Esprix,
> So what does Jack have to say about us homos and the Wonderful World of Foreskins?<
Well, I want to thank the gay men who got this foreskin restoration thing started in the mid 80's. You really helped out. I want to thank gay men for their very high representation in the anti-circ movement. Gay men have been of CRUCIAL importance in getting everyone alerted to this sexual holocaust known as circumcision. I think that without gay men, we would have ended up with a planet that was 100% Cirked (at least as far as males go). I'm very worried about what the results will be when the day comes that there aren't any gay men any more. That REALLY scares me.
Yes, you have attacked persons directly. What do you call this –
Chronos,
>I have just as much sensation in my foreskin as I do in the skin anywhere else on my body, but my glans is easily more sensitive than any other part except possibly my tongue (I’ve never done comparison trials between the two). <
JDT
>It sounds like there may be a problem with your penis
OR,
astraeus,
>I am circumcised. My wife is currently pregnant with our first child, who, according to the ultrasound is a boy, and we intend to have him circumcised. <
JDT
>When he grows up he will be a freak (won’t be so many circumcised men when he grows up) and he will hate your guts for what you did to him (sorry to be so blunt). And, you will rationalize that it was God’s will that you force your helpless son to have part of his penis amputated. And, the damage done to your relationship with your son will work itself out according to God’s plan. Is it any wonder that such insanity as circumcision has caught on in such a non-intellectual environment?
I was actually wrong in my last post. You are not just attacking circumsised men, you attack uncircumsised men as well.
I have to comment on this, Jack, as you’ve repeated this at least a half-dozen times. To repeat, “No one has ever studied the physiology of the foreskin.” We clear that this is your position? Then how the hell do you know so much about the foreskin? Oh, I forgot, you have your two years rubbing dicks, a lifetime of quiet, joyless sex, and some “cutting edge” European studies that you magically have access to, but apparently aren’t on the 'Net, although everything else in the world is.
BTW, before you call me dogmatic, I am anti-circumcision. (Well, anti enough. My kids aren’t going to be circumcised. I don’t care what the rest of the world does.)
Man, reading this thread has rekindled a desire to actually use my psych degree. I’ll be back after I browse through the DSM-IV (it’s been a while - are we up to the DSM-V yet?). There is an obvious syndrome evident here.
You aren’t serious are you? Please tell me you aren’t serious. That has got to be the most insane thing I’ve read yet(well, maybe). Do you have any concept of just how much money that is? Do you really honestly feel that circumcision is worth more money than say…national defense? Cancer research? Social security?
> Why would you think there would ever be a day when there aren’t any gay men anymore? <
Because it's heterosexuals that actually have children, unfortunately. In the near future, it will probably be possible to know when a woman is carrying a homosexual child. That will almost inevitably result in an abortion. Religious people will block the means such as cloning or same sex parentage that would allow gay men to keep their numbers up. This will be the next great disaster that our society faces. I predict that it will be an even bigger disaster than the sexual mutilation of America. All because people will never abandon their programming in dogma.
I apologize to you, DavidB. I will let you do your job. I am just trying to find out what he hopes to accomplish by this bizzare spectacle. I should have used the word -insulted- instead of attacked. He asked for my cites and I gave it to him in his own thread.
>You aren’t serious are you? Please tell me you aren’t serious. That has got to be the most insane thing I’ve read yet(well, maybe). <
Oh, I'm very serious. We have a sexually mutilated population with its ensuing psychological damage. I can't imagine a greater threat to national security. The 1960's in America was the first time in human history that the world has ever seen a large population of circumcised men. We saw the results and they weren't pretty. In my opinion, America is an unstable society as a result of this absurd experiment. At least half of the national budget should be dedicated toward fixing these men so that America can survive long enough to get a few intact generations in to replace the mutilated ones.
It is getting more and more difficult for anyone to respond to your posts without being insulting, JDT. You just stated that homosexuality is purely determined by genetics, and that almost all mothers would have abortions if they knew their children would be homosexual. You can’t conceivably back either of those assertions up with any kind of proof.
Jack has gotten what he wanted all along (apparently.)
5 pages of constant talk about…penises. All about penises. Every possible detail about penises. All initiated by the “penis expert”. Penis penis penis.
2nd Law,
> You just stated that homosexuality is purely determined by genetics, <
I didn't say that, but it probably is genetic. Or, it may have to do with some difference that happens while the baby is growing in his mother. Either way, the cause will be isolated, very soon I should think.
> and that almost all mothers would have abortions if they knew their children would be homosexual.<
Gosh, I hope I'm wrong. I fear that I'm not wrong, though. I mean you won't hear of people who say that they are aborting their child because he is gay. They'll say things such as "now's not the right time to have a child." Kind of like, (wife to circumcised husband) "not now dear, I have a headache." The parents will probably believe their own lies, even. Statistically, one will see the numbers of gays diminish until some critical mass where it becomes acceptable for heteros to say that they don't want a gay for a son because he won't have anybody like him to play with. It's sort of like, I don't want my son to have a foreskin because I want him to be like everybody else. This is sort of how society changes so that it never has to stare directly at the truth, you know? It's just a real low-stress way to meander toward a fiasco.
> You can’t conceivably back either of those assertions up with any kind of proof. <
No, it's just my opinion that the same lack of critical reasoning skills that has resulted in the near extinction of foreskins in America will result in the extinction of gays in America and ultimately the world. A disaster.
And there we have it. Everything you’ve said in this thread is just your opinion, JDT, and you’ve been spouting it all as fact. You have no objective data to back up any of your assertions in this thread, you refer to your opinions as if they were case studies, and you contradict yourself repeatedly.
My word, Jack - your theories certainly are interesting. As I seem to understand, you see the massive rise in circumcisions here in the U.S. since the 60’s as the cause of the rise in violence, lowering of morals, and the general collapse of American culture. Tell me, does this apply to other nations worldwide? Do snipped men around the world act the same?
Take Israel, for example. Here’s a country where we can easily assume all males have been circumsized. Do you see this disfigurement as the cause of the rampant violence in Israeli society, of the Israelis’ oppression of their Arab neighbours? Is the cause of all the trouble in the Middle East the fact that a group of cicumcised males has set up a nation, and are acting with willful agression because of their physical make-up?
What is more troublesome? That I waste time actually responding to this because or that I actually enjoy it?
This is quite long. But Jack gives me so much ammo…
OK Jack. Here is all it takes. I’ll do you a favor. Here is a nice, balanced discussion in a peer reviewed journal. It comes down on your side. Maybe if you see what a legitimate cite is, then you can go and do it yourself…
Madre dios, Jack. Again, you use your psychic abilities, this time to tell me what I am going to do in the future. After I criticize circumcision. After I say I will give a balanced, unbiased statement on circumcision.
One question – do you see the lunacy in your argument? I understand your vitriol – we all need our own personal crusade. Generally in order to convince people that we are right around here, we make logical arguments for our position. We don’t use our amazing powers of prophecy.
Here’s a tip : Try to avoid statements starting like "Oh, I think that when you are a pediatrician, you will do (fill in the blank).
Sigh
The foreskin is intensely studied, if because it is the source of many lab fibroblast cultures. People know all the tissue types in there. PubMed doesn’t do well with links, but I can give you 100 studies in 20 seconds about penile physiology. I’m gonna try a PubMed link, I don’t know if it will work. 107 articles about the foreskin physiology.
I don’t care what Dr. Laura thinks. I care about my patients, in that I want to do what is best for their health. If she labels me an antisemite, oh well… I don’t buy the party line, but I’ll state it for you. Jewish law explicitly states that we are not to push our rules on others. Circumcision is a covenant between a newborn Jew and God, according to tradition. It is for the Chosen People. Not for everybody.
That is the party line. I’m not going to push Jewish law on even my Jewish patients before I push self-determination and good health. Until I have good data for or against, I will not push an issue at all.
Why? Because they weren’t studying that. They were doing a study of ejaculation rates. If you interview 10,000 people, you can’t ask them every question. For you, it is an important question. So go do the study.
See 107 citations above. Try PubMed, Jack. It is really easy to use.
In my book, if it isn’t peer-reviewed, it isn’t worth the paper on which it is written. Most scientists feel the same.
Fruit fly eyes are actually much more fascinating.
OK. What organization is covering this up? If there is such a wealth of data and hundreds of millions of men affected, it would take quite a large-scale coverup, donchathink?
Interviews get pulled all the time. Dave Letterman doesn’t get to interview the world’s fastest grocery sacker because Emeril was out too long. Sometimes, the interview just doesn’t go well. What evidence do you have that it was specifically pulled because of its content? How do you know it wasn’t a coincidence? Do you have evidence of more than just this one event?
WHY?
Surprising, because a leading arm of the medical establishment doesn’t actively promote circumcision anymore. See the AAP cite above.
Somehow, I keep waiting for Rod Serling to show up and do the voice over for the closing credits as the music starts.
Lesee:
Good idea. If we take all the money from national defence, it wont matter. If anyone invades, we’ll be too busy obsessing about our dicks and trying to streach the skin thereon.
Mr. Pot? I’d like you to meet Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot.
I am a heterosexual male. I can tell you with unequivical certainty, that were such a test possible, and 100% accurate, I wouldn’t even consider an abortion. What kind of sick fuck would you have to be to do that? Or are you implying that it would be mandated by the Zionist, Pro-Circ lobby that really runs the world in conjunction with the Illuminati and the Girl Scouts?
Another think, Jack-O. Why is it that you refuse to answer questions put directly to you, yes delight in asking others your own? Answer the questions you are asked.
I’m going to do something here you have not demonstrated you deserve. I checked out your homepage. You seem to be a not unatractive guy. Take some time to find a partner who likes you, and put all of your efforts into learning how to please her. Devote yourself to HER needs and wants, and I bet you find that all those things you claim are lacking from sex will be there, foreskin or no foreskin. Stop whining and do something. To butcher Shakespeare- “the fault lies not in our foreskins, but ourselves”
I bet THAT was a waste of time.
Um…but then what about the German oppression of the Jews? I’m thinking WWII, of course, but frankly, the circumcised Jewish people have been persecuted and oppressed by a wide variety of -presumably mostly uncircumcised- people for the past, oh, four thousand years or so. So I don’t think that argument will hold up.
