circumcision

[memoria vitae]

I am going to stab you.

*blink blink* uh...okay?

[anachronistic]

*blink blink* uh...okay?

Don't mind OV.

[Gigabitch]

Don't worry, he just has e-Tourette's. He's not really going to stab you.

[Tiay]

I'm intrigued giga.. e-tourette's?

I have researched this before ... That is why I know most of your info is biased

well please *show* me then. It's no good to just say "well, the sources you're using are biased.. whereas the ones I used are obviously not biased."

I also doubt there is anystudy in any field that isn't biased on some level, especially an issue this loaded.

I didn't browse anti-circumcision websites for collections of information, nor did I specifically search for them; they are simply the most likely places on the web that will cite research about sensitivity and circumcision and the like, because those issues are simply ignored on other sites.

If there's a study that takes into account some of the points I've mentioned (especially in regard of the claimed benefits) and yet still recommends circumcision for medical reasons, then I'd like to see it.

Also, just because a study is specifically aimed to find out what the rate of circumcision damage is, does not mean the results are inaccurate- just that nobody else bothered to do a study in that area.

I could go on another rant here.. but instead i'll just ask.. do you really think that you can remove half of the total surface area of the penis and not suffer any sexual ill effects from it?
When I explained what circumcision is to my friend, who's bf is uncut, she looked perplexed and said ".. but that's the best bit."

I didn't read anything Tiay said because she's wrong.

hehe, you don't even know what you're disagreeing with then.

i have to say that i find it fascinating that the concept of cultural/religious practices barely made more than a side note in...what, two posts?

that's because there's not much to debate about. If somebody says "in our religion all men are circumcised" then.. there's nothing to argue with. Religious circumcisions originated from trying to minimise premarital sex, to control sex, etc, so even though that's messed up, in a way they have more of the right idea than the medical-benefits crowd do, imo.

[Gigabitch]

I'm intrigued giga.. e-tourette's?

That must be what it is. Fras has it too, and obviously King Dono suffers as well.

Suddenly they start typing abuse. They can't help it. It passes quickly and their sweet selves re-emerge.

[The Great OV!!!]

You are all telling me that his miniture font and book length posts that you have to squint your eyes to read do not piss you off?

[Gigabitch]

I have a relly big monitor. Heh heh.

[The Great OV!!!]

I have a relly big monitor. Heh heh.

lol !


______________

[Tiay]

I love my 20 incher.

[Gribble]

Heheh. My 32 incher just arrived in the mail yesterday, believe it or not. I have it flanked by two old 19 inchers.... ahhh. Heaven. And I still hate his damn tiny-ass font, by the way.

[vashti]

well please *show* me then. It's no good to just say "well, the sources you're using are biased.. whereas the ones I used are obviously not biased."

Jeez Tiay, why are you trying to drag out this argument? I have already said we should agree to disagree more than once. You don't really think you will change my mind, do you?

A non-biased source does not advocate one position or the other (I don't think the article I posted advocated routine circumcision), does not end with ".com" or ".net" and does not include wikipedia entries, at least this is the standard in the US. Clearly when you post inflammatory pictures meant to tug at the heartstrings, your source is biased. I bet I could find similar pictures of babies crying on a website aimed at stopping routine vaccinations.

I could go on another rant here.. but instead i'll just ask.. do you really think that you can remove half of the total surface area of the penis and not suffer any sexual ill effects from it?

Yes, I can say with certainty that I have never known a man to actually suffer from sexual dysfunction because of a circumcision, and apparently the men who have been cut who frequent this board agree.

Now, can we just agree to disagree?

[Junket]

I don't have e-tourette's.

[Gigabitch]

I don't have e-tourette's.

You're not going to make me go back through threads and prove it, are you? ::lazy::

[Junket]

You're not going to make me go back through threads and prove it, are you? ::lazy::

Yes, I am. ::difficult::

[memoria vitae]

that's because there's not much to debate about. If somebody says "in our religion all men are circumcised" then.. there's nothing to argue with. Religious circumcisions originated from trying to minimise premarital sex, to control sex, etc, so even though that's messed up, in a way they have more of the right idea than the medical-benefits crowd do, imo.

...i thought somewhere in there we were discussing the reasons and values of being (un)circumcised. i merely thought culture and religion should be mentioned as it is a primary reason as to why parents might choose to have such a procedure done for their child.

You are all telling me that his miniture font and book length posts that you have to squint your eyes to read do not piss you off?

my apologies OV. i did not realize you were so easily irritated. i will do my best to step light around you in the future.