Pee-pee on the Choppin' BlockFollow

Those mothers must be some tough broads then. Ouch.

Aside from the fact that removal of the labia and ******** completely destroys the sexual function of the female genitals and removal of the ******** does not do the same in the *****, that's a good point.

D-flat major.

it was nicknamed "Raindrop Prelude" because of the A-flat or G-sharp notes repeated throughout. as far as I know, he wrote it while on vacation in Majorca where it rained and rained and rained...but it could be rumor.

here's a question for you...what 1997 movie featured it? hmm?



isn't that a muslim thing?



glad i could please you mr. bond.

Edited, Fri Mar 26 14:31:41 2004 by Empyre

Quote:

just saying that I haven't heard any compelling arguments against it either and have heard of medical benefits.

Re: Medical benefits

As I said before, these supposed 'medical benefits' no longer exist. They were, more or less, the figments of the imagaination of a delusional medical community with an agenda.

Although fewer and fewer doctors actually recommend circumcision nowadays, they rarely, if ever, suggest doing it. I suspect that if they weren't so damn tired of arguing with blind traditionalists, they might actually explain to you why it's wrong- which is similar to the reason why I rarely participate in political debates.

Please provide me with some current medical statistics from an impartial and reputable source, and I will concede this particular point.

Re: Lack of compelling arguments

I wasn't there at the time your son was circumcized, but I'm willing to bet he screamed. When babies are circumcized, the blood-curdling shriek they emit is something most people in the civilized world never get the distinct displeasure of hearing.

Do not confuse the typical crying of an infant with the heart-breaking banshee screams of a circumcision victim.

To me, that's a pretty compelling fu[/i]cking reason... but meh, that's just me.

[i]Edited, Fri Mar 26 15:01:04 2004 by Thundra

What do I know? I thought this thread was originally going to be about Thundra axing her avatar. <shrug>

And in other news...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=4&u=/nm/20040326/hl_nm/aids_circumcision_dc

Shortly before my child was born (almost 18 years ago) I was going through this same internal discussion, with just about all of the primary points bouncing around in my brain. Had not made a decision... Then labor started and it was off to the hospital...

28 hours later (it's called "labor" for good reason), the doctor handed me my daughter. I never had to make the decision - probably would have eventually said, "OK, do it - but I'm not gonna watch."

If I had another kid NOW, I'd say, "If it ain't broke..."

Well, you were the one saying there were no medical benefits or that the supposed benefits were all lies set up by physicians with an "agenda". I'm not sure exactly what that agenda is supposed to be -- is there a huge amount of money made in the circumcision market? Some great Luddite anti-************ cabal seeped into the American medical community? Whatever it is, we should know since the New England Journal of Medicine, the University of Chicago research centers, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Center for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health are all in on it.

The fact is that research points to circumcision reducing the risk of penile cancer, HPV, cervical cancer in female partners, and some other ***** and urinary tract issues to some extent (sometimes a rather large extent). Furthermore, there is very little actual risk involved to the operation and many more males die from the afore mentioned problems (well, maybe not cervical cancer) than who die as a result of the circumcision operation (a number close enough to zero to be effectively nil). You can tut-tut it and throw out pithy comments like "Gee sure, like removing a lung" but it's up to you to prove that there are bona fide serious drawbacks to circumcision or that those people circumcised have some sort of sexual issues. Unlike female circumcision which destroys genital sexual function (albeit not reproductive) or removing a lung (which one would think would increase your chances at lung cancer since carcinagins would be concentrated), it's more than probable that circumcised males will go about and lead perfectly normal lives, both medically and sexually. If you have 'recent and reputable', nonbiased research proving otherwise, have at it.

You'll have to excuse my edits. So long as mine is the last post on the thread, I'd rather append this than add countless additional posts.

The AAP, in its statement, does say that according to one study keratin develops on the glans and may cause some inhibiting of sexual function. The source of this sole study? Dr. John Taylor who was already anti-circumcision and, while the host of anti-circumcision websites may have seized upon his findings as the Holy Grail of ******** acceptance, I have been so far unable to find a single research report from a well known medical institution (actually, any medical institution) agreeing with his findings. In the same AAP report, they state that "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans ***** between circumcised and uncircumcised men." I imagine Masters & Johnson were another part of this pro-circumcision cabal.

Edited, Sat Mar 27 23:03:07 2004 by Jophiel