On 21/12/2010 10:55 PM, Omelet wrote:
>
> Genital mutilation (circumcision) is not a natural process.
> It must be there for a reason or evolution would have taken care of it.

It is a flap of skin. It is not like the sexual mutilation of females
where they remove the clitoris and sew things up.


>> The most convincing argument for some men is it is pretty much a
>> non-issue for newborn infants, and so much less traumatic than having to
>> have one as an adult.
>
> If they are incapable of keeping it clean, then yes, it needs to be cut
> off. Pigs should not reproduce. Ick!

You should admit that some people have twisted views about touching the
genitals. You raise kids with sexual hang-ups and then expect that roll
back their foreskins to clean up at least once a day.

> But that should be a personal choice. Not enforced on an innocent and
> helpless child.
>
> Kinda like the issue of breast etc. cancer in women....
>
> and uterine or cervical cancer.
>
> Should all women have their breasts, cervix and ovaries removed due to
>


Hardly. They aren't removing the whole penis. They trim off a useless
piece of skin.

On 21/12/2010 10:56 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>
>> Newborn babies scream about a lot of things. They settle down and get
>> over it quickly.
>
> Okay...
>
> Let's see you be there when a baby gets his foreskin sliced off with no
> mercy...
>
> and put yourself in his place.

I have been in that position. I have no memory of it.

On 21/12/2010 11:20 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 12:35 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> The popularity of tattoos is a sign or weaking religious hold on
>> society. As the US was founded well over two centuries in a wave of
>> religious freedom expanding through civilization I'd say the process has
>> been really slow.
>
> I don't agree. Tats are just a way to express yourself with color and an
> image. Like jewelry. Or acrylic nails. Or makeup.

It is interesting that someone can be seen as expressing themself when
they get a tattoo of a motif that is the current trend or a picture
drawn by someone else. You might be expressing yourself if you design
and apply your own tattoo.

"Max W." > wrote in message
.. .
> Aussie > wrote in
> 5:
>
>> Miche > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> So why get a tattoo?
>>>
>>> If you must know, this one is in memory of a departed friend.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If I did that for every friend I've lost, I'd be a walking billboard!!
>>
>>
>> But I understand your sentiment.
>>
>> #2 daughter lost her best friend (they lived in each others pockets
>> from age 7 to 22) in a house fire 5 years ago. She's still devestated
>> and last year got a tattoo on the nape of her neck with her friends
>> initial inside a set of angels wings with a halo on top and RIP
>> underneath.
>>
>> I prefer to remember my friends in either pictures, or memory.
>>
>
> yea. if my daughter ever got a "TRAMP STAMP", i'd be proud too.

calling it a 'tramp' would be an upgrade for Swallow's 'daughter' .

"Aussie" > wrote in message
5...

> Well, we (males) certainly don't get calluses on our dicks.
>
> It's an urban myth that you lose sensitivity when you have a circumcision.

How do you explain the callouses on your neck and head, peter??

> --
> Peter Lucas
> Hobart
> Tasmania

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:59:26 +1000, atec77 > wrote:
>
> > On 22/12/2010 4:37 PM, sf wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:16:12 +1300, > wrote:
> > >
> > >> As a New Zealander and a woman, I want to add that circumcision is
> > >> unusual here.
> > >
> > > It's very usual here.
> > >
> > Well with time that butchery will change
> > how would you feel about a daughter being seen to with a Gillette blade ?
>
> The two practices are not comparable.

Absolutely they are. You want to show your devotion to your false god,
or uncivilized culture, feel free to hack up *your own genitals* with a
rusty razor blade. Leave defenseless children alone.

On Dec 22, 11:10*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:36:21 -0800 (PST), A Moose in Love
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 1:19 am, Miche > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >> > On 21/12/2010 10:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> >> > > "Miche" > wrote
> >> > >> Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
> >> > >> since it was never visible under street clothes.
>
> >> > > If is is on your back where you don't see it, covered with clothing so
> >> > > that others can't see it, I can't see much reason to have one. Even
> >> > > naked, most times another person would be facing you where it is out of
> >> > > view. If I had one, I'd want to show it off.
>
> >> > How can you beat the logic. Be cool by getting a tattoo on your back
> >> > where you can't see it and cover it up so that no one else can. Makes
> >> > to much sense to me.
>
> >> You assume I got a tattoo on my back because I wanted to "be cool".
>
> >> You assume wrong.
>
> >So why get a tattoo?
>
> Why do you wear lace panties? *How can so many idiots assume that no
> one ever sees Miche nude or at least semi-nude... people do go to the
> beach, many wear the skimpiest of beachwear... except for yoose
> envious ugly blobs of blubber. *Most folks admire well done tats...

I think most tats are pretentious. They show me that tat people are
obsessed with themselves. I can actually get past the tats if the
person has some kind of personality. Usually they are just go along
bots.

> many envy them and would like the same, only they haven't the nerve.

Maybe some people this applies to. It doesn't apply to me. Why would
I want a tattoo in the first place? I can't think of a reason.

> Most of the symbolism of tattoos is that they're indicative of
> personal fortitude, commitment, and maturity. *

Tat people think they're 'cool.'

>Throughout history
> various body markings were viewed as achieving various plateaus of
> maturity/responsibility within their society. *

I'm not referring to those tats. I'm referring to tats worn by
everyday Tom, Dick and Harry's and Sheilas as well.

>I think it the height
> of bigotry to denounce another's adornment...

You can call it bigotry. Makes no difference.

>like someone with
> tattooed eye/lip cosmetics but denounces anothers choice... like a
> certain major world leader promoting green ventures, dietary controls,
> and hijacking modern medicine while chain smoking... what a ****ing
> moroon! *Get rid of that hipocritical inept spineless douchebag and
> the leaky ship he floated in on.

um right on.

On 22/12/2010 12:35 PM, atec77 wrote:

>>
>> Hardly. They aren't removing the whole penis. They trim off a useless
>> piece of skin.
>>
>>
>>
> Er no
> wrong wrong wrong
> it is not just skin being multitudinous in it's uses when attached
> but don't let the truth get in the way of your misinformation
>

That's quite the rebuttal. You said that I was wrong and misinformed,
but offered no information to support your lame argument.

On 22/12/2010 12:37 PM, atec77 wrote:
> On 23/12/2010 2:32 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:59:26 +1000, > wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/12/2010 4:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:16:12 +1300, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As a New Zealander and a woman, I want to add that circumcision is
>>>>> unusual here.
>>>>
>>>> It's very usual here.
>>>>
>>> Well with time that butchery will change
>>> how would you feel about a daughter being seen to with a Gillette
>>> blade ?
>>
>> The two practices are not comparable.
>>
> yes they are , in many cultures the female is mutilated as well with
> variable degrees and that's the thing
> the degree



Wow. That is an even more pathetic rebuttal. There is no point in
arguing the points because it doesn't even make any sense.

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:16:12 +1300, Miche > wrote:
> >
> > > As a New Zealander and a woman, I want to add that circumcision is
> > > unusual here.
> >
> > It's very usual here.
>
> Fortunately, that "usual" is getting to be less common. ;-)

I am always a little leery of people saying things like "It's very usual
here". Is it "usual" for sf's aged husband (I'm guessing he's my age).
Is it "usual" for sf's 34 year old son? We all know that circumcision
used to be very usual in the US many years ago. The question is not
whether most old men are circumcised. That's just a given. The
question is to what extent it is still being performed.

GIMF:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=77266

The above article is about a petition drive to put a law on the ballot
in SF next November, to make circumcision ILLEGAL for other than
immediate medical necessity. No religious circumcisions.

It doesn't sound to me like the people in SF, where sf lives, consider
it to be all that "usual".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 22/12/2010 12:56 PM, A Moose in Love wrote:


>> Why do you wear lace panties? How can so many idiots assume that no
>> one ever sees Miche nude or at least semi-nude... people do go to the
>> beach, many wear the skimpiest of beachwear... except for yoose
>> envious ugly blobs of blubber. Most folks admire well done tats...
>
> I think most tats are pretentious. They show me that tat people are
> obsessed with themselves. I can actually get past the tats if the
> person has some kind of personality. Usually they are just go along
> bots.

Aren't most fad followers pretentious? They buy and wear the lastest
food fashions, the latest hair cuts etc in order to portray a pubic
persona and most of the time it is just a false front. I have been
disappointed many times to learn that the people who tried so hard to
look and act cool were really tense and uptight, the opposite of what
they tried so hard to portray.



>> many envy them and would like the same, only they haven't the nerve.
>
> Maybe some people this applies to. It doesn't apply to me. Why would
> I want a tattoo in the first place? I can't think of a reason.

The only reason I can think is to have an example of regrets from my
youth. The living embodiment of things I have to admit that I have done
out of rashness.



>> Throughout history
>> various body markings were viewed as achieving various plateaus of
>> maturity/responsibility within their society.
>
> I'm not referring to those tats. I'm referring to tats worn by
> everyday Tom, Dick and Harry's and Sheilas as well.

Like the homeless git wearing the face tattoos of a Maori chief ;-)



>> I think it the height
>> of bigotry to denounce another's adornment...
>
> You can call it bigotry. Makes no difference.

The bigotry is reversed. You are supposed to see the tattoo and assume
certain positive traits because they person had someone else do a
drawing on their skin.

Cheryl wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> The popularity of tattoos is a sign or weaking religious hold on
>> society ...
>
> I don't agree.

Note that tattoos are explicitly forbidden by the holy book of the
majority religion of western civilization. You just disagreed that an
increasing population of people who flagrantly ignore such a religious
mandate is a sign of weaking religious hold on society. This strikes me
as a matter of logic and population counts not as a matter of opinion.

> Tats are just ...

The fact that you can view it that way says you do not acknowledge the
power of the holy book of the majority religion to forbid you from
having a tattoo.

> a way to express yourself with color and
> an image. Like jewelry. Or acrylic nails. Or makeup.

Being permanent they are more important than transient decorations, or
should be viewed as such. Tattoos are definitely a way to express your
personality through decorations. Because I can take jewelry off I
think that should give tattoos a larger import. I almost never take off
my wedding ring but I can do so and it does come off every so often
even if it's only to confirm that I can still take it off. With a
tattoo it takes a medical procedure with a recovery healing time to
remove it.

The reasons for getting a tattoo range from viewing them as lightly as
jewelry to viewing them as acts of heritage, devotion, personal
transistion.

On Dec 22, 2:56*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Cheryl wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> >> The popularity of tattoos is a sign or weaking religious hold on
> >> society ...
>
> > I don't agree.
>
> Note that tattoos are explicitly forbidden by the holy book of the
> majority religion of western civilization. *You just disagreed that an
> increasing population of people who flagrantly ignore such a religious
> mandate is a sign of weaking religious hold on society. This strikes me
> as a matter of logic and population counts not as a matter of opinion.
>
> > Tats are just ...
>
> The fact that you can view it that way says you do not acknowledge the
> power of the holy book of the majority religion to forbid you from
> having a tattoo.
>
> > a way to express yourself with color and
> > an image. Like jewelry. Or acrylic nails. Or makeup.
>
> Being permanent they are more important than transient decorations, or
> should be viewed as such. *Tattoos are definitely a way to express your
> personality through decorations. Because I can take jewelry off I
> think that should give tattoos a larger import. I almost never take off
> my wedding ring but I can do so and it does come off every so often
> even if it's only to confirm that I can still take it off. With a
> tattoo it takes a medical procedure with a recovery healing time to
> remove it.
>
> The reasons for getting a tattoo range from viewing them as lightly as
> jewelry to viewing them as acts of heritage, devotion, personal
> transistion.

I have come across positive people who are tattooed. They are in a
minority though. It seems to me that they are just playing around
with youth and 'fashion.' The one fellow is very good at what he does
and is a decent chap. He even has these large black earrings which
are meant to stretch the earlobe so he can get even larger earrings in
there. As soon as I met him, I warmed up to him tats, earrings and
all. He was for the most part genuine. Most people I talk to with
tats aren't . They proclaim that because they have 'sleeves', they
are somehow cool. This fellow was a person first. That's what counts.

On 22/12/2010 12:47 PM, Omelet wrote:
>
>
> <http://www.circumcision.org/adults.htm>
>
> Just a few quotes from that cite:
>
> "Only men circumcised as adults can experience the difference a foreskin
> makes. In the Journal of Sex Research, Money and Davison from the Johns
> Hopkins University School of Medicine reported on five such men. Changes
> included diminished penile sensitivity and less penile gratification.
> The investigators concluded,
>
> Erotosexually and cosmetically, the operation is, for the most part,
> contraindicated, and it should be evaluated in terms of possible
> pathological sequelae.( 1)
> Other men circumcised as adults regret the change.
>
> I play guitar and my fingers get callused from playing. That's
> similar to what happened to my penis after circumcision.( 2)

Oh poppycock. I know about blisters on your fingers from guitar
playing. You don't get blisters on your dick from not having a foreskin.
That is every bit as preposterous as comparing it to female circumcision.

The last time I saw my brother in law he was talking about circumcision
and a suggestion he had heard that uncircumszed men had more
sensitivity. We agreed that we could not imagine being more sensitive.
How much could handle?

On 22/12/2010 12:35 PM, atec77 wrote:
>
>> Hardly. They aren't removing the whole penis. They trim off a useless
>> piece of skin.
>>
>>
>>
> Er no
> wrong wrong wrong
> it is not just skin being multitudinous in it's uses when attached
> but don't let the truth get in the way of your misinformation
>

OOps sorry. I should have responding in kind...

No,. it is right right right. You are misinformed.

atec77 > wrote in -
september.org:

> On 23/12/2010 12:06 AM, Aussie wrote:
>> > wrote in -
>> september.org:
>>
>>> On 22/12/2010 3:03 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/2010 1:27 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>> It was considered medically beneficial back when I was a baby. It
was
>>>>> recommended by most doctors, and most baby boys back then had it
done.
>>>>> (I was born in 1949). Sometime after that, it was determined that it
>>>>> wasn't medically necessary, but it wasn't medically harmful either.
>>>>> Most baby boys were circumcised, simply so they would look like
daddy
>>>>> and the other little boys.
>>>>
>>>> Other than the religious reasons, isn't it more healthy?
>>>>
>>> Mutilation is never healthy
>>>
>>
>>
>> Religious reasons never entered my thought process when I got my boys
>> done. Neither was it a "They have to look like their Dad" reason....
>> (Anybody who does it for *that* reason needs to have the shit smacked
out
>> of them!!).
>>
>> I watched two friends go through complete and utter agony whilst we
were
>> serving o/s, because they were the *only* two guys in our Company that
>> weren't 'snipped', and they both got infections (tropical jungle area)
and
>> had to suffer through an adult circumcision. They were out of action,
and
>> in a *whole* lot of pain, for about 3 weeks all up.
>>
>> My boys got done when they were merely weeks old, they wailed for all
of
>> about 5 seconds before they started to feed on a bottle, and that was
>> that. All over and done with.
>>
>> 5 seconds versus 3 weeks as an adult.... it's a no brainer. Not to
mention
>> the various studies that espouse the greatly reduced risk of penile
cancer
>> in a snipped male.
>>
>>
> All it takes these days is a simple plastic bell and a couple of days ,



I seem to recall that's how the second son was done. The 1st was 'snipped.



> but would you chop bits of your girl child just in case ?



I'm not a bloody Muslim. And it's a pretty silly bloody comparison to
bring into the discussion.



> mutilation is never good kind or anything else but wrong and the
> reduction risk is not justification either in a properly trained male ,



Even in "properly trained males" there is a high risk of infection..... as
per the comments I made earlier about watching two mates suffer.



> shower and actually washing help heaps



That's all well and good if you have daily access to a shower. When you're
out bush for up to 12 weeks at a time, it makes it kinda hard to go home
every morning to have a shower and wash your foreskin out.

Even more-so when you're traipsing around in a tropical jungle for 3-4
weeks.



> I see brooksy has it all arse about but then it's no surprise
>
> quite the booby



"Brooksy" = "sheldumb"??

Either way, I've had it killfiled for quite a few years.

--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

Omelet > wrote in newsmpomelet-0346B0.11474022122010
@news.giganews.com:

> In article >,
> Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
>> The best analogy is that the foreskin is the male
>> hymen, it needs removal. Every male who has had his foreskin removed
>> later in life has said sex was never this pleasurable...
>
> Funny, many men that have been circumcised as adults find just the
> opposite:
>
> <http://www.circumcision.org/adults.htm>
>
> Just a few quotes from that cite:
>
> "Only men circumcised as adults can experience the difference a foreskin
> makes. In the Journal of Sex Research, Money and Davison from the Johns
> Hopkins University School of Medicine reported on five such men. Changes
> included diminished penile sensitivity and less penile gratification.
> The investigators concluded,
>
> Erotosexually and cosmetically, the operation is, for the most part,
> contraindicated, and it should be evaluated in terms of possible
> pathological sequelae.( 1)
> Other men circumcised as adults regret the change.
>
> I play guitar and my fingers get callused from playing. That's
> similar to what happened to my penis after circumcision.( 2)
>
> After the circumcision there was a major change. It was like night and
> day. I lost most sensation. I would give anything to get the feeling
> back. I would give my house. [This man's physician persuaded him to be
> circumcised by warning he could otherwise get penile cancer. When the
> man complained of the result, the physician replied, "That's normal" and
> would not help him.]( 3)
>
> Slowly the area lost its sensitivity, and as it did, I realized I had
> lost something rather vital. Stimuli that had previously aroused ecstasy
> had relatively little effect. . . . Circumcision destroys a very joyful
> aspect of the human experience for males and females.( 4) "
>
> Etc.




All I see is a couple of whiners lamenting the loss of a piece of skin.

I was done as a child, I don't remember it being done, I don't remember
any pain, it has not affected me mentally in any way shape of form having
lost that piece of skin.

I have also 'used it' quite effectively most of my life, and continue to
use it to this day. "Loss of sensation""??? What a pile of shit!!

I think the detractors above might be lamenting the fact that they now
have to go out and find a real woman to experience the feeling of having
flesh around their penis, rather than just sitting at home having a wank.

--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

On 12/22/2010 11:46 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 21/12/2010 11:20 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 12/20/2010 12:35 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>> The popularity of tattoos is a sign or weaking religious hold on
>>> society. As the US was founded well over two centuries in a wave of
>>> religious freedom expanding through civilization I'd say the process has
>>> been really slow.
>>
>> I don't agree. Tats are just a way to express yourself with color and an
>> image. Like jewelry. Or acrylic nails. Or makeup.
>
> It is interesting that someone can be seen as expressing themself when
> they get a tattoo of a motif that is the current trend or a picture
> drawn by someone else. You might be expressing yourself if you design
> and apply your own tattoo.

Not everyone has to have the skill to apply a tat. It is still me who is
deciding what tat is going on my body and where it will be going. And
yes, you can design your own without having to be the one to apply it.

On 12/22/2010 2:56 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Being permanent they are more important than transient decorations, or
> should be viewed as such. Tattoos are definitely a way to express your
> personality through decorations. Because I can take jewelry off I
> think that should give tattoos a larger import. I almost never take off
> my wedding ring but I can do so and it does come off every so often
> even if it's only to confirm that I can still take it off. With a
> tattoo it takes a medical procedure with a recovery healing time to
> remove it.
>
> The reasons for getting a tattoo range from viewing them as lightly as
> jewelry to viewing them as acts of heritage, devotion, personal
> transistion.

Not replying to the religious aspect because I don't care about that one
way or the other. But to me just because I can't take it off doesn't
mean I view tats any different from clothing, jewelry, or any other
adornment. And, I really don't give a shit what others think of them.
Having them doesn't change my life one way or the other. It's just ink.
Big deal.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 22/12/2010 12:47 PM, Omelet wrote:
> >
> >
> > <http://www.circumcision.org/adults.htm>
> >
> > Just a few quotes from that cite:
> >
> > "Only men circumcised as adults can experience the difference a foreskin
> > makes. In the Journal of Sex Research, Money and Davison from the Johns
> > Hopkins University School of Medicine reported on five such men. Changes
> > included diminished penile sensitivity and less penile gratification.
> > The investigators concluded,
> >
> > Erotosexually and cosmetically, the operation is, for the most part,
> > contraindicated, and it should be evaluated in terms of possible
> > pathological sequelae.( 1)
> > Other men circumcised as adults regret the change.
> >
> > I play guitar and my fingers get callused from playing. That's
> > similar to what happened to my penis after circumcision.( 2)
>
> Oh poppycock. I know about blisters on your fingers from guitar
> playing. You don't get blisters on your dick from not having a foreskin.
> That is every bit as preposterous as comparing it to female circumcision.
>
> The last time I saw my brother in law he was talking about circumcision
> and a suggestion he had heard that uncircumszed men had more
> sensitivity. We agreed that we could not imagine being more sensitive.
> How much could handle?

We'll never really know, will we?

I'm not upset about being circumcised. That's what they did back then.
What's done is done, and there's no sense getting upset about it. In
fact, I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. But I don't really
know. But, in any case, just because I had it done without my consent,
doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Our sons aren't circumcised.
The doctors, some 30 years ago, said it wasn't necessary or recommended,
but they would do it if we signed the papers. Well, the doctors'
recommendations were good enough for us. The doctor who delivered our
second child recommended against it, and we didn't have it done. He
circumcised his own children, for religious reasons. He was sued for
"genital mutilation" by some ex-wife.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> GIMF:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=77266
>
> The above article is about a petition drive to put a law on the ballot
> in SF next November, to make circumcision ILLEGAL for other than
> immediate medical necessity. No religious circumcisions.

There's no way it will pass while it still forbids for religious
reasons. The first court to review it will toss it out on the spot.

On Dec 22, 8:36*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 04:06:03 -0600, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article >,
> > Cheryl > wrote:
>
> >> On 12/21/2010 10:07 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> > The mother's can do all they want to maintain good genital hygiene while
> >> > the child is young and they have normal access to it. *The problem
> >> > seemed to have been with older boys and young men who were not keeping
> >> > clean or working in situations where it was not possible, like soldiers
> >> > in time of war.
>
> >> I find this explanation suspect. *In the early years of having a boy, no
> >> one used to think about his well-being later in life. It was a ritual to
> >> do it, or family belief, or it wasn't done.
>
> >And consider the millions of years of human evolution where billions of
> >boy babies were not subjected to genital mutilation...
>
> >The human race survived just fine without it.
>
> Multitudes have and still die from penile/cervical cancer... the
> foreskin also greatly promotes all forms of VD... were you in the
> military (not) you'd be far better informed.
>
> Om, you haven't a clue... you don't have a penis, you don't have a
> son, and you're not sexually active, probably not for a very long
> time, and from what/how you think probably never (um, I've never seen
> a dildo made with a foreskin). *The foreskin also greatly interferes
> with sensitivity during all sexual acts for both men and women. *The
> foreskin serves no good purpose whatsoever, it's another of those
> unnecessary vestiges evolution forgot, more like not enough time has
> elapsed for it to fully disappear. *Removal is NOT a mutilation, no
> more than removal of skin tags from eyelids, leaving it is
> irresponsible. *The best analogy is that the foreskin is the male
> hymen, it needs removal. *Every male who has had his foreskin removed
> later in life has said sex was never this pleasurable... every women
> who eventually experiences a circumcised penis says the same, the
> foreskin is like three busted condoms. *The foreskin was necessary
> protection before humans evolved from tree dwellers and still walked
> on all fours. *Probably way back in time the hominoid penis was
> sheathed inside the body except during arousal as with other mammals,
> the foreskin is a vestige of that internal sheath. *If not for modern
> medicine interfering with evolution and given a few more million years
> the foreskin would disappear. *

==
You are an idiot...some of your conclusions are ridiculous.

"Three busted condoms"...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha.

What a goon.
==

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> Cheryl wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >
> >> The popularity of tattoos is a sign or weaking religious hold on
> >> society ...
> >
> > I don't agree.
>
> Note that tattoos are explicitly forbidden by the holy book of the
> majority religion of western civilization. You just disagreed that an
> increasing population of people who flagrantly ignore such a religious
> mandate is a sign of weaking religious hold on society. This strikes me
> as a matter of logic and population counts not as a matter of opinion.

So are shrimp, cutting your beard and polyester-cotton. There's plenty
of all of those around, too.

> > Tats are just ...
>
> The fact that you can view it that way says you do not acknowledge the
> power of the holy book of the majority religion to forbid you from
> having a tattoo.

It doesn't forbid me from having a tattoo, since I'm not a follower of
that religion.

> > a way to express yourself with color and
> > an image. Like jewelry. Or acrylic nails. Or makeup.
>
> Being permanent they are more important than transient decorations, or
> should be viewed as such. Tattoos are definitely a way to express your
> personality through decorations. Because I can take jewelry off I
> think that should give tattoos a larger import. I almost never take off
> my wedding ring but I can do so and it does come off every so often
> even if it's only to confirm that I can still take it off. With a
> tattoo it takes a medical procedure with a recovery healing time to
> remove it.
>
> The reasons for getting a tattoo range from viewing them as lightly as
> jewelry to viewing them as acts of heritage, devotion, personal
> transistion.

Exactly.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:08:26 +1000, atec77 > wrote:

>On 22/12/2010 3:03 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 12/21/2010 1:27 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
>>> It was considered medically beneficial back when I was a baby. It was
>>> recommended by most doctors, and most baby boys back then had it done.
>>> (I was born in 1949). Sometime after that, it was determined that it
>>> wasn't medically necessary, but it wasn't medically harmful either.
>>> Most baby boys were circumcised, simply so they would look like daddy
>>> and the other little boys.
>>
>> Other than the religious reasons, isn't it more healthy?
>>
>Mutilation is never healthy


Of course it can be.

On 22/12/2010 7:35 PM, atec77 wrote:
> On 23/12/2010 6:10 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 22/12/2010 12:35 PM, atec77 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hardly. They aren't removing the whole penis. They trim off a useless
>>>> piece of skin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Er no
>>> wrong wrong wrong
>>> it is not just skin being multitudinous in it's uses when attached
>>> but don't let the truth get in the way of your misinformation
>>>
>>
>> OOps sorry. I should have responding in kind...
>>
>> No,. it is right right right. You are misinformed.
> nice strawman but you have a lot more work to convince anyone about your
> lie being otherwise
>
Wrong wrong wrong. Don't hide the truth with misinformation.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:49:32 GMT, Aussie
> wrote:

>
>> shower and actually washing help heaps
>
>
>
>That's all well and good if you have daily access to a shower. When you're
>out bush for up to 12 weeks at a time, it makes it kinda hard to go home
>every morning to have a shower and wash your foreskin out.
>
>Even more-so when you're traipsing around in a tropical jungle for 3-4
>weeks.

Sheesh... yoose austrailer trash mateys will find any excuse to suck
each other off. LOL

atec77 > wrote in -
september.org:

> On 23/12/2010 6:49 AM, Aussie wrote:

>>> shower and actually washing help heaps
>>
>>
>>
>> That's all well and good if you have daily access to a shower. When
you're
>> out bush for up to 12 weeks at a time, it makes it kinda hard to go
home
>> every morning to have a shower and wash your foreskin out.
>>
>> Even more-so when you're traipsing around in a tropical jungle for 3-4
>> weeks.
>>
>
> fruitless response



Really??




>>
>>
>>> I see brooksy has it all arse about but then it's no surprise
>>>
>>> quite the booby
>>
>>
>>
>> "Brooksy" = "sheldumb"??
>>
>> Either way, I've had it killfiled for quite a few years.
>>
> personally I can't see your arguement ,




Blind people usually can't.



> if a person is in that situation
> the concession might be made as an adult BUT to systematically mutilate
> a child just in case has no worth



It's quite obvious by your resposes that you're a passionate "anti"
snipping person, so *nothing* that is going to be said is going to get
through that veil you have over your eyes or the fingers you have stuck in
your ears.

End of discussion.



--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:09:33 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 12/22/2010 11:46 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 21/12/2010 11:20 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2010 12:35 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>> The popularity of tattoos is a sign or weaking religious hold on
>>>> society. As the US was founded well over two centuries in a wave of
>>>> religious freedom expanding through civilization I'd say the process has
>>>> been really slow.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. Tats are just a way to express yourself with color and an
>>> image. Like jewelry. Or acrylic nails. Or makeup.
>>
>> It is interesting that someone can be seen as expressing themself when
>> they get a tattoo of a motif that is the current trend or a picture
>> drawn by someone else. You might be expressing yourself if you design
>> and apply your own tattoo.
>
>Not everyone has to have the skill to apply a tat. It is still me who is
>deciding what tat is going on my body and where it will be going. And
>yes, you can design your own without having to be the one to apply it.

The large panorama of tall ships on my chest was for the most part
designed by me... only a few details were artist's suggestions...
required four sessions, about eight hours total. Over the years I've
had no regrets, other than had I been a gal with DDD hooters I would
have had options for a 3D diarama.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:16:32 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 12/22/2010 2:56 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Being permanent they are more important than transient decorations, or
>> should be viewed as such. Tattoos are definitely a way to express your
>> personality through decorations. Because I can take jewelry off I
>> think that should give tattoos a larger import. I almost never take off
>> my wedding ring but I can do so and it does come off every so often
>> even if it's only to confirm that I can still take it off. With a
>> tattoo it takes a medical procedure with a recovery healing time to
>> remove it.
>>
>> The reasons for getting a tattoo range from viewing them as lightly as
>> jewelry to viewing them as acts of heritage, devotion, personal
>> transistion.
>
>Not replying to the religious aspect because I don't care about that one
>way or the other. But to me just because I can't take it off doesn't
>mean I view tats any different from clothing, jewelry, or any other
>adornment. And, I really don't give a shit what others think of them.
>Having them doesn't change my life one way or the other. It's just ink.
> Big deal.

The thing folks are not addressing is that there are an awful lot of
people out there who have tats that are concealed by clothing, hair,
inside bodily orifices, could easily be your closest friends and
relatives who you hold in high esteem... do they when one day show you
their tats suddenly become stupid scumbags? People make all kinds of
personal decisions about their body, nowadays practically every person
who crosses ones path has had some sort of elective cosmetic surgery.
If tomorrow you discover that twenty years ago your mom got a boob job
are you suddenly going to think she's a dumb bitch? What would you
think of your dad if one day he left the bathroom door ajar a smidge
and you saw that he had a tat of a robin pulling a worm out of his
ass? The point is that folks we see on a daily basis very likely have
tats and other enhancements we just haven't seen... doesn't in any
way, shape, or form make them less. I could tell a long story but to
cut to the chase my ex sister inlaw who over more than 20 years became
my best friend all her life wanted a boob job, she had a great body
and could dance like a pro but her husband forbade it. She never
worked, never drove a car, a totally dependant person. Many times I
offered to pay for the procedure but she was just too abused and
frightened to agree. Because she couldn't have boobs she killed
herself. She's gone twenty years now, I will miss Sheryl for all my
life. Just because someone is different don't judge them, you don't
know them, no one really KNOWS anyone, not even themself, not really.
A tattoo is just ink... today they can easily be removed, few are.

Omelet > wrote in newsmpomelet-C677EE.20372622122010
@news.giganews.com:

> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Oh poppycock. I know about blisters on your fingers from guitar
>> playing.
>
> I've played guitar. You don't get blisters, you get calluses. The skin
> toughens and you can lose some touch sensitivity.



Well, we (males) certainly don't get calluses on our dicks.

It's an urban myth that you lose sensitivity when you have a circumcision.

--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

On the subject of circumcision........ "Should newborns be done?"

http://www.circumcision.com.au/Porta...ussellMedical%
20Files/Documents/SchoenCanFam07.pdf


http://tinyurl.com/2467u4z

from.......


http://www.circumcision.com.au/Further_Information.aspx




--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 21/12/2010 9:43 PM, Omelet wrote:
>> In article
>>
>>> By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
>>> baby through that trauma, either?
>>
>> Indeed!!!
>>
>> They don't even use any kind of anesthetic.
>>
>> I've heard those babies scream... :-(
>
> Newborn babies scream about a lot of things. They settle down and get
> over it quickly.

Actually.. they give babies glucose now as they've determined the bit of
sugar soothes the baby. I don't understand it, but hey, evidence
supports it.
There are valid reasons to circ just as there are valid reasons to not
circ.

On 22/12/2010 9:37 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In g.com>,
> Dave > wrote:
>
>> Oh poppycock. I know about blisters on your fingers from guitar
>> playing.
>
> I've played guitar. You don't get blisters, you get calluses. The skin
> toughens and you can lose some touch sensitivity.

Actually, you do get blisters if you play too much before the calluses
build up. Never the less.......... calluses on circumcised dicks??? It
is a bit of a joke.

On 22/12/2010 9:56 PM, Omelet wrote:


> I had a co-worker that talked about her tattoo. She had a tasmanian
> devil tatted next to her pubic hair, then she'd shave a stripe thru the
> middle of it as if the tattoo had just passed thru that area...
>
> Too funny. ;-)

Was it a Tasmanian devil or a bush baby?

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > The doctor who delivered our
> > second child recommended against it, and we didn't have it done. He
> > circumcised his own children, for religious reasons. He was sued for
> > "genital mutilation" by some ex-wife.
>
> Now that's a new twist. ;-) I'd never heard of that kind of case. Did
> she win?

Don't quote me on it, but I vaguely remember that it was thrown out.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:56:31 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
>> The large panorama of tall ships on my chest was for the most part
>> designed by me... only a few details were artist's suggestions...
>> required four sessions, about eight hours total. Over the years I've
>> had no regrets, other than had I been a gal with DDD hooters I would
>> have had options for a 3D diarama.
>
>I has to laugh earlier at one person's description as to how to tell a
>woman that gets a rose tattooed on her breast will end up with a long
>stemmed rose as she gets older. <g> Sagging should probably be taken
>into consideration when considering tattoo placement!
>
>I had a co-worker that talked about her tattoo. She had a tasmanian
>devil tatted next to her pubic hair, then she'd shave a stripe thru the
>middle of it as if the tattoo had just passed thru that area...
>
>Too funny. ;-)
>
>Tattoos can be a subject of humor as well as cosmetics.

I'm always very wary of people who display no sense of humor,
especially on usenet. I've encountered very few people with tattoos
of a type I considered offensive... I'd not want to associate with
those dirtbags even if they had no tattoos... I've met far more people
who had no tattoos that were very offensive scum, I could find no
redeeming qualities in them whatsoever. But the vast majority of
people I encountered who have tattoos were very pleasant. There is a
lot of truth in not being able to judge a book by its cover.

On Dec 20, 12:44*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 3:00 PM, Miche wrote:
>
> >> Tattoos and piercings have no health benefit, no cultural mandate in
> >> general US culture (I realize some native tribes mandate it... I'm not
> >> talking about that). For the general public, tattoos and piercings are
> >> "self-expression". And in my opinion, they are nothing more than
> >> permanent disfigurement. You wanna disfigure your body, be my guest,
> >> but don't make me have to look at it.
>
> > Who's holding you down and forcing you to look at tattoos? *Shouldn't
> > your beef be with them rather than the tattooed people?
>
> When someone is exposing them in public you really don't have much
> choice about seeing it.

I work in a store, so I interact with a lot of customers each day.
Most, I have no problem looking at. I do have a trouble with the
larger holes in earlobes, both the kind that have stretchers in them,
and some that are just enlarged because the earrings were too heavy.

The absolute worst was not actually a tattoo or piercing, but a very
recent surgical incision. It was still bloody and covered with clear
tape. It was so hard to help that guy without feeling sick. I do not
do well with holes.

Years ago, I went to visit a friend in the hosital after a car
accident. She flipped back the covers to show me her leg. She had
staples from her thigh to her ankle, and it looked like a zipper. I
had no idea before then that staples were used in skin. I instantly
felt warm and sick. I took off my coat, pulled up a chair, and my
hearing was starting to fade as I sat down. Fortunately, everybody
else was happy chatting, and nobody noticed that I was fading for a
few moments. I sat down just in time and didn't actually pass out. But
it was close.

I do have to be careful sometimes with some of the weird piercings. I
don't want to look offended, but I don't want to look too much
either.

>
> The way I figure it is that if someone gets the number and type of
> tattoos, piercings and other body mutilations to make themselves look
> like freaks, I reserve the right to look and react as if they are
> freaks. *It is not like *a strange skin condition, natural ugliness or
> accidental dismemberment. When you do something that is bound to attract
> attention you have to realize that you won`t always get the positive
> feedback. And let`s face it, the people with the most bizarre tats and
> mutilations are doing it for the shock value.

When I was in college, I was in a philosophy class and a guy walked
by the window with a bright red mohawk about 5 inches long, spiked.
Of course, everybody in the class gawked, and the guy responded by
giving us the finger. We spent the rest of class discussing why
somebody would do something to make themselves stand out in appearance
and then get angry when people react.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:56:27 GMT, Aussie
> wrote:

>On the subject of circumcision........ "Should newborns be done?"
>
>http://www.circumcision.com.au/Porta...ussellMedical%
>20Files/Documents/SchoenCanFam07.pdf
>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2467u4z
>
>from.......
>
>
>http://www.circumcision.com.au/Further_Information.aspx

I've already said just about everything in your articles, mostly
learned some 50 years ago during boot camp. Thanks for the
references... I was too preoccupied earlier to search. From my
several intimate conversations with women all have confided in me that
they were visually aroused by the circumcised penis but turned off by
the uncircumcised penis. During the years I was dating every single
women was greatly relieved to discover I was circumcised, none would
continue to date uncircumcised men. None would perfom fellatio on an
uncircumcised man. I really don't care who beleives me but I know of
what I speak, I've been around the block a few times, I've been
married not once, not twice, not three times, but four times... and
inbetween I've been intimate with more women than carter has little
liver pills, and I've always been extremely open with women and
likewise women have always been very open with me. I don't play well
with men... actually men don't play well with me, and I know why, most
women who have met me know why... and it ain't my tattoos.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:59:06 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 22/12/2010 9:37 PM, Omelet wrote:
>> In g.com>,
>> Dave > wrote:
>>
>>> Oh poppycock. I know about blisters on your fingers from guitar
>>> playing.
>>
>> I've played guitar. You don't get blisters, you get calluses. The skin
>> toughens and you can lose some touch sensitivity.
>
>Actually, you do get blisters if you play too much before the calluses
>build up. Never the less.......... calluses on circumcised dicks??? It
>is a bit of a joke.

I don't think so... before any gal can give me calluses on my dick
I'll show them how I get calluses on my tongue.

On 22/12/2010 11:04 PM, wrote:

> The absolute worst was not actually a tattoo or piercing, but a very
> recent surgical incision. It was still bloody and covered with clear
> tape. It was so hard to help that guy without feeling sick. I do not
> do well with holes.

I can imagine. The thing is that, hopefully, that was done as part of a
necessary medical procedure and it will heal. There are people out
there who do it as a fashion statement.
>
> Years ago, I went to visit a friend in the hosital after a car
> accident. She flipped back the covers to show me her leg. She had
> staples from her thigh to her ankle, and it looked like a zipper. I
> had no idea before then that staples were used in skin. I instantly
> felt warm and sick. I took off my coat, pulled up a chair, and my
> hearing was starting to fade as I sat down. Fortunately, everybody
> else was happy chatting, and nobody noticed that I was fading for a
> few moments. I sat down just in time and didn't actually pass out. But
> it was close.

I know all too well about those staples I had then from my knee to my
ankle for two weeks last month. It did look like a zipper up my leg.
having had sutures in past, I have to say that they are less aggravating
than regular stitches and removal is easier and pain free.

My chest incision would probably gross you out. It runs vertically from
the bottom of my ribs almost to my neck. It's gross.


> When I was in college, I was in a philosophy class and a guy walked
> by the window with a bright red mohawk about 5 inches long, spiked.
> Of course, everybody in the class gawked, and the guy responded by
> giving us the finger. We spent the rest of class discussing why
> somebody would do something to make themselves stand out in appearance
> and then get angry when people react.

It's a safe bet that he had that done in the hope of being able to react
indignantly.