Re: I've got blisters on my.....penis!

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Alan McKendree
>Subject: Re: I've got blisters on my.....penis!
>
>Sez you. OTOH, from http://www.noharmm.org/reversal.htm: "Men who restore
say the increased sensation is comparable to
>"the difference between seeing in black and white and seeing in color.""

You're link didn't work.  But, I don't buy it for a moment.
I thought you were using clinical "journals", not web sites geared toward
selling a position in a debate ("noharm.org").
I've been going on information from experience, health web sites, and actual
physician interviews.

>Then I guess we're down to "my evidence can beat up your evidence". I read
reports by individuals who thought enough of the benefits, including
increased >sensitivity, to go through a 1-to-3-year reconstruction process.

Jesus.  And those people you're "reading" about (wink, wink), so desperate
(or suffering from foreskin envy) as to subject themselves to a 1-3 year
reconstruction, didn't have some serious sensitivity issue.  Ok.
I can hear their lispy voice from here....."you theem tho *then*thitive".
Me, I don't feel a *thing*.

>I think it's very unfortunate that a site's tone would work to the
disadvantage of the facts it wants to present.

Unfortunate, perhaps.  I like to look at the whole picture, and am dubious
of those who come on too strong.  Particularly when the medical community is
still well divided.

>I'm not for clitorectomy, either.

Who is?
But, to draw parallels between circumcision and clitorectomy makes an
educated person immediately suspect of your message.  Sorry, but it makes
you sound militant.

>And I continue to believe it's simply a mistake to think that the way we're
born needs to be surgically altered.

Oh, I see.  So we should just all go natural.  Forget immunizations, and the
like.

>If and when a problem develops that warrants surgery, then have surgery.

That's definitely one side of the argument.
See, you're being much more reasonable here.

>No, that comes later, with the after-effects of a botched cauterization.

Who's getting cauterized??  Circumcisions are done via incisions.
Botched circumcisions have been recorded though.  There's another part of
the argument.

>I wonder how many "many" is

Stop wondering and go to babycenter.com and read.  Or, go into an OBGYN
office and chat with the group.  Or, like my wife and I, do all of that,
surf the web for hours, and then go to 3 or 4 more OBGYN offices and
Pediatrician offices.  Or, you could also generate the discussion infront of
the Medical Director and Associate Medical Director of the company you work
for, while the CMO and VP of Medical Affairs (former Med. Dir of my company)
of the largest hospital in VT are present and contributing, and listen to
their discussion.........like *I* did a year ago when faced with this issue.

,>and that still doesn't mean that millions of babies should be mutilated
(loaded term alert)

Let's just call it what it is.....a tiny piece of useless skin is removed
painlessly....

>on the off chance that a few of them decades later might need the
procedure.

Apparently still over 50% of the country and medical community does.

>Hell, why not just replace both hips at birth? An appreciable percentage of
babies will need *that* surgery eventually, and I'll bet a quarter right now
that it's more >than will need circumcision.

Oh, ok.

>Denial alert. I really can't imagine why you'd refuse to believe a simple
statement of fact that's readily available in health books and medical
texts. Once again, >"daily washing".

Alan, you desperately what to paint me as some circ. promoter.  I'm not
stupid.  Obviously routine washing can eliminate and limit smegma.  My
bar-scene depiction was to demonstrate that it can still be a factor.  Hell,
what do you think it is that your routine washing is cleaning away?
Oh, and we haven't even mentioned how smegma (or degrees there of)
introduced into the vagina can lead to all sorts of nasty little infections,
not to mention cervical cancer.
Sorry honey, I didn't mean to kill you with my penis. (cute exaggeration
alert.)

>I'll just say that we're not talking about stuff being cranked out by the
armload,

Exactly.  But, it just takes one negative reaction by a female to ruin a
night (life?).  (kind of an exaggeration...alert ;-)

> and considering that a sizable number of men are NOT circumcised, and yet
pick-ups in bars seem to continue at a healthy rate all over the world, I'd
say you're >worrying needlessly.

Perhaps.  But I only said it was one consideration.
Ladies, next time you go down, bring a cracker.
Doh!  ;-o

>More fun facts from the site cited above: Circumcision in the U.S. sprang
from an erroneous belief among physicians that it cured masturbation.

That...is....a....crock.  Consider the source.

 >The studies about cancer and STDs came later.

Oh yeah, those.
Don't forget about those!

>The only western countries to adopt universal circumcision were
English-speaking nations like Australia and >Canada. Their circumcision
rates have now >plummeted to 10% and 25% respectively. Britain stopped
routine infant circumcision in 1949.

While adult circumcisions are on the rise world wide.  And, Germany was/is
regularly conduction circumcisions.  Why you think I'm cut?  My mom is
German.  Social theory teaches us that in the absence of an agreed decision,
tradition prevails.
Physicians I've spoken with have contradicted this notion that circs. are
only being done in this country.  Statistically, yes, we lead the way,
but....

>I really can't see what you're getting at here.

Hey, it was your "silly example"!

>>>I'm trying to imagine just why a man would actually medically *need* to
get circumcised,
>
>Care to answer the questions, or are you just going to hold your hands
behind your back and hum?

I like humming, but my hands are clasped on top of my head.
Alan, if you look *real* closely, you'll actually see the answer(s) to your
above rhetorical question in just about every line I've written in this
debate.
What have we been doing here?

>Once again, why is it needed, and how common is this need?

There is still much disagreement in the medical community on the risk of inf
ection to the uncircumcised male (Where the fuck is Doc Oz when you need
him?).
And obviously, the need is common enough for the medical community to be in
disagreement.  It becomes a matter of risk, percentages, and what the end
result is if the risk comes to be.
So, you end up right where we left off .....it's a choice, and there's no
clear answer.
And, to me, anyone who takes a "this is the answer, you all are wrong, it's
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, shame on you" approach, is obviously ignoring
the debate that still is in progress.
A debate being conducted by people much smarter and much better educated on
this matter than you.............ok...............or I.  But, I'm listening
to them..., you're not.  Your mind is made up.

>Not really a fair comparison to claim that it's violently painful for men,
but no big deal for a baby IF PAINKILLER IS INJECTED, is it?

Dude. PAINKILLER IS INJECTED in adult male circumcision TOO.
And, it's not *my* claim, or even a *claim* at all.
It is, what it is.  Medically supported fact.
You know, how it takes longer and is more difficult to heal for adults than
children, let alone an infant?

>With this, I am going to have mercy on the list. Anyone who wants to
receive my side of this dialogue, should it continue, offline, e-mail me
privately.

Yes, thank you.
And, shame on you people's parents who circumcised you.  You poor incomplete
humans.  Oh, and double shame on all you parents who decided to circumcise
your boys.  They'll grow up to hate you.  Brace yourself.  You've taken
their foreskin away.  Years of therapy, gallons of ice-cream, and all the
"I'm sorry's" in the world won't undo what you've done.  Hide.  HIDE IN
SHAME!

Oh brother.

Kevin in VT