In article <ui9sn59h82qnjn4fs4p59rvhdnm7r7squ0@4ax.com>, Anonymous
<anon@anon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:43:03 -0500, Ed Grimley <ed@thecornerbar.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, I am an American - born, bred, and buttered in the US. Don't
> >let the Canadian name fool you. I've been hearing the excuses for
> >routine circumcision for years. Here are some of them - in no
> >particular order:
> >
> >1. The fact that nuns have a low incidence of cervical cancer is proof
> >that circumcision prevents cervical cancer, because nuns don't have
> >sex with uncircumcised men, Well, duh, they don't have sex with
> >circumcised men, either.
> >2. If a little boy is circumcised, he won't get his penis caught in
> >his zipper. I'm not making these up.
> >3. A kindergarten teacher decided to have her baby boy circumcised
> >beause all the boys in her class were circumcised. Did she have a
> >short-arm inspection the first day of school?
> >4. Circumcision prevents penile cancer. Then why does Denmark, with a
> >lower circumcision rate, have a lower penile cancer rate?
> >5. Circumcision prevents HIV infection. If that's true, why does
> >Japan, with a lower circumcision rate, have a lower HIV infection
> >rate?
> >
> >The American obsession with genital mutilation might be caused by an
> >ingrained Victorian/Semitic loathing of sex and the human body. The
> >Semitic peoples have a long history of genital mutilation. The
> >Victorians used to cover the legs of pianos!
> >You are correct in stating the circumcision rate in the US has been
> >dropping. But that is being balanced by a new wave of sexual hysteria,
> >e.g. the current draconian laws forbidding sexual misbehavior.
> >And, lastly, the people doing most of the mutilating are highly
> >trained physicias, who should know better. Aren't doctors, who are,
> >after all, scientists, supposed to reject unproven and anecdotal
> >evidence? Do they get some kind of a kick hacking and whacking people?
> >Consider this: the US has one of the highest Caesarian section rates
> >in the world, done by the ob-gyn folks. The same people who do most of
> >the genital mutilation.
> >Incidentally, keep up the good posts.
>
> Oh you are so deluded...
>
> Just google it a little, and you'll find out that:
> 70% - 80% of women prefer circumsized over not.
>
> Cut men are more likely to get blown, for obvoius reasons.
>
> The cut rate in the US is going down because insurance doesn't cover
> it anymore. It's actually pretty steady among middle and upper income
> classes who have the spare cash, (about 400 bucks) at about 80%
> getting it done. But then again, the upper class isn't in a breeding
> frenzy like the lower classes. So the overall rate is dropping.
>
> It's generally the infants' mother that decides to have it done, which
> says a lot.
>
> And it's becoming increasingly evident that it DOES cut the rates of
> infectious desease, also for obvious reasons. (There are teams doing
> entire villages in Africa to help halt the spread of HIV.)
>
> Your use of the term 'mutilation' paints you as an biased zealot in
> the least. And your statistical examples ignore other relevant
> factors.
>
> In any case, chicks like it more, and it's cleaner, that's enough for
> me. My daughter says when she has kids, it's a no brainer.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:05:05 GMT, "Dexter" <Dexter@DarkPassenger.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Its so nice that you seem to judge americans when you are not one.
> >>
> >>Actually Circumcision has slowed in the united states. And in the beginning
> >>it was done for medical reasons.
> >>
> >>I dont believe it is mutilation if a child is cut. There are many reasons
> >>for doing so. I do understand that their is a loss in sexual pleasure.
> >>
> >>I app. your opinion, but dont judge us I have not judged you.
> >>
> >>I didn't ask about the "gential mutilation americans"
> >>
> >>is he cut - No... okay thanks.. good day
> >>
> >>Dexter
A friend posted about this subject before and we discussed it privately
and I could have something to add to it too. I'll recap things. Some
are theories, some are history, and some are facts from scientific
research.
Origin-
(Because you die!)
Most tribal peoples who live in hot dry deserts employ circumcision as
a matter of survival. Water is very scarce and not available for
washing. Sand gets in EVERYWHERE. I know this from personal experience
serving in Iraq. It gets in your food and your clothes and embedded in
your skin and hair (and asshole too) and under your foreskin if you
have one. Its very abrasive. You know. Sandpaper? Ancient people didn't
know about infections or why their kids were dying when their penises
literally exploded with infection caused by sand sores but they did
figure out how to prevent it. Leaders said "Off with its head!" Well
not exactly but they had a problem convincing mothers to painfully
mutilate (it is the right word) their babies before it could happen to
them when there was nothing wrong with them so they had to make it an
order from someone higher which was God. Even that probably wasn't
enough for some Moms, so they made it a necessary part of being in the
group. It worked. Still does.
Interlude-
(Why me?)
There is a town in Italy where all 8 YO boys are circumcised in public.
Nobody knows how the custom got started.
Revival-
(Don't you touch it!)
In the late 1800's American John Harvey Kellogg (famous health fanatic
and inventor of cornflakes) was dead set against masturbation. Probably
because he didn't have enough to get hold of himself and was jealous.
He published lots of lies about how bad "self-abuse" was and people
actually believed him. He said not doing it was a serious matter of
health and very important. He had the stupid idea that if boys were
circumcised they couldn't jackoff and managed to convince the public
who demanded their doctors do it to their poor defenseless kids. As a
result the practice became common in the US and Canada and Australia,
particularly as more women delivered in hospitals than they used to at
home.
Here are two quotes from that flakey fanatic wacko about it:
"Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire
success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is
circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The
operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an
salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the
idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which
continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not
previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not
resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so
carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress
without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to
elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in
his vice."
(He didn't let girls alone either.)
"In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid
to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement,
and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will-power
has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire
self-control."
AIDS-
(Fear is GOOD!)
A group of sociologists and real doctors (LOL) were collecting
statistical data on diseases and other things on Sub-Saharan African
tribes when they noticed an unusual correlation. All else being mostly
equal, the population where the males were circumcised had much less
incidence of the males becoming infected with HIV/AIDS from poking
infected females than the neighboring population where the males were
uncut. This led to more research to find out why. It was discovered
that the lining of the inside of the foreskin is unusually porous to
the virus which was how it entered the body easier than up the pisshole
and infected more men.
It should be noted these studies didn't involve gay sex. Not that they
could be sure about that. LOL
Climax-
(Are we there yet?)
From a friend:
"As you can see, the practice of male circumcision starts for health
reasons, real and imagined, and then evolves into social and religious
requirements. However, we shouldn't let conventional morality, custom,
and emotional issues, cloud the fact that its origins were for health,
which may still have some continuing validity in today's world."
Next? LOL
--
Grant
|
|