Study Finds Circumcision Does Not Protect Gay Men

(The notion that chopping off the foreskin would somehow prevent the transmission of a disease is asinine, always was, end of story. Or vice-versa, it's a liquid and liquids get spread around.)

Why, I can't fathom. That's supposed to be a semi-internal organ.

It means circumcision doesnt help at all.

Here is another news article on the study:

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/08/26/health-highlights-aug-26--2009.html

It was always a dumb fucking policy to claim otherwise when the studies were, at best, VERY dubious.

...yet the US has one of the highest rates of HIV infection among similarly developed countries even though most of the current sexually-active generation of yanks have had their pricks skinned at birth.

Let's see if I have it right. Getting circumcised is the reason for AIDS in developed world, especially America.

dude. The "yanks" also used up all the good air, leaving only STUPID air for canadians breathe, hence, (he said HENCE!), idiotic medical opinions, I by opinion I mean brainfarts, from north of the yank border.

jeez - where DID you come from?

I mean... I speak drunk and stoned.... and that is still incoherent.

Try again?

What the fuck is wrong with you yanks when a scarred, dried up husk is somehow seen as the optimal state for a male's genitals.
Never mind that women produce more smegma than men but somehow manage to get by with regular hygiene without needing to resort to amputation.

How fucking sad is it that a gay man of all people would have no clue about the nature of a healthy penis. It takes all of five seconds to retract the foreskin and rinse it out.

I also find it curious that you somehow felt the need to come in here in an attempt to justify the state of your penis even when it had nothing at all to do with the article.

you're in here thrashing around judging people based on whether or not they have a foreskin. Some'n bad wrong with your brain. go take your free meds.

:eyes:

EDIT: My bad. You're a female, which means that your opinion doesn't count in this matter.

The African phenotype is different that the American phenotype - MUCOUS membranes are the attachment sites - and circumcision has NOTHING to do with protecting or encouraging infection.

this is just another set up for a pro vs. anti circ war. Haven't had one in a few months so now it's all about the big A. Yawn.

If you don't like circumcision, then don't git'r'done. Hundreds of millions of men are just fine with it though, so if you're one of the 300 who aren't, then I repeat, don't git'r'done.

The grass is not greener, or less green - isn't there something better to talk about than the end of everyone else's dicks?

"If you don't like circumcision, then don't git'r'done. Hundreds of millions of men are just fine with it though, so if you're one of the 300 who aren't, then I repeat, don't git'r'done."

You condescending little shit. If you want to be a patronizing ass at least make sure your numbers are right. Around 80% of the world's male population have whole penises and in your country alone the circumcision rates are around 60% these days and slowly dropping. Here in Canada it is less than 10%.

I find your appeal to choice hilarious considering the fact that most circumcisions in your country are performed before the child has any opportunity to choose.

People like you should be circumcised.

"I find your choice hilarious" isn't condescending? You're a bit full of yourself. And you're obsessed with circumcision. How fucked up is that?

I will promise you one thing - if I have more children I will have them circumcised too, and god help the maple leaf ant-eater nazi who tries to get in my way.

That's very rational.

What about his well-being, does that matter at all to you?
Circumcision is an irreversible procedure, logic alone would dictate that the child be allowed to choose as an adult since while those of us that are intact can, at any time, choose to undergo the procedure those that have been subjected to it can never have a whole penis again.

And to answer your question, I am "obsessed" with circumcision because it is the one big human-rights offense that still plagues my country. Women can vote, blacks can user the same facilities as whites, fags can get married but we're still butchering our son's penises into a dried-up, scarred mess.

Sorry my lollipop is beautiful and perfection just like the rest of me, not some dried up scarred mess.

Why is it that your "side" has to catastrophize this? That's just silly - it would seem that the circumcision wars only apply to people who hate their own dicks, and I imagine they'd hate their peckers with or without a little bit of extra skin.

Okay since we seem to be on better frenemy terms than yesterday :P if you can call it that, I also have another absurd theory - people who are circumcised are smarter than people who aren't because those extra 20000 neurons (or whatever the count is) responsible for the irrelevant extra sensation get reappropriated for thinking. Gives new meaning to the term "dick head".

:evilgrin:

And forgive me but being able to achieve orgasm and ejaculate does not mean that the penis is fully functional. Some males can still ejaculate with no penis at all.
Besides, even if you wanted to have a whole penis again you would not be able to so the fact that you think you're "just fine" as you are means absolutely nothing.

It is anatomically impossible for the glans, which is an internal organ, to remain in its natural state without the protection of the foreskin.
You've probably never wondered about the reasons the mucosa of what would originally have been the inner foreskin in you and other circumcised males seems discolored in comparison to that of intact man. It should ideally be the same bright pink color and smooth, moist texture as the inner eyelid and the inside of your mouth.

Either way, you still did not elaborate on my question. You would circumcise your offspring out of spite to some stranger on a message board and this does not seem at all irrational to you?
I would very much like to know the other reasons why you would perform such a procedure.

It's a DAMN good thing your shit doesn't count for shit. Be gone you phimotic bit of head cheese.

and your huffiness - once again though, this thread was YET ANOTHER tired foreskin war.

If there was absolutely crystal clear science indicating EITHER way, it would be law, either way. Maybe I believe in science more than you do, but at this point I'm just jerking you around (no pun intended) for my own entertainment.

When you only quote half the facts, and then only the half of that that supports your clearly predrawn conclusion, you're not contributing educating the forum.

And since I've seen a dozen of these "wars" on DU, I also know that there are compelling arguments for both sides, and that the judgemental ones are of no value, either side, which is why I choose to trash you around on this topic. Ultimately, if you want to change the system, then you have to be able to convince people with something other than vitriole and judgmentalism. I don't care - I'm happy the way I am as is nearly every other male who happens to be circumcised. Those few of you who are not - don't do it to your sons. Just do not get involved in the choices I make for my family. Your unhappiness is your own and no matter how much you try, it will remain your own.

This is a strange cause to decide you hate people over. I thought I saw posts of yours that I liked before this topic - strange to part ways on this, and with such rancor.

What are your reasons to believe that the genitals of females should be protected from all forms of harm but not those of males.
What do you believe are valid reasons that parents (ie. you) should be allowed to circumcise their children.

NOBODY EVER CHANGES ANYBODY'S MIND ON THIS TOPIC.

You're not going to change mine, I'm not going change yours, but I knew that from the VERY FIRST POST. You need to grow up or learn more about this topic than your own pre-determined bias gleaned from web pages and articles that are biased to begin with. Although you still won't change anyone's mind you may learn a little more acceptance of other peoples' views.

As I stated, and as many who have been here far longer than you or that jackass downthread already know, these circumcision threads pop up, flame out, and nothing changes, or ever will. It's a waste of perfectly good thread.

Ultimately the great grand majority of people are happy the way they are and they aren't going to start being unhappy because a few loons think they should be, AND you're a loon if you think they should be. That tells me that value systems play a role here too. Your shrieky and offensive attacks on me and my kind are just a harbinger of further attempts at control - kind of like a high priest. Next you'll no doubt go after people who pierce and tattoo. UNDOUBTEDLY you disapprove of adults who choose circumcision. I guess you're just full of disapproval, vitriole, and rancor.

I don't believe you're a progressive. I think the only reason YOU are on this board is because you're queer (I hope for your sake), but other than that you'd probably be a social conservative, in its benevolent liberal dictator form telling everyone they need to exercise your freedoms in their lives.

On the topic of circumcision where we ultimately disagree is on how far society has a right to intrude into the decisions of the family, based on classifying something as "harmful". Ultimately, tattoos and piercings are as harmful. Maybe you want to keep abortion and outlaw circumcision - isn't that an interesting dissonance.

And finally, just in terms of how you argue: when you attack somebody who is comfortable and happy with who they are, especially using some silly physical argument (and I am a pretty man all the way around), it's evident you're attempting to attack the components of their identity, in the hopes that they'll start to hate themselves or doubt themselves. It doesn't work as a method of building consensus, and never can. Also, I can't imagine judging someone based on whether or not they have a foreskin. How does that impact your sex life? Do you ask before you date? Do you throw them out of the bedroom? How is even thinking about it different than some other kind of prejudice saying you wouldn't date a eurasian or a blonde jew because they're not pure, because they're genes are crippled and they didn't have a choice? It's just irrational.

What are your reasons to believe that the genitals of females should be protected from all forms of harm but not those of males.
What do you believe are valid reasons that parents (ie. you) should be allowed to circumcise their children.

1. Female circumcision is done for entirely different reasons - I believe there are entire books written on the topic.
2. I don't "believe" anything at all about circumcision either way - there is no faith involved. Parents DO HAVE the right to manage the health and wellbeing of their children, there is no "should be" involved. That's where you fuck up. You don't get to make that choice for anyone else's family. YOU have not made a case that circumcision is unhealthy or negatively impacts wellbeing, and for your sake if it's not the AMA don't fucking quote it to me, especially not one of your hysterical websites.

GOOD FUCKING GOD these arguments are kindergarden primer, and I can predict your next 2000 responses. Been here done that a thousand times.

NOW IT'S YOUR TURN. Answer the previous post, thoughtfully and stop these transparent sophomoric debate tactics. If you can't it's okay for you not to answer. I won't judge you for it.

if I can keep my cool you can to.

Anyway,

"Female circumcision is done for entirely different reasons."

Do you know what those reasons are? I know what western people will say but when you go and ask those that perform it their point of view varies greatly.
They generally say that it is more hygienic and more attractive.
Does this sound familiar at all to you? For the record, male circumcision was introduced into the Unites States as away to prevent masturbation and diminish sexual pleasure.

You did not answer my question however. Why do YOU think it is fair that ALL procedures that modify the female genitalia for cosmetic purposes should be illegal in both our countries but not all procedures that modify the male genitalia?

I do not mean to put words in your mouth but do you mean to say that parents need not have a valid reason in order to make this sort of decisions for their children? Then why should parents of female children that wish to have them circumcised be discriminated against?

Also, the burden of proof is on YOU, since you are the one who would would be irreversibly modifying your child's genitals.

I AM annoyed at your stubborn refusal to address a single thing I've said, and there is no "burden of proof" dear street lawyer. I suppose if I selected the sex in the womb that would also be an irreversible modification of my child's genitals. What if I did a sexual disambiguation for a mixed chromosome child? that's making a choice that doesn't have anything to do with health or avoiding disease. What's your OPINION on that?

You did not answer MY statements either so I believe, as predicted, nobody's mind is going to be changed by anything said at any point in this thread. And I know why you refuse to address anything I've brought up - and quite frankly the absence of your answer speaks quite loudly for your agenda.

I don't need to "convert" you to my point of view. My OPINION is that a circumcised prick is a great deal more aesthetic than a sloppy slimy stinky pinky monkey-pecker, and it's all about the aesthetics, and also my personal observation and experience that dudes with anteaters are also a fuck of a lot more neurotic in bed, as is apparently at least one that I know of in the real world.

See I can be civil and jocular in my barbs too.

I am not about "fairness", in case you haven't gathered that. If it would be shown to be incontrovertibly harmful to circumcise I would oppose it. It can't, and so "denial" is irrelevant. I like real science, and science leans away from you at the moment. At the risk of continuing this conversation long past it's dead-horse (so to speak) date, if my 10 year old son decided he wanted to be circumsized even though not an adult, what are your views on that? Should he be "allowed"? Or do you want to control even his choice? Manage your own family. If you want to go live with the Church of the Holy Purple Helmeted Love Curtains and take oaths that never ye shall snip, go for it. If your son decides at 10 that he wants to be circumcised, will you stop him? Will you "disapprove" of his choice if he decides to do so at 18 or 21 or however old you think is an adult?

That trap is lined with silk; I know every possible answer you can make to it and I know every play on the chess board after that. This is BORING dude. I expected a smarter opponent who was faster with the keyboard.

Let me throw out one more bone(r) and let you inside my head. If we surgically modified the belly button to be a storage pouch with a zipper and it didn't cause harm, I would personally not find the practice desirable given a choice. I wouldn't have it done to my kids. But I also wouldn't CRUSADE to take away that choice if there was no harm in doing it. If nature gave babies nasty old belly buttons that dragged on the ground and had to be meticulously cleaned every time the baby farted, I'd consider having it tucked into something that looks like the belly button you have now. If you were my son and I chose not to snip your anteater but tucked your belly button, would you still consider yourself mutilated? Just look down at you belly button. Do you feel "mutilated"? How would you feel about someone calling you "mutilated"? If I told you that you should have an outie, and that western birth practices yield consistent "innies", something people in Africa would consider "butchery" and "mutilation", would you be as hysterical running around trying to change the way doctors tie off the umbilical?

What you are doing sir, is being a drama queen, about your foreskin. Someday over a beer you'll wake up and go, "d'oh. Some people got innies. Some people got outies. I forget why I thought it was such a big deal. I hope people won't remember me after I'm gone as 'the foreskin dude'."

I probably will.

Also, can you please keep your posts concise and to the point?



In the meantime:


"I suppose if I selected the sex in the womb that would also be an irreversible modification of my child's genitals."

Hardly the same thing. Firstly, circumcised and intact are not equal positions the way male and female are. In one instance you are subtracting from a whole into some of it's component parts.
The equivalent to circumcision would be to alter your child's genes so that they would have the body of a specific sex without regard to their actual gender identity.

"What if I did a sexual disambiguation for a mixed chromosome child? that's making a choice that doesn't have anything to do with health or avoiding disease. What's your OPINION on that?"

I am not sure we are in the same page here but if you are talking about intersexed individuals, modern medicine advices that the child be allowed to grow up before they can decide for themselves if they would like to remain as is or have surgery to appear to be one sex or the other. It is generally considered barbaric these days to forcefully reassign intersex children.



"My OPINION is that a circumcised prick is a great deal more aesthetic than a sloppy slimy stinky pinky monkey-pecker, and it's all about the aesthetics..."

Aesthetic opinion is as subjective as you can get love. As I pointed out above, in most countries where female circumcision is practiced a fully trimmed vagina is considered more beautiful. Do you personally believe that parents should have the right to perform any form of plastic surgery they wish on their children? Not only the corrective kind, like fixing a cleft lip but completely non-therapeutic cosmetic procedures like cutting off a certain amount of fingers, trimming the lips and so on.


"and also my personal observation and experience that dudes with anteaters are also a fuck of a lot more neurotic in bed, as is apparently at least one that I know of in the real world."

Personal experience is worthless if you cannot back it up in some way. In my case, when I said that I have never seen a fully functional circumcised penis I did not mean I have not been intimate with circumcised men as you implied. Just that I'd never met one who had every feature that an intact male would:



Even very loose circumcisions ultimately lose some function. Be it through the removal of the frenar band or the severing of the frenulum.



"If it would be shown to be incontrovertibly harmful to circumcise I would oppose it. It can't, and so "denial" is irrelevant."

How do you define harmful in this context? The foreskin serves a specific purpose but even if it did not... Our pinkie fingers are superfluous, they are slowly becoming shorter and it is generally accepted that we will eventually lose them altogether. You would not consider it harm if some parents decided that their child hands would look better without them? How would you even separate a harmful procedure from a harmless one? Have you ever heard of David Reimer? He was a Canadian man that had a botched circumcision as a child and the doctors & parents decided to give him a cunt, put him on hormones and raise him up as a girl. He ended up killing himself at 38. There are very few instances were circumcision is medically necessary yet the procedure comes with many risks including death. There are also many other complications:

http://spedr.com/a8py (NSFW)

You might say this website is biased, since it's written from an anti-circumcision perspective but pictures cannot lie. Take a look at some of the ways circumcision can go wrong.


"I like real science, and science leans away from you at the moment."

Does it now? NO medical association in the world recommends RIC, no not even your precious AMA. The science is at best fussy but do not think for a second it actually supports your position. Whatever nebulous benefits circumcision might have they are not clear enough that any medical association is willing to promote it for therapeutic purposes


"At the risk of continuing this conversation long past it's dead-horse (so to speak) date, if my 10 year old son decided he wanted to be circumsized even though not an adult, what are your views on that?"

My views are that they would be too young to make such a choice. If they are too young to give sexual consent then they're probably too young to have their sexual organs modified.


"Should he be "allowed"? Or do you want to control even his choice? If your son decides at 10 that he wants to be circumcised, will you stop him? Will you "disapprove" of his choice if he decides to do so at 18 or 21 or however old you think is an adult?"

I would ask him to wait until he is of legal majority, unless he had a valid medical reason. At that age he would be able to undergo any body modification that he might desire. Either way I would attempt to understand his reasons and assuage his worries to the best of my ability. I would do the same if my child was transexual and decided he wanted to begin his transition.


"If nature gave babies nasty old belly buttons that dragged on the ground and had to be meticulously cleaned every time the baby farted, I'd consider having it tucked into something that looks like the belly button you have now."

What does this have to do with circumcision? The intact penis is self-cleaning until around the age of five or so. Until then the foreskin is actually attached to the glans (the same way a kitten's eyelids are stuck together) and forcibly retracting it can actually HARM the child. It needs no internal cleaning besides dabbing the tip with soapy water during every bath. A circumcised child arguably needs MORE care to make sure the wound does not become infected and I can't imagine having piss it come in contact with urine is very pleasant either.


"If you were my son and I chose not to snip your anteater but tucked your belly button, would you still consider yourself mutilated? Just look down at you belly button. Do you feel "mutilated"? How would you feel about someone calling you "mutilated"? If I told you that you should have an outie, and that western birth practices yield consistent "innies", something people in Africa would consider "butchery" and "mutilation", would you be as hysterical running around trying to change the way doctors tie off the umbilical?"

The two are also not comparable since nothing is lost either way. Circumcision irreversibly alters the way the penis looks and functions.

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Circumcision clearly falls under the definition of mutilation. How the doctors choose to tie off the umbilical cord does not.

I get you know, hook, line, sinker, valence, curtains, drapes, miniblinds, and sheers.

Well I'll own it. I'm a gonna mutilate my babies and there's NOTHING you can do about it. I like mutilation. What's wrong with mutilation? I'm mutilated and I wouldn't have it any other way, as are brazillions of mutilated men.

We LOVE being referred to by anteaters as being mutilated, by the way. Somehow we manage to be happy and have children. Won't you please start a fund for us, try to save us, even if we don't wan't saving.

god damn dude, how nuts are you. We just DON'T care. You're a lone cowboy out there riding those fences, a rebel without a pause. Desperado. You'll never change the system for EXACTLY the same reason you'll never change anyone's mind on this topic. Your effort and drama is pointless, which just leaves you pathologically obsessed with circumcision.

You really should go have that beer.

even orgasm and I imagine that they would tell you that they are happy, at least some of the time. Iraq veterans missing one or two limbs often come home to their wife and children and still manage, most of the time, to raise them and get back to their old lives. How does this translate to routine limb amputation being a good thing?

"What's wrong with mutilation"

Do I even need to grace this with a reply? At what point should mutilations not be allowed? People can get by with just one arm; should parents be able to amputate one of their child's arm? If you take your statement to the extreme it becomes clear how ridiculous it is. Hell, why not all their limbs, who care if they cannot function at all in society because of it.

You've made it clear that you are against female circumcision, I want to know why. If there's nothing wrong with mutilation then what do you have against this particular form of it?



The mistake you circumcised men make when getting into discussions about circumcision is making it personal. You assume that I care about changing your mind when I don't and you assume that my referring to circumcision as Male Genital Mutilation is some kind of personal attack against you. It is not. Body mutilation and blood rites have been part of human history for thousands of years; genital mutilation is more varied than you probably know and according to evolutionary psychologists part of what they call "The Sperm Wars". Basically, the desire to keep other males from procreating.

Changing the mind of people that perform these sort of mutilations is not worth the effort in my opinion, at least not at this stage (where so few parents in my country are choosing to do it to their children) though some genital integrity activists might argue otherwise. My aim has always been, since I learned first-hand as a kid what some people did to their children, to change the laws. We're closer than ever here in Canada though probably still some time off.

Remember those statistics I quoted earlier?
Less than 60% (Some put it as low as 55%) of American boys are being circumcised today and circumcision rates have been dropping steadily. Will you still be so proud when you are an increasingly shrinking minority in your own country? You seem to put a lot of stock on what other people do, as if the amount of people that believe something somehow lends veracity to the claim. Nevermind that most of the world's male population is intact, this is actually a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum".



Anyway, I countered each of your "arguments" like you asked but you did not have the courtesy to do the same. What am I supposed to say when you post stuff like the above? There's very little substance in that post, aside from the expected string of ad hominem attacks. Why am I getting the feeling that you would rather not be having this discussion with me at all? Put some thought into it daddy, you're hurting my feelings.

I replied to your post and addressed your points now please do the same.


I want to know the reasons why you would choose to have your (male)children circumcised.

but to reiterate my point: I don't view it as mutilation. I come from a long line of doctors and surgeons and quite frankly nobody in my family really cares one way or another. I am, my brother is not. :shrug: And oddly we're both happy the way we are.

I don't understand you - that's the only reason the conversation has continued, and I'm certain you can't understand me. I suppose in your world it matters a lot more and so you have to give it a lot more focus and even rationalization. It's just not that important to me, and I am probably in the majority on that. My little brother, incidentally, has two boys one of whom is and the other one isn't.

So I would conclude, if it matters to you, don't do it. If it doesn't matter to you it probably won't matter to your kids either, whichever way they go. At the very least you won't change society any faster than it is changing and you certainly can't enforce your cultural choice on my cultural choice, nor vice versa. Again, as predicted from the very first, the argument comes down to a family's choice, as it should.

As to the ad hominems, you started by referring to me as some qualitative form of "shit" I believe. I was just being as colorful in return. Kitchen, meet heat. Finally, I do find it an attempt at nastiness to refer to me as mutilated, regardless of how you'd like it to be re-characterized now that YOU've decided civility is in order.

You are correct, as a result of those factors I would rather not be talking to you, at least on this topic. So I'm signing off on this topic, as usual, with all due civility.

It makes you look like you've nothing of merit to say and does little to advance the conversation.

Your "views" are immaterial. The fact that you don't like the world mutilation or balk at being referred to as mutilated does not, can not, change the meaning of the word. I will not use something else just to spare your feelings when there is already a word the perfectly describes circumcision and practices like it. In your last post you admitted to circumcision being a form of mutilation then asked me what was wrong with mutilation anyway. I tried to explain to you why we generally do not allow parents to mutilate their children or for people to do it to one another without the victims consent. So now you are back to claiming that circumcision is not mutilation but the definition of the word has not changed since:

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

I am not trying to be any nicer or meaner than I've been so far. You might be mistaking the tone of my earlier post for a reconciliatory one when that was not my intent. My only purpose in addressing you at all is entertainment, the possibility of further honing my arguments and ultimately to better understand people like you.


I have not been forcing you at gunpoint to reply to my posts, you keep coming back here of your own free will.
So I will ask yet again, for what feels like the hundredth times:

I want to know the reasons why you would choose to have your (male)children circumcised.

It should absolutely NOT be up to a boy's parents to decide whether he is to be cut, since it's not their penis. The only person qualified to make the decision is the penis owner himself, when he is of an appropriate age to make such a circumdecision.

Personally, I consider circumcision on about the same level as trepanning -- completely unnecessary and medically specious.

bitch. I detect a strong whiff of circ envy. Wow that makes a lot of sense too. And just for you, late, hairy, and never least: :eyes:

Really?

I thought we were on the friendlier side, but hey, who cares these days. This topic trumps EVERYTHING. woopsie, more :eyes: and some :sarcasm:

I just have to roll it back and it looks like I'm cut. Choice is a nice thing.

the stupidest thing about this topic in GLBT is that it doesn't belong here. We have enough crap to deal with without having every other male assuming they have to take a side in a matter that most people don't give a damn about.

I'd rather have you as a GLBT pal than a mortal enemy OVER FORESKIN. How petty is that. :hi:

How've you been - I haven't seen a lot of you here lately and you had some great posts if I recall.

Nice of you to say so. I try not to get personal in my posts because I don't like to cause bad feelings. I guess you picked up on that. :) Mind you, I don't act that way with homophobes -- they deserve to feel bad. I saw some of your other posts just the other day, and I was impressed by their wit and turns of phrase.

I've just come back from Europe (videos are up on my channel, DOGVOM), I'm in rehearsal for two productions (a play and a series of Sondheim concerts), and I'm collaborating as composer/lyricist on a musical version of Paris Is Burning, so I haven't had a lot of time to hang around DU lately. And sometimes when I do drop by, the atmosphere is just so toxic that it makes me tired. I couldn't help rushing to the aid of my fellow Canadian turtleneck brother, though.

Anyway, how've you been?

PS: If I actually could stick my nose in my foreskin, I'd probably never leave the house.

I regret that my parents had me snipped. I chose not to do so to my son. Does one example make you the asshat you so want to be?

Your analogies are offensive and imbecilic... and your self righteous tone is offensive.

I was snipped by my parents. I chose not to inflict that upon my son. My son has voiced no complaints... and your purple helmeted task force is a task force that lists you as an ass in all of it's paperwork.

You are a self righteous, self-centered, asshat... and I do hope you'll stop talking about being circumcised, because I'm embarrassed to be associated with you thusly.

And you still have not answered the questions posed you.. at least, not with any shred of honesty.

I can't take it anymore.

oh and you're posting about a week late. I guess you really don't want your august opinion to matter - the storm has passed, you may unassume the crash position, and please don't worry about what I think you think of me, because I don't.

the valence, the sheers, and the mini blinds just to peek at your shiny russel the one-eyed muscle. It's your dick that's broke, not mine.

You are exhibiting some serious pathology by the way - I'm half Jewish, it's tradition, there is nobody in my very open family that has ever had a complaint about their tallywacker given the robust other features my gene bequeaths upon the males in my family. Good lord if I had a foreskin that was proportional I'd have to tie the fucker in a knot, throw it over my shoulder and burp it to keep from dragging on the ground.

you're kind of silly dude, for someone who wants to be taken seriously because of his stance on foreskin.

There's no way I I'd be able to refuse to "Git 'er Done" since it was done to me before I could object, which is the point of the whole argument against it. It's still being done to 2 day olds. Until that changes to adults only, your argument is just plain stupid.

you're now saying if you're jewish you can no longer make that choice for your child? How is that different than saying BECAUSE you're catholic you must have an anteater?

Educate the parents, let them make the choices based on real education, not some dick-obsessed bias. I have yet to see a "website" dedicated to educating people against circumcision that is without a pathological agenda.

Right now you have a choice, and you will choose for your own male children. Don't take away choice from adults.

In many western countries there is a growing initiative to have all forms of genital mutilation banned, not just the ones that affect females.
And before you come out with the copout that female circumcision is so much worse than its male counterpart:

FGM is defined by the WHO as:

* Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well.
* Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
* Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
* Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

Were our laws not so skewed they would reflect the fact that male circumcision falls squarely under genital mutilation, by the accepted definition of the term. Why should the genitals of our daughters be protected from non-therapeutic cosmetic procedures but not those of our sons?

So please, tell me if you can why the choice of those parents that wish to modify their daughters' genitals is not being taken into account.

or removing it altogether. The purpose of female circumcision is to remove enjoyment from the sex act. And also so their husbands' little weenies can occasionally hit a wall.

The one that apparently you did not read at all. Maybe those "extra neurons" they chopped off your penis would have helped you some in the area of reading comprehension.

So I ask again. Why are comparable procedures performed on females illegal in both our country but not those performed on males?
And this time, please do without the red herrings if you can.

You really are being a dick to me so to speak. I withdraw your free banter pass.

You pissy roughneck queen go take your red herring purple headed love monster nobody gives a shit except you war on circumcision to the circumcision forum. It doesn't belong in GBLT or whatever the hell we're calling ourselves this week.

It's not a gay issue. It's a canadian issue. Oh was that a red herring? I don't care. buh. bye. Don't let the foreskin hit you on the back on the way out.

---under the law.

It is clear by your replies to my posts that they have affected you deeply. I AM sorry if my words have hurt you in any way but I do not exist to spare your fragile ego.
This is an internet message board and we are having a discussion related to the OP, if if you cannot back up your claims in any meaningful way then say so. If you would not like to continue this discussion then just do not reply to my posts.

He can't face the fact that his body was mutilated and his personal sovereignty was violated before he had a chance to learn what he had lost, so he defends it out of not thinking that his basic human rights were violated.

Not to mention that he might have been duped since birth that this violation on his body is to placate some sky spook who creates talking snakes and thinks perfection is to stay stupid and not eat from the tree of knowledge may be too much to bear. Especially when said sky spook kills all human beings, and innocent animals in a global flood, turns a woman into salt for staring at a fireworks show, or tells Abe to kill his son only to drop by at that last minute to say "Just Kidding!", and that he loves us.

You have so many assumptions. Let me play too. I'll bet you've violated your six pack by growing a keg - and no doubt your larded ass is happy with your flabby fleshy corpus JUST THE WAY IT IS.

In my opinion you are no different than a cutter or a head-banger or a suicide-ideating self-destructive walking personality disorder, because you choose to be flabby, thereby violating the inherent perfection of the correctly maintained human gene line.

Your turn. Oh wait, you already went. This ain't tit for tat. I am the patriarch in my family and NOBODY, not the flying spaghetti monster or some wannabe alpha ape bear is going to step into my family and tell me what to do, and I'm not at all sorry it pisses you off and you can't do a god damn thing about it except post ignorant horseshit in the GLBT forum.

Have a nice day. :hi:

Thought so. Get laid. It'll do you good.

clearly.

:hi:

seriously dude, learn to do damage with your candy-ass princess posts or shut the fuck up because I'm not going away.

A little cigarette singe on the ass ought to do you good, Boy!

He just ant to throw flames.

He's asking to be spanked. It's turning me on, I must admit.:P

apparently YOU think there is something attractive in smoking a cigarette with your ass, but no it doesn't take one to know one. You're out there all by yourself in power bottom territory, and I am NOT attracted to that.

Also, I promise you you're not big or mean enough (and that's a serious solid promise), but possibly stupid enough to try something like that. A little life threatening trauma would be great for you, and I'd be happy to provide it if you burned me with a cigarette.

Anyway reading IS fundamental, and I'm just returning the friendly fire, so to speak.

:rofl: Aaaahh! You're too fun!

Have a good one!

who thinks their pussies look "better this way".

It's not butchery when we do it.:eyes:

Since I was born Christian, and there is no tenet for the practice, I should still have mine, but since I was born in an American for profit hospital, any extra $300 helps pay the country club fees.

I have a problem but little to say on the freedoms of religious practice. If parents want to subject their 8 day old to an old pervert (who qualifies for respect because he studied mythology in college and should be honored for his degree in bullshit) who's only job is to slice foreskins and suck the blood off of a baby's penis head with a prayer, then who am I to challenge that, or call it pedophilia? It's FAITH!:eyes:

Regarding the "dick obsessed", the projection on your part is laughable. You like the idea of taking sharp instruments to babies' sexual organs, and defend the sucking of that baby's dick by a mohel but I'm supposed to be the one who is "dick obsessed.:rofl:

Clearly you're one of the angry ones.

:rofl:

Give me a time machine and I'll see to it that I keep mine. Oh wait, no I won't, because it was my biological parents' decision.

Here's a clue for you. It's even free, since I don't think you could buy this sort of clue: we didn't get a choice. Almost all men who are circumcised had the procedure done shortly after birth, as it can be dangerous for an adult man to, as you so eloquently put it, git'r'done.

I never had a say in it, and no, I am NOT fine with it. I wish I still had mine, and even if I tried the year-long-or-longer process of regrowing skin to cover it again, the tissues that hold it closed so it stays covered are gone and can't be regrown.

And yes, in this case, the grass most certainly is greener. Have you ever had a band-aid on for a few days in the same place? Did you ever wonder at the fact that the skin under the band-aid was so much more sensitive?

Apply that concept to the glans. It's supposed to be covered because it's supposed to be sensitive.

Is sex so shitty for you now that you're incredibly bitter about what people have told you it would be like if you had a foreskin? Did you punch your mother in the face for having you circumcised?

It's not like someone chopped off one of your arms, you know. It's just a small ring of flesh around the head of your dick.

I don't know about you, but I'm delighted with my circumcised cock. It's given me tons of pleasure, and I look forward to tons more. What possible purpose could whining about not feeling something you've NEVER FELT serve?

go masturbate somewhere else.

How about you go "burp" your cock over you shoulder somewhere else? Nobody is as obsessed with their dicks in this thread than you are.

Replying to your own post? That's masturbation.

dumbass wannabe. You can't even argue for yourself - you're playing some second string tonto on this thread yapping at my heels like a rabid ferret in heat. I am overcome with your brilliance and incisive opinion. Yawn.

There are scads of articles from scientists and doctors that have picked this study apart and there are more questions from it than answers given.

... water wet, Pope Catholic. :evilgrin:

I know what my answer to that is. I'm interested in yours.

fool proof way, for both men and women, to protect against HIV is to not have sex. Simple as that. Of course, if you live in the real world where you prefer the company of others, and not merely your own friendly five fingers, you are going to have sex. Hence, the second best thing is, of course, to wear a condom. Sure its not bullet proof. But I would take 98%-99% of protection over 0% without wearing a condom. And you know, I was given the "dreaded" procedure after my birth, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away and I am fully aware that circumcision does not protect against or lessen the chance of contacting HIV. To think so is shear lunacy. Of course, the places where such practices are encouraged over sexual protection like condoms are held captive by backward religious ideas, particularly Catholic, that deem condoms sacrilegious but would probably circumcisions too. They instead, would prefer abstinence which is just as bad and stupid as a solution. They both chose stupid solutions instead of the logical, pragmatic solution; condoms.

Also, I would like to add that I do not consider myself mutilated, nor do I suffer from "phantom" glans syndrome, and I would wager that I have quite a fully functioning penis, contrary to what others may believe.

Now that the truth has come out, I hope that people will realize that everyone must be protected during sex!