30 million men in the U.S. are affected by Erectile Dysfunction (impotence).

    Such overwhelming numbers of sexual dysfunction are unique to North America. Statistics from European countries where circumcision is virtually non-existent are minuscule in comparison.

    Comparisons of statistics for violent crime, especially rape and other violence directed towards women, reveal the same lopsided proportions when evaluating crime in North America compared to European nations.

    Divorce rates in North America have exploded over the past 20 years and incompatibility (ie: problems in the bedroom) heads the list of reasons given. Certainly it is much easier to get a divorce than it was 20 years ago. Prior to that, people stuck it out (amicably or not) primarily because of the stigma associated with divorce. So the ease of getting a divorce accounts for the rise in the number of divorces - but doesn't answer why so many people are seeking a divorce. While this might sound sexist, the majority of divorces are the direct result of the males seeking out new female sexual partners. And they're seeking those partners because sex is not satisfying with their current partner - and they blame that current partner for the problem. In reality, it is the male who has the problem: his lack of a foreskin results in an inability to fully sexually bond with his mate, the inability to become aroused as he gets older because of the keratinization of his penis, and because the sexual orgasm pleasure center in his brain has atrophied he is unable to ever be fully satisfied in his sexual couplings.

    The inability of his body to feel sexual satisfaction leads to compulsive sexual behavior. One example of this behavior is the insatiable consumption of pornography in North America. Tens of millions of the American population are sex addicts, and more than 520 chapters of Sex Addicts Anonymous have been founded in the United States and Canada. This is indicative of the serious and significant neuropsychological problems which result from circumcision. Despite the staggering odds of contracting aids or some other sexual disease, millions of men make use of the services of prostitutes every year. The need to fill that unsatisfied sexual craving within the brain is extremely powerful. It's like an itch that can't be scratched, and it overrides normal, rational thought. Even Presidents are not immune to this fundamental psychophysical need.

    When the drug Viagra was introduced to the American public, sales went ballistic. In less than a month, over 900,000 prescriptions for the drug were issued. Sales are expected to exceed 1 BILLION dollars the first year in the U.S. alone. Obviously there are a LOT of men out there who are experiencing serious sexual functionality problems. Unfortunately, Viagra will only provide the man with an erection - it will not increase the sensitivity of his penis, nor will it restore any of the amputated erogenous nerve tissue. In addition, Viagra poses serious health risks to a large percentage of the men who will use it, and it is going to lead to extremely serious health problems down the road for all of those users.

    And still the doctors claim "there is no problem with circumcision".

  28. #208

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    No caring, loving, normal human being could possibly inflict such destructive injury such as circumcision or male genital mutilation upon a helpless baby.

    Only the truly sociopathic can do such a horrific thing or decide to have it done to their children under the ruse of health/hygiene, an outdated religion or religious text, because they think that their sons will be "freaks in the locker room", because of societal pressure, so the boy will have a penis that looks like his father's (Can you say Daddy issues?! ), because they think that mutilating their son's genitals will somehow protect him as an adult from HIV and other STDs better than condoms and teaching him about safer sex and HIV/STDs ever will, or because a doctor or nurse recommended it and they're too incompetent to do their own research which even the American Medical associations have said how there is not recommendation or reason for infant male genital mutilation or circumcision.

  29. #209

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside2009 View Post
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your point is what?

    That DD's opinions are more valid than Katja's because DD had three son's circumcised and Katja didn't? That her opinions are less valid because she didn't personally experience them? That is illogical. It would invalidate everything we learned in life because we hadn't personally experienced it.

    In which case we need pay no attention to DD, or any other parent saying her son's didn't suffer any pain during the operation, for the simple reason she, and they, they didn't experience the pain themselves, their sons did.

    The whole point of education is to inform each of us sufficiently to give an informed opinion. To give a simple example, World War 2 finished before I was born, therefore I did not have any personal experience of the fighting. However from my education I still know what happened back then and have valid opinions on the matter, the causes and effects and the personalities involved.

    Part of the reason for becoming educated is to learn from past mistakes, so we don't continue to make them. It is not enough to have been there and not learned anything from the experience. If that were the case one might as well have slept through it.

    I suggest that prospective parents do the research themselves, so they are in the position of making an informed decision. Look at the reasons these circumcisions were introduced, look at the 'benefits' claimed for them; look at the evidence if any to support these claims; look at the evidence against; examine the moral and ethical implications; compare the results with other industrialised countries in the World; including whether any group has a vested financial interest in these operations continuing; what happens if the operation goes wrong. Why not leave it for your son to decide whether or not he wishes to be circumcised? His body, his choice.

    All these should be considered before the surgery, for it will be too late afterwards.

    Just as the Chinese once thought foot binding was a great idea, the practice died out, through education, increased awareness of the harm it was doing, and eventually law to make it illegal. Despite the personal experience of those that thought it was a great idea to bind the feet of their wives and daughters.

    I happen to think all children are entitled to the same consideration. For those parents who have already had their children circumcised, it is too late.

    For those hoping, or planning to have a family, the choice is still open, will you join the ranks of the foot-binders, or put the money you save to better use, such as your son's college education fund? Which do you think he will thank you for?
    no, thats your point darkside, you are the one trying to invalid what people say while claiming its me doing it.....

    lack of experience means that opinions are based around personal belief and the beliefs of others...... not hands on experience..... so opinions that are made about what has or has not happened, are often invalid as they are based on what other people say and if the other people got it wrong, then so are the opinions based on the incorrect info

    DD's understanding of circumcision is based on her own experiences and what she saw when it happened.... katjas opinion is based around websites and videos..... and if I wanted advice about what happens, I would go to the person with the hands on experience as they know what happens....
    cos if I went to katja, she would have to send me to websites and videos

    with DD I would ask questions, talk about how things do not match what others post etc etc etc....
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  30. #210

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy View Post
    No caring, loving, normal human being could possibly inflict such destructive injury such as circumcision or male genital mutilation upon a helpless baby.

    Only the truly sociopathic can do such a horrific thing or decide to have it done to their children under the ruse of health/hygiene, an outdated religion or religious text, because they think that their sons will be "freaks in the locker room", because of societal pressure, so the boy will have a penis that looks like his father's (Can you say Daddy issues?! ), because they think that mutilating their son's genitals will somehow protect him as an adult from HIV and other STDs better than condoms and teaching him about safer sex and HIV/STDs ever will, or because a doctor or nurse recommended it and they're too incompetent to do their own research which even the American Medical associations have said how there is not recommendation or reason for infant male genital mutilation or circumcision.
    and what does that make parents that put their children in for medical surgery.... or do you have the same double standards ????

    its love when we put children thru multiple ops that have the children in extreme pain...but its not love when its a circumcision......

    I have personal experience with childhood surgeries I have been through them.... and I can tell you now... love doesn't come into it, when you are talking about on going prolonged pain and suffering.... cos no matter how much my parents may have loved me, I went through agony for years

    how many operations did you go through, drugstore....
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top