On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:35:27 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article
>,
> none of your business > wrote:
>
>> It's also been proven time and again that it's healthier
>> for the man and his partner to be circumcised (google it, I'm not
>> providing cites. it's general knowlege at this point). There is a
>> bonafide purpose to circumcision. Not to mention, the only
>> circumcisions that impact me are my husband's and my son's. I have no
>> problem with gays at all, either.
>
>That so opens a can of worms. ;-)
>
>Circumcision is genital mutilation. No better than infibulation.
>
>There are also a number of cites googleable that state why circumcision
>reversal is desirable... and so is avoidance.
>
>It should be a choice. Not enforced on a helpless infant.
>
>If moms are not lazy slobs and keep their baby's penis clean, it's not a
>necessary thing.

In my experience, which extent I wont go into here, women who are
sexually active much prefer circumcised men, for hygienic, tactile,
and visual reasons. No matter how often an uncircumcised male bathes
their penis is not clean. Intercourse with an uncircumcised penis is
tantamount to anal sex, anal sex is never clean, not ever. You
couldn't pay me enough to stick my dick in a rectum, I'd rather bone a
ham. Only extremely mentally ill people engage in anal penetration...
that's right, penetration, I don't consider that behaviour sex, at
best sticking a tube up someone's butt is a medical procedure, one
normal people hope to avoid. Those who engage is such filth deserve
whatever diseases they contract.