Isnt religion grand?

And yet the people in this country have not problem with male genital mutilation

I, of course, do have a problem with it, and have blogged against male circumcision many times -- just in case anybody new around here thinks I find it acceptable.

I am always amazed my the ability the human mind have to believe in Fairy-tales. Let me understand this; there's a deity out there who made us entirely only to ask us to cut some "offending" parts off before being part of his/her "book club"?

James T. Kirk said it best in Star Trek V: "What does God need with a Starship?"

Couldn't have done better if he was a troll. Note the difference between the signature and the return address and the fact that it is at yahoo, which is not a noted academic institute.

I don't think it's bona fide. It's someone getting his rocks off.

I don't think it's bona fide. It's someone getting his rocks off.

"Yes, Virginia, there once was a time when it was considered desirable to mutilate the sexual organs of girls and boys to make them "healthier" and/or "more pleasing to God.""

(Virginia, feeling queasy, will not be able to comprehend such backwards barbarism practiced against the defenseless.)

Amy, thanks for taking a stand against ALL genital mutilation.

> just in case anybody new around
> here thinks I find it acceptable.

Not "acceptable" is pretty strong language, as opposed to maybe 'distateful' or 'inappropriate'.

Should it be 'actionable'? Should parents do time for it?

"Mutilation"?

You're getting carried away here. What exactly did you used to do with your penis before circumcision that you can't do afterward?

I think this is a particularly childish and narcissistic obsession. Guys... It's foreskin. BFD

Nature designed it for a purpose, and the reason they started cutting them off was an effort to stop little boys from touching themselves.

MGM was designed to desensitize the male sexual organ, ever seen pictures of botched cuttings crid?

I kinda' agree with crid on the circumcision thing.

On Amy's reply: 'Evidence-based medicine' seems like a redundant term to me, but I guess we need it. Medicine is an empirical science, but the value of a medical procedure is an economic question. Such questions are not studied empirically. The intersection here of empirical and non-empirical sciences is interesting.

On faith-based medicine: I have an acquaintance who is an ardent New-ager and chiropractor. He prescribes homeopathic remedies, despite a hundred years of double-blind study showing that they don't work beyond the placebo effect. When I told him this he said, "That's why we don't use double-blind studies in Chiropractic, they don't work."

Faith-based medicine is everywhere. Scary.

> Nature designed it for a purpose

Like the appendix?

> they started cutting them off
> was an effort to stop little
> boys from touching

Gonna need a cite on that, Big Guy. It sounds like a feminist fantasy of oppression.

Besides, MGM is a movie studio. Thou Shalt Not manipulate language. See also "climate change", formerly "global warming".

> ever seen pictures of
> botched cuttings

When it comes to picture books, I'm more a Motor Trend kinda guy. Besides, if they're "botched," what does that prove of their intention? Ever meet a guy with botched heart surgery? It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! They started cutting into those chests because those guys were changing lanes in the middle of intersections.

Seriously, people, please: If you really believe that there are all these vast, entrenched forces of evil working with cleverness to deprive you of even the tip of your wee-wee, why get out of bed in the morning? Life's probably not worth living.

Jeff imagine going into the doctors.

They tell you your child has a chance of contractng some illnesses.

They tell you you can prevent it if you allow them to preform a small procedure
(but they dont tell you they saftey margin increases by less than 1%)

They strap your kid to a table, cut a ring around the digit a rip half the skin off with no anethisa.

Would you let them do that to a finger?
Why would you let them do that to a penis?

And how in gods name is it sanitary for half your dick to be an a open oozing wound inside something as "sanitary" as a shit filled diaper?

Did you know more people have to have to see a specialist to correct improper circumscisions then they need to have them preformed?

You can survive fine without 1 kindey, half a liver, you apendix, your tonsiels, and your spleen - yet they dont take these things out unless theye is a problem

So why do they RIP half the skin off the penis of a child less than a week old?

Becaise when you're growed up, stenosis is a bitch.

Are you conceding that you have never had any plans for those three grams of flesh anyway?

Adult stenosis is so rare as to be a nonissue. In boys, pedi's frequently mistake normal immature adherence for stenosis. You'll note that Drs mistakes are no justification for routinely cutting baby boys.

Crid, it was started widespead (previously was only for some religious groups) to curb masturbation.

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

I am as against male cutting as female. Only the extreme forms of FGM are more invasive than MGM. Why is one wrong and the other not? I do not think parents should be able to make this decision for their sons. If a boy wants it done when old enough to decide, it can be done then. And in answer to the inevitable"But they WON'T choose to go through the pain at that age" retort: well, DUH! It's unnecessary. Why put your infant through it?

It should not be allowed for either gender babies. period.

I have no plans for the skin on my elbow, either, but I'd prefer to keep it.

If you're going to argue about circumcision, you can't seriously argue that it's ineffective in preventing problems. Well, you can't if you want to use science.

"The authors conclude that, overall, after adjusting for covariates, uncircumcised men have a more than threefold greater risk of contracting STIs than circumcised men." http://www.aafp.org/afp/20070315/tips/10.html

See also Thomas Quinn's study in "The New England Journal of Medicine". Aside from reducing the incidence of HIV, the study in Ugannda showed reduced rates of genital herpes (35% reduction) and HPV (28% reduced).

You may have valid objections to male circumcision, but ineffectiveness isn't one of them.

I just thought it is such a disgusting topic.
All this bizarre cutting questions related to their predominantly backward evil black islamic culture is just so extremely disgusting.
Why do they inconsiderately wish other nonbelievers with their damn god or inconsiderately imposed their islamic cultural dogma onto others?
Why don't this confused weird iranian ask his own god for help? It is nothing but just another of their insane dsigusting inhumane ploy and harrassment from their islamic community that I as a nonbeliever find their weird irrational islamic culture so irritatingly offensive.

Well Ron a study in tanzunia found that female gential cutting redused the rates of contacting HIV in local women

But something tells me you wouldnt be a supported of that.

And what werre the rates of exposeure to those viruses?

Suppose a 10% infection rate overall, a 35% drop would correlat into a 7% infection rate overall.

Does that 3% difference outweigh the damage caused by cricumcisions due to poor hygine, poor medical equipment, and the fact that they have no idea what size a penis will grow too and can not gauge how much to tear off?

tell me you seriously have no problem with this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617&hl=en

Loojy, nobody wants to see bloody geekshow pictures (presuming that's what's at your link). Got it? We can handle this with text. It's a maturity thing.

> I am as against male
> cutting as female.

I'm not. First of all, "cutting" is vulgar and insufficiently descriptive, with overtones from behaviors by deeply troubled people. That's three strikes; "cutting" is the wrong word to use.

As is "circumcision", if you're going to be fast and loose with it. The procedures by that name undergone by males and females are so completely disproportionate that anyone who can so casually imagine them as neighbors on a continuum either [A] is bullshitting or [B] has been badly bullshitted.

Language counts. There's a reason no self-respecting man reading this blog wants to cry out "I've been mutilated!"....

Namely, that it isn't true.

>>Language counts. There's a reason no
>>self-respecting man reading this blog
>>wants to cry out "I've been
>>mutilated!"....

>> Namely, that it isn't true. -Crid

If that were true crid you wouldnt have avoided watching the video.

Tell you what, click on the link and then shut off you moniter and just listen to the video.

Loojy, grow up. There's all kinds of pain being suffered by all kinds of people in every corner of this planet. There's nothing noble about staring at it, even electronically.

In fifth grade, we watched a whole shitload of films about the holocaust. There was a group of about sixth girls in the class who squealed "OOOOooooooo!" every time something unpleasant happened on the screen. It was obnoxious, but they were 11-year-old girls. What's your excuse?

I know this about whatever suffering's depicted in that sad little link of yours: The people shown didn't go through it so that I could watch it.

Seriously, how old are you? I'm not (just) trying to be insulting. I'd really like to know.

Ok, OK, let me put it this way: Were you "mutilated"? In your whole life, did you ever meet a man who was "mutilated" by circumcision?

>>Loojy, grow up.
Good retort

>>There's all kinds of pain being suffered by all
>>kinds of people in every corner of this planet.
So why add to it?

>>There's nothing noble about staring at it,
Never said there was, there is something to learn though

>>In fifth grade, we watched a whole shitload
>>of films about the holocaust. There was a
>>group of about sixth girls in the class who
>>squealed "OOOOooooooo!" every time >>something unpleasant happened on the ?>>screen. It was obnoxious, but they were 11->>year-old girls. What's your excuse?
My excuse? The holocaust ended half a century ago, circumcision hasnt

>>I know this about whatever suffering's
>>depicted in that sad little link of yours:
No you dont
>>The people shown didn't go through it so
>>that I could watch it.
There is only one person showed, And he went thru it so Baillinor, I mean Hathor, no wait was it Ares or Marduk, Mystra? Shar? no, oh thats right it was Posiden, no that wasnt it.

I remeber now he went thru it to make jesus happy

>>Seriously, how old are you? I'm not (just)
>>trying to be insulting. I'd really like to know.
30

>>Ok, OK, let me put it this way: Were
>>you "mutilated"? In your whole life, did
>>you ever meet a man who was "mutilated" by
>>circumcision?
Technically everyone with an unnessecary cricumcision is mutilated, as mutilation is defined as havig a piece of the body cut off.

And yes I did know someone, the guy in the room next to me at college, always took a shower in the tub with a curtian - my dorm had barraks style showers. He had a diebetic episode and fell out of the tub one day started seizing and we all saw the botched job that had been done on him, he never came back after being taken to the hospital, had someone send for his things. It wasnt the first time he had had a problem with seizures or his diabetes either - just the first time he had done so naked.

As I said nature designed it for a purpose.

And as to the video, your fairly rational on most things, I dont always agree with you but your arguments are usually sound - but not so here.

First you say it isnt a problem, nothing more than a medical procedure - but then you called a video of this routine 'non problem' "sad", and a "geek show"

I can tell you crid there is nothing entertaining about that video.

I have to wonder though, if I had posted a link to an appendectamy on a post about appedicitus would you have called that a geek show?

Watch the video, and then tell me you have no problem with it - because until you do you have no idea what it is that you have no problem with

"If you're going to argue about circumcision, you can't seriously argue that it's ineffective in preventing problems. Well, you can't if you want to use science."

Routinely removing all girls breasts at birth would be pretty damn effective in lowering risk of breast cancer, and one could argue they are no more needed than foreskin now that we have formula and implants. Yet you don't see us doing it, do you? Condoms are much more effective in preventing STDs, and they don't involve surgery or pain. So explain your science argument again?

I am due to pop out a boy in about 4 weeks. He will NOT be cut.

And Crid, most female circumcision does not involve removing the entire clit and labia. Most of it is more along the lines of skin removal. Which makes the difference between it and male cutting...what again? We hear about the extreme forms of FGM. The less extreme ones are fairly common, worldwide.

When my son was born, I yielded to my wife's with to have him circumcised.

One of the dumbest decisions I have ever made. The procedure went wrong, and had to be redone a year later. Thankfully, there were no long term complications.

Circumcision exists solely because of neolithic religious nonsense. For all babies it is a completely worthless procedure that, like all medical procedures, entails risk.

Risk without reward is just stupid.

For those who later in life find themselves in high risk groups that might benefit from circumcision, then by all means.

Otherwise, there is simply no medical justification for it.

> So why add to it?

What makes you think not watching people's pain makes it worse?

> there is something to
> learn though

No. There are all sorts of emotionally gripping depictions of things —bloody suffering being one– that don't really help you understand a bigger picture. If they did, all the really great people you know would be listening to police calls on portable scanners instead of listening to Coldplay on Ipods. The cities where the TV show "Cops" gets high ratings don't have more civic involvement than those that don't. In other words, pornography doesn't get you laid.

> The holocaust ended half a
> century ago, circumcision
> hasnt

I'd make fun of you for comparing this to the holocaust, but I tricked you into it.

> No you dont

Are you saying that whatever events are seen in the video happened so that I could watch them? That's unlikely.

> I remember now he went thru
> it to make jesus happy

Loojy, what makes you think I care about jesus?

> 30

Old enough to know this: There are some really terrible things that are going to happen to your body someday, and to the bodies of everyone you know and love. Maybe that's worth some obsession... but this certainly isn't.

If you're the sort of grown man who wants to sit and pout about how you cheated out of fulfillment by this trivial procedure, go ahead. (I think psychologists call this "somatic preoccupation".) But you're wasting your time. It's like a guy who says a piano concerto was ruined by a sneeze from the balcony in the middle of the performance. That guy is probably not into music as much as he's into whining about stuff.

And people who worry too much about conventional male circumcision aren't actually into health.

> mutilation is defined as havig
> a piece of the body cut off.

Since when? Do toenails count?

> the guy in the room next
> to me at college,
> always took a shower

I can't finish this paragraph, it's too corny and homo-erotically loaded. Someone speak up if I missed anything good.

> As I said nature designed
> it for a purpose.

What purpose? It designed the appendix for a purpose, as well.

> you say it isnt a problem,
> nothing more than a
> medical procedure -

I never said anything of the kind. Read the comments above. When did I say that?

> this routine 'non problem'
> "sad"

'Non-problem' wasn't my phrase, so you shouldn't use even single quotes. Second, the word routine isn't appropriate, because modern male circumcisions are routine indeed.

And the "sad" part is the posting of the link, not whatever happened to person seen on it.

> if I had posted a link to an
> appendectamy on a post about
> appedicitus would you have
> called that a geek show?

Yes. You're arguing my side of this: These are tremendously safe procedures. Appendectomies save lives. What point would you make by linking one?

> you have no idea what it
> is that you have
> no problem with

Clued into heaven by YouTube, but no patience with people in church, huh?

> Which makes the difference
> between it and male
> cutting...what again?

It's the difference between having young women butchered, terrified, made sexually disfigured and socially impotent, and a safe little boy having a minor hygienic/religious procedure. These things are just not the same, not even on the same scale. All the intermediate steps you can imagine don't make them the same.

> We hear about the extreme
> forms of cFGM.

Procedures that don't grotesquely disfigure are not of interest. I think people with tats and piercings are goofy, but I don't equate their behavior with abject dismemberment of the Dahmer school.

> The less extreme ones are fairly
> common, worldwide.

The fascination with the "less extreme" is entirely yours. You guys can spend time on it if you want to, but it seems really silly.

Crid,

Should every person have their tonsils, breasts, and appendix removed as a child to prevent possible later tonsilitis, breast cancer, and appendicitis? (Yes, men get breast cancer, too.) Remember when tonsilectomy was performed on almost all young children as a matter of routine? This is no longer the case, even though tonsilectomy is a more traumatic procedure later in life.

By the way, it turns out an appendix is not so useless, after all! A recent study suggests that the appendix evolved to be a reservoir of the microbial population found in the gut needed for digestion. Before people lived in large numbers and in close proximity, finding replacement flora and fauna would be difficult if an illness depopulated one's gut.

As to a foreskin, the majority of nerve endings in the penis are contained there (not the glans), and are lost to circumcision. A cut penis is a largely desensitized penis. In addition, the glans is intended to be primarily an internal organ, not external. Left out all the time, the glans becomes, in effect, dry and calloused and even less sensitive than it already is.

You wouldn't mind, I suppose, if your tongue was kept constantly out of your mouth to dry out. You could still eat, right? But I bet food wouldn't be nearly as flavorful or satisfying.

There is also a difference in the mechanics of intercourse: an uncut penis mostly slides in and out of its own foreskin; a cut penis is forced to slide against the walls of the vagina. This extra contact and friction is thought to possibly promote disease by creating mini-lacerations of the vaginal wall and breaches of the mucosal membrane. Also, greater lubrication is require to avoid discomfort.

Finally, it was none other than Kellog of Kellog's Corn Flakes who, around the turn of the 20th century, promoted routine circumcision as a method of REDUCING MASTURBATION in boys. They won't touch it if doesn't feel nearly as good, right?

If you aren't Jewish, male circumcision in this country is nothing more than a now-declining fad.

>What makes you think not watching
>people's pain makes it worse?
My point was why add to the pain in the world by preforming unneeded surgery?

>No. There are all sorts of emotionally
>gripping depictions of things —bloody
>suffering being one– that don't really
>help you understand a bigger picture.
OK I'll bite, what is the big picture behind circumcision?

>I'd make fun of you for comparing this
>to the holocaust, but I tricked you
>into it.
Acctually you compared it first

>Are you saying that whatever events are
>seen in the video happened so that I
>could watch them? That's unlikely.
You said you knew what suffering happened in the video and the people in the video didnt go thru it for so you could watch it - my point was if you didnt watch it you couldnt know the suffering

>Loojy, what makes you think I care about jesus?
Why support a jeudeo christian boddy marring ritual then?

>Old enough to know this: There are some
>really terrible things that are going
>to happen to your body someday,
So why start at birth?

>And people who worry too much about
>conventional male circumcision aren't
>actually into health.
And those of us against it dont pretend to be - I think you slid to our side of the argument on this one

>I can't finish this paragraph, it's too >corny and homo-erotically loaded. >Someone speak up if I missed anything >good.
Pesronally I dont find the thought of a hairy naked naked twitching and slamming his head into the floor over and over arousing - but to each his own

>What purpose? It designed the appendix >for a purpose, as well.
Indeed it did, and nature reduced it over time, if your going to argue evolution perhaps endorsing surgery to "correct" something nature isnt changing probably isnt the smartest play

>I never said anything of the kind. Read
>the comments above. When did I say that?
Yes you did read your comment below

>'Non-problem' wasn't my phrase, so you
>shouldn't use even single quotes. >Second, the word routine isn't
>appropriate, because modern male
>circumcisions are routine indeed.
Single quotes denote paraphrasing, you dont see it as a problem so I re wrote your sentiment to flow with my argument

And why do you have a problem with me using the word routine when describling something that is indeed routine?

>And the "sad" part is the posting of
>the link, not whatever happened to
>person seen on it.
I see nothing sad about posting it, but as you havent watched the video you cannot say that what happened wanst sad, or horryfing, or disturbing, or heart breaking - It was all of those by the way

>Yes. You're arguing my side of this:
>These are tremendously safe procedures.
>Appendectomies save lives. What point
>would you make by linking one?
SO you would call any video of any medical procedure a geek show, kinda lowers the shock value of calling it such. As to why I would post it - so people could see it, after all its no big deal right so why wouldnt you watch it. But then again, you think circumcision is no big deal and still wont watch the video

>Clued into heaven by YouTube, but no
>patience with people in church, huh?
Not sure what this one means

> Should every person have
> their tonsils

You might also insist on a tracheotomy. The crossing of the windpipe and the digestive path near the voice box claims many lives every year. Y'see, nature didn't know what the final form was going to be as it was building us. (It doesn't know what's coming next, either. The next version may need these tonsils.)

Anyway, you're overshooting the argument. I'm not arguing for circumcision. What you do with your weenie of the weenies of your loved ones is not a concern for me: I'm arguing that it's not worth getting too cranked about either way, and that people who obsess about this are probably not thinking clearly about what's truly bothering them.

> an appendix is not so
> useless, after all

Did I say it was? (Please give me the quote, OK? Don't be like Loojy and just say 'Yes you did!')

> the appendix evolved to be a
> reservoir of the microbial
> population found in the gut

A reservoir no longer necessary for the system to function. A whole lot of things on our bodies are like that. Evolution works with whatever's lying around, and sometimes there are bad results. It would be better for modern humans if the appendix weren't present, so that it couldn't burst, but it's part of the genetic code. These are the bodies we've got, and medicine and culture have to deal with them as they are. So when your appendix bursts you get a surgery, and when you choke at McDonald's someone Heimlichs you, and when you're a little boy, you'll often get your weenus trimmed.

> the majority of nerve endings

This is all too speculative. I don't think you have the physiology chops to make a sturdy case.

And you presume that "nerve endings" are where the action is, as if some precious sensory voodoo ceremony were happening at the end of a magic wand. There are many conditions of disfigurement and disability after which sexual fulfillment's readily initiated through less-direct stimulation... Including quadriplegics whose units aren't connected to the brain at all. (Besides, loverboy, are you worried about your response or hers?)

You continue the vulgar, prejudicial use of the word "cut". Imagine taking a cro-magnon –or even a typical contemporary illiterate from a cave in Afghanistan– to watch the best brain surgeon in Boston. If a guest like that returned to his fellows at the campfire and described the afternoon by saying "...And then he cut that guy!", it would be a forgivable exaggeration. But not here; you're misusing the description of a street mugging.

> I bet food wouldn't be
> nearly as flavorful or
> satisfying.

What is the purpose this kind of analogy? Do you seriously, seriously contend that conventionally circumcised men are denied pleasure of that magnitude?

(Gonna need a straightforward answer to that one, guys. No more dodging. What exactly has the cost of this custom been?)

> This extra contact and friction is
> thought to possibly promote disease

No way. By whom? 'Speculated', maybe. But not 'thought'.... And see Ron's link, above.

> Also, greater lubrication is
> require to avoid discomfort.

Give me a cite. Anything. No? Have you tried both configurations yourself (with women [plural: this is science!] who were identically pleased to see you on both occasions), or are you just making things up?

> Kellog of Kellog's Corn Flakes
> who, around the turn of the
> 20th century

Boys have been circumsized for much longer than that. That's part of what's so silly about this, how it ties into a sort of 1960's hippy hatred of the white corporate American businessman. It's cheesy.

Successful guys often have freaky impulses. William Shockley had weird ideas about eugenics, Linus Pauling was nuts about vitamin C, and even the aforementioned Heimlich has some goofy beliefs about treating horrible diseases with malaria.

And besides:

> promoted routine circumcision
> as a method of REDUCING
> MASTURBATION

Do you suppose it worked?

> If you aren't Jewish, male
> circumcision in this country
> is nothing more than
> a now-declining fad.

That's probably true, and again, it's OK with me. But nobody worked that hard to get rid of bell bottoms or skinny ties.

> why add to the pain in the world by
> preforming unneeded surgery?

Devil's advocate: [1.] It's not that much pain. [2.] It's not that serious a "surgery". [3.] There are indisputable though minor health benefits. [4.] If it increases bonding some people feel for their kids, then why not? [4.a] If, as Jay indicates, Jews do this disproportionately, shouldn't we take a hint? Aren't observant Jews among the better performing families across the globe?

> what is the big picture
> behind circumcision?

Reread the preceding paragraph.

> my point was if you didnt
> watch it you couldnt
> know the suffering

Fuck that, Loojy. YOU DON'T KNOW THE SUFFERING just because you watched the video, either. TV has this way of making people who've never been a part of something feel like they know all about it. It's tragic that way. (That's the real reason people watch Cops, it makes them feel like they've kicked down a door.)

> Why support a jeudeo christian
> boddy marring ritual then?

If you seek to exclude the Judeo-Christian traditions from your life, you've got an awful lot of work ahead of you.... (And by the way, you'll be drinking from puddles by the end of the week.)

Circumcision does not "marr" the body. The ritual means a lot to the adult participants, and later it means a lot to boys as well, such that they share it with their own sons.

> those of us against it dont
> pretend to be

If you're not concerned with health, what are you concerned with?

> Pesronally I dont find the
> thought of a

Well, you thought it arousing enough to share twice.

> nature reduced it over time

Not enough. It's still kills people. Stenosis of the glans penis would kill people too, if we gave it a chance. Nature is not your friend, Loogy.

> Yes you did read
> your comment below

Be specific. Be clear or stay home.

> I re wrote your sentiment

Never do that. If you're thinking clearly, "flow" will take care of itself.

> why do you have a problem
> with me using the word routine

Because you deliberately confuse typical and tragic outcomes. "Routine" circumcisions are not a big deal.

> you cannot say that what
> happened wanst sad, or
> horryfing, or disturbing,
> or heart breaking

Exactly. It's all about getting emotionally goosed. Four stars... The feel good hit of the summer!

> you would call any video of
> any medical procedure a geek
> show

No, only the ones that can't be presented alongside a rational argument. You're too eager for us to watch this thing; you want us to feel base emotions because you think it will make us easier to convince.

> Not sure what this one
> means

Catholics often sit in pews, imagine the Christian spirit staring down at them from bloody Jesus statues, and believe their lives to be complete. Some folks take the same effect from YouTube.

>Devil's advocate: [1.] It's not that much pain.

BULLSHIT, when was the last time you had skin scraped and pulled off any prt pf your body

>[2.] It's not that serious a "surgery".

If that were true you wouldnt wind up with death and castrations

>[3.] There are indisputable though minor health benefits.

Benefits that have not been shown to outweigh the riks, benefit that are just plain stupid - to quote another poster a '30% dropp in infection rate of some stds' That means 3 out of every ten times you have unprotected sex you might get a pass.

Also to quote you "And people who worry too much about conventional male circumcision aren't actually into health."

>[4.] If it increases bonding some people feel for their kids,
>then why not?

Why not bind there feet as well or stick a shard of bone thru their nose?

>Circumcision does not "marr" the body.
>The ritual means a lot to the adult
>participants, and later it means a lot
>to boys as well, such that they share >it with their own sons.
So is that why a majority are preformed outide of the parents presence because father want to share the moment with their sons?

>If you're not concerned with health,
>what are you concerned with?

Individual choice

>Not enough. It's still kills people.
>Stenosis of the glans penis would kill
>people too, if we gave it a chance.

And people with stenosis can get themselves a circumcison

>Nature is not your friend, Loogy.

Never said it was

One question though, and momof3 and/or Amy poined out we have the capability to remove the breast buds in everyone, but no one advocates, even though far more men die of breast cancer then would from stenosis

Why is that do you suppose?

One more thing

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanhowe/

. . . preputial stenosis (phimosis) affects circumcised boys and intact boys with equal frequency.

> Never said it was

vs.

> Nature designed it for a purpose

Looj, there's no point... Go ahead and be worried about this! Be distressed! Lose sleep! Hate the man, and live in festering rage at world that doesn't care. I'll be over here in the corner, confident that you if it were any other part of your body, it wouldn't be such a concern for you.

Crid accepting that nature designed something over time has nothing to do with wether or not nature is a freind to any individual being or species.

>I'll be over here in the corner, confident
>that you if it were any other part of your
>body, it wouldn't be such a concern for you.

I dont know, I think I;d be upset at any part of my body being sliced up and trimmed needlessly upsetting

> sliced up and trimmed

?

Watch the video and you wont wonder at that statement

Adulthood; Proportion, literal truth.

Im sorry but how do you get more literal than an unedited video showing the procedure being preformed?

By being proportionate.

This is exactly the topic of Amy's top post today. It's a childish appeal for simplicity: "You can't ignore this!"

And again, you exaggerate: That's not "the" procedure, it's a single bad outcome.

I'm thinking of jetting to Vegas next week to meet my nieces....

...Or should I be terrified of travelling in a flying butcher's death canister?

And again, you exaggerate: That's not "the" procedure, it's a single bad outcome. -crid

See crid this is why I said you had no idea what was on the video - the circumcision went fine according to medical standards

> this is why I said you had no
> idea what was on the video

Hadn't I already mentioned not watching it? Let me be clear: I haven't followed your link, and I won't.

> according to medical standards

According to who? Give us the citation. Who said it want find beyond the unfortunate who finds himself liable?

Lujlp, circumcision isn't a conspiracy, it's something a lot of loving parents want to do to their kids.

Sorry, I meant to ask who said it "went fine", not "want find". (A lot of my typos are like that... They'd be forgivable mispronunciations if you heard them after a beer or two. After a bear or chew)

Look, we need one more participant or I'm giving up here. You can panic about circumcision if you want to, Loojy.. I don't think you're going to convince anyone else to panic, and the point must have been made 20 messages ago

Been out for a few days, crid you said you knew what the video showed, even though you hadnt watched it.

You said it was a bad out come, and as for whos stanndards? The doctor in the video