Posted on 05/19/2005 5:39:11 PM PDT by gobucks
Or it is you that don't know what your missing.
It isn't barbaric, it is hygenic. Think of your future daughters-in-law and their reproductive health. Yeah, a greater risk of cervical cancer is a good thing so son can think he has a longer prong.
I have three sons all of whom are circumcisied.
"I want him to look like his Daddy" is what Mrs. Gb said.
Say what? Someone's going to be comparing his dick with yours? Give me a break.
My take? If you're not a Jew, it's a religious obligation, and not done by a medical doctor. For a Christian, there's no religious obligation. None.
So let Mrs. Hermann share her opinion so you can smack her later.
Herman you are way out there my friend.
How in the world does circumcision make one more likely to perform anal sex or contract venereal diseases?
Again, the reason for the fusion is probably that you and your doctors should have just left the foreskin alone. It is not meant to be retracted until well past age 5, and certainly not at 18 months. The male penis just does not work that way at that age. Attempting to retract it will cause phismosis, or fusion if you will, as the scars on the glans and foreskin from the forcible retraction fuse together in attempting to heal.
As to regretting it, I have two neighbors who had to undergo circumcisions later in life (on at age 12 and one at age 48) due to infections.
More idiot doctors. What other human organ is commonly amputated due to infection? In Europe and Asia, they treat such infections with anti-biotics and bathing. In America, we are subject to quacks.
They both regretted NOT having it done as babies.
Because it hurts like hell having it done as an adult! Duh!
Which of your sexual organs would you "enjoy" having cut off?
Then take my valid opinion, an uncircumcised man is not as clean, doesn't feel as hard during sex and is not as pleasing as a cut man. jmo as a woman who's been there and done that.
A major factor in cervical cancer is human papilloma virus AKA venereal warts. Of course Orthodox Jewish women(or any women for that matter) would have a lower rate of cervical cancer if the husbands are faithful.
"So let Mrs. Hermann share her opinion so you can smack her later"
I think I just cracked a rib!!! LOLOL!
Not enough evidence for that.
All I have to do to experience "circumcised sex" is roll back the foreskin. It will naturally pin itself behind the glans and stay there.
You claimed to be unable to remember what Galatians said, and than actually claimed you could not find any relevant references in Galatians (relevant to a thread on circumcision) -- any now you're telling me what I need to do to understand the passage you claimed not to know existed.
Amazing.
How about if I ask Moses to ask you to circumcise your heart? What will you make of that?
I would think you were babbling.
You can't ask Moses anything. He's dead, you know.
I think it would also be interesting to know the percentage of American men who are circumcised.
Arioch7 out.
You will find there is zero medical evidence indicating this.
"In the first edition of this book, I cited evidence that cancer of the uterine cervix ... was primarily a disease of partners of uncircumcised males. In the intervening years, however, cervical cancer has been more firmly related to multiple sex partners ... A recent study found evidence of veneral warts in 73 of 80 women who had cervical cancer. Thus, it seems that cervical cancer is, for the most part, a result of veneral disease." (Dr. S.I. McMillen, "None of These Diseases", p. 81, Second Edition, 1984) Cervical cancer rates are higher in the US than in non-circumcising nations such as Sweden and Norway.
Explain then, the US's extraordinarily high AIDS rate (10 times the rate in Norway, and 80 times the rate in Japan).
The US AIDS rate is totally off the chart compared to every other industrialized nation, none of whom practice routine circumcision.
BS. I have a number of friends who are OB-GYNs who side with me on this. If you want to think that alternative medicine is the *in* thing, that's okay. Post a peer review and we'll talk.
The circumcised penis is more likely to bleed during intercourse because of tautness of the penile skin and the presence of the circumcision scar. It is also more likely to rub the vagina raw or abraid it and make it bleed because it acts to evacuate vaginal fluid during thrusting (hnce the need of so many Americans for KY Jelly and other lubricants that no other industrialized nation needs except for homosexual anal sex). Veneral diseases require blood-to-blood contact.
Anal sex is much more difficult with an uncircumcised penis because it has a larger diameter due to the foreskin's presence, and the tendency of the foreskin to become painfully caught up in that orrifice (not speaking here from personal experience at all - yeech!, but from medical literature)
I'm lit enough to comment on it.
I typed a bunch of stuff but I deleted it as it was a rant.
I'm confused, I thought circumcision was the norm.
On the Poker game... I won, I always win. :D
Arioch7 out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.