or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Other Stuff › Archives › General health and fitness › Health and nutrition › Health and medical › Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD - did you
make any changes in your anatomy texts yet? See below.

FEMALE PREPUCE (FORESKIN)

A SMALL part of the labia minora forms the female prepuce
(female foreskin)...

Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD write:

"The labia minora extend from the clitoris posterolaterally
around the external urethral orifice and the orifice of the
vagina..."[The] *glans clitoris*...is covered by a
prepuce...The anteriormost part of the labia minora passes
anterior to the clitoris and forms the *prepuce* of the
clitoris. A more posterior or deeper part of the labia
minora passes posterior to the clitoris and forms the
*frenulum* of the clitoris." ----Keith L. Moore, PhD and
Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD [Clinically Oriented Anatomy.
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 1999:413, *Bold*
in original.]

MALE PREPUCE (FORESKIN)

Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD (quoted
above) also write:

"*Circumcision* - surgical excision of the [male]
prepuce...the most commonly performed...surgical operation
on male infants...is often done routinely
for...reasons...mostly related to hygiene..." (*Italics* in
original, p. 411)

The AAP is *fraudulently* pushing infant foreskin retraction
for "reasons mostly related to hygiene" and may be causing
unnecessary circumcisions.

See Care of the Intact Infant Penis http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
list/message/2413

More on the "hygiene" "reason" for routine infant
circumcision below...

Moore and Dalley's "irritant" (smegma) appears to be
beneficial - see below... MDs ARE SLICING OFF PART OF THE
BODY'S IMMUNE SYSTEM AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE GENITO-
URINARY SYSTEM!

THE PREPUCE (FORESKIN) HAS IMMUNOLOGICAL PROPERTIES!

"...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that the
actual effect of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-
demonstated hygienic and immunological properties of the
prepuce and intact penis.

"The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions
like a one way valve, blocking the entry of contaminants
while allowing the passage of urine.7,8

"...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which
secrete cathepsin
B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-
antibody protein that generates an immune response on
contact with specific antigens)17...pheromones such as
androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]...

"...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and other
body fluids destroys bacterial cell walls..."

From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological
functions of the human

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3

FLEISS, HODGES and VAN HOWE (just cited) ALSO INDICATE
THAT...

SMEGMA HAS FUNCTIONS...

"Ectopic sebaceous glands concentrated near the frenulum
produce smegma.9-12 This natural emollient contains
prostatic and seminal secretions, desquamated epithelial
cells, and the mucin content of the urethral glands of
Littré.13,14 It protects and lubricates the glans and inner
lamella of the prepuce, facilitating erection, preputial
eversion, and penetration

FEMALE ERECTION?

Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD (quoted
above) write:

"The clitoris enlarges on tactile stimulation and is highly
sensitive."

FEMALE SMEGMA?

Perhaps the female prepuce (female foreskin) also has
sebaceous glands that secrete smegma which "protects and
lubricates the glans and inner lamella of the prepuce,
facilitating erection"?

Just a thought.

MAYBE WASHING WITH SOAP CAUSES SMEGMA TO BECOME AN IRRITANT?

Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD (quoted
above) write:

"As there are modified sebaceous glands in the [male]
prepuce, the oily secretions of cheesy consistency -
*smegma* - from them accumulate in the *preputial sac*,
located between the glans and prepuce, causing
irritation....*Circumcision* - surgical excision of the
prepuce...the most commonly performed...surgical operation
on male infants...is often done routinely
for...reasons...mostly related to hygiene..." (*Italics* in
original, p. 411)

WASHING WITH SOAP INCREASES PATHOGENS?

Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] (quoted above) write:

"Washing the preputial sac was once thought to aid hygiene.
Washing a stallion's preputial sack [sic] with soap,
however, encourages the growth of pathogenic organisms.20
Washing the human prepuce with soap is a common cause of
balanoposthitis.[citing Bowen et al.]"

Bowen et al. wrote: "This experiment showed that the
systemic washing of a stallion's penis will cause the normal
flora to be replaced with pathogens and potential
pathogens," as in,

"Six stallions were subjected to extensive cleansing of the
penis and prepuce with water, Ivory Soap and water, or
Betadine surgical scrub and water. The stallions were all
washed for 14 days, and then allowed 14 days respite. This
pattern of washing and resting was repeated consecutively.
Swabs were taken from all 7 stallions twice weekly and semen
was collected once a week for bacteriological examination.
All forms of cleansing altered the bacterial flora of the
stallion's penis; the Ivory Soap tended to encourage the
replacement of the normal flora with coliform organisms,
while Betadine favoured the growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
and Klebsiella spp. This experiment showed that the
systematic washing of a stallion's penis will cause the
normal flora to be replaced with pathogens and potential
pathogens." --Bowen JM, Tobin N, Simpson RB, et al. Effects
of washing on the bacterial flora of the stallion's penis. J
Reprod Fertil Suppl 1982;32: 41-5.
http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/bowen1/

There was nothing about washing HUMAN prepuces in the Bowen
et al. abstract.
: (

THINK ABOUT IT

AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED (note: sometimes
babies die or lose their penises)...

"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is
sliced off." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm
(paraphrasing Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision:
The Hidden Trauma)

"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into

http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald
Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

DO FORESKIN-LESS (CIRCUMCISED) MALES CLIMAX FASTER?

FLEISS, HODGES and VAN HOWE DON'T SAY...

Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] (cited above) write:

"One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle
movement between the mucosal surface of the two partners
during intercourse. The prepuce enables the penis to slip in
and out of the vagina non-abrasively inside its own sheath
of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus
stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only,
as when the male's prepuce is missing."

MAYBE FORESKIN-LESS (CIRCUMCISED) MALES **DO** CLIMAX
FASTER!

FROM A WEBSITE ABOUT THE CLITORIS...

"There is a distinct advantage to having the clitoris fixed
in place: any downward pull on the skin covering the shaft
and forks of the clitoris is felt directly in the glans, as
it is pulled downward through the [female] foreskin. Thus,
the friction stroke of a man's penis going into and out of
the vagina can, by pulling and releasing the clitoral root
and shaft, produce an indirect stimulation of the glans of
the clitoris. Many women are capable of having orgasms like
this, although the process, being indirect, MAY TAKE LONGER
than having an orgasm induced by friction stimulation of the
clitoral glans itself..."
http://www.aznewage.com/clitoris1.htm (emphasis added)

DID MOORE and DALLEY make the changes I requested back in

>>>>BEGIN excerpt of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
>>>>list/message/2141

SEVERE VAGINA TEARING AND "THE PRESENCE OF A PHYSICIAN"...

Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD write:

"Spontaneous delivery of an infant without the presence of a
physician can produce a severe tear in the lower third of
the posterior wall of the vagina, perineal body and skin.
When it is obvious that the perineum will tear during
childbirth, a surgical incision - *episiotomy* - is
performed..." --Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II,
PhD [Clinically Oriented Anatomy. Philadelphia: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins 1999:416 *italics in original*]

Anne M. R. Agur, B.Sc. (OT), Ph.D., M.Sc., co-author of
"Essential Clinical Anatomy" with Keith L. Moore, PhD
http://www.bmc.med.utoronto.ca/faculty/Agur.html

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access***)

Anne M. R. Agur, B.Sc. (OT), Ph.D., M.Sc. Associate
Professor Division of Anatomy Department of Surgery
University of Toronto (cross appointments in the Departments
of Physical and Occupational Therapy and Division of
Biomedical Communications). anne.agur@utoronto.ca
http://dante.med.utoronto.ca/skeletalmuscle/

Anne,

Moore and Dalley [1999] infer that the presence of
physicians (and episiotomies) prevents severe vagina
tearing.

In fact, research has shown that the presence of physicians
(and episiotomies) greatly increases the likelihood of
severe vaginal tearing.

Michael C. Klein, MD writes: "I think it is important to
recognize that episiotomy is a deliberate second degree
tear." [Birth. Letter. 2002;29(1):74]

According to a 1990 National Institutes of Health study,
deliberate tears by MDs (episiotomies) cause fifty times
MORE severe tears (tears clear to the anus) relative to
leaving the vagina alone.[Shiono et al. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75(5):765-
70. In Klein et al. Online J Curr Clin Trials (Jul1)1992,
Doc. No. 10]

Deliberate vaginal tearing by MDs is no small problem:

"The most common diagnosis for hospitalization among all
women is trauma to perineum due to childbirth."
http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/factbk3/factbk3.htm

Arrrggghhh! MDs are deliberately/senselessly traumatizing
perinea - and calling it "childbirth." (!)

This is not childbirth! This is MEDICAL birth!

FURTHER (far more serious) MD VAGINAL BIRTH FRAUD...

Moore and Dalley [1999] also write: "During...labor, an
episiotomy...is often made to enlarge the vaginal
orifice..." (p. 391)

No fraud there - no question that episiotomy enlarges the
vaginal orifice - but MDs are working a huge grisly birth
fraud that harms and sometimes kills babies...

MDs are slashing vaginas en masse - surgically/fraudulently
inferring they are doing everything possible to OPEN birth
canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%.

Moore and Dalley [1999] only faintly allude to (actually
partly obscure) the fact that MDs are routinely closing
birth canals up to 30%:

"Relaxation of the pelvic joints and ligaments during
pregnancy...permits greater rotation of the pelvis and a
small increase in pelvic diameters during parturition...The
coccyx also moves posteriorly during childbirth. All these
pelvic changes result in as much as a 10 to 15% increase in
diameters (mostly transverse)." (p. 341)

Moore and Dalley [1999] don't mention the fact that it is
the sacral tip moving posteriorly that generates the major
increase - a "massive"^^^ increase in pelvic outlet diameter
which happens to be ANTERIOR-POSTERIOR (not transverse).

This major AP outlet diameter increase (and the lesser
transverse increase) yield up to 30% of "extra" outlet AREA
- this according to the medical literature. See my Open
Letter to the United States Federal Trade Commission/FTC...
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

MDs using x-ray have lamely tried to COVER-UP the obvious
crime; most recently, MRI was used in the cover-up...

One Luigi Raio, MD is either unaware of sacroiliac motion
at-term - or he is part of the cover-up...

See Luigi Raio, MD responds to Gastaldo http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
list/message/2136

[^^^NOTE: "Massive" was the word used in the x-ray cover-up.
See again: http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html]

BEWARE...

Babies are dying...

MDs closing birth canals up to 30% are killing up to six
babies per day with vacuum extraction alone; and for some
reason the DC (chiropractic) trade unions are dragging
their feet in exposing this massive spinal manipulation
crime of MDs...

See USUAL MECHANISM (PS5) in my article, "Pregnant chiro
patients: BIZARRE chiro legislation - babies be damned..."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2135

Anne, I note that you are a co-author of "Essential Clinical
Anatomy" with Keith L. Moore, PhD...
http://www.bmc.med.utoronto.ca/faculty/Agur.html

The Essential Clinical Anatomy discussed herein needs to be
widely disseminated - IMMEDIATELY.

Please help stop MDs from closing birth canals at delivery.

Thanks,

Todd

Ba. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com

PS Anne, I've just now found the email address for Arthur
F. Dalley, PhD...

Arthur F. Dalley, II, Ph.D. is reportedly "co-author, with
Anne Agur, of the 11th edition of Grant's Atlas (Lippincott,
Williams & Wilkins, in preparation"
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/anatomy/bio/dalley.htm

The 11th edition of Grant's Atlas is due out Apr. 25, 2004
per my conversation today with Moriel at LWW 1-800-638-
3030...

So there is plenty of time to make sure it contains the
Essential Clinical Anatomy discussed herein...

Unfortunately, Art's Dynamic Human Anatomy: Electronic
Supplement to Grant's Atlas of Anatomy, Eleventh Edition is
due to be published in a few days - Sept. 8 per my
conversation with LWW today.

FORTUNATELY, electronic products can be easily
edited/updated. (I'm assuming - hopefully erroneously - that
Grant's Atlas does not have the Essential Clinical Anatomy
discussed herein.)

I note from Art's bio that he is a founding member of the
American Association of Clinical Anatomists and serves as an
Associate Editor of CLINICAL ANATOMY, the official journal
of the American and British Associations of Clinical Anatomy
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/anatomy/bio/dalley.htm

Some babies are dying from the senseless birth-canal-closing
- this according to MDs themselves - albeit indirectly. (The
authors of Williams Obstetrics have noted that closing the
birth canal FAR LESS than 30% can kill.)

Even if NO babies were dying from the senseless birth-canal-
closing - there is NO reason for us to let MDs keep denying
babies a massive amount of pelvic outlet area.

Thus all anatomists worldwide should be disseminating the
Essential Clinical Anatomy discussed herein.

UPDATE: Just before sending off this email, Art
returned my call.

Art, it was nice to talk to you. I initially had your old
Creighton email address - the one I read to you - on the cc
line - even though I had your Vanderbilt address. If you
hadn't returned my call, I would have sent this to an
erroneous address.

Assuming you find the Essential Clinical Anatomy discussed
herein to be accurate, please do make an electronic update
as soon as possible in Dynamic Human Anatomy.

AND...given the massive MD crimes and the fact that some
babies are dying as a consequence - please publish the
Essential Clinical Anatomy discussed herein - in CLINICAL
ANATOMY...

I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just
academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most
powerful mental meatgrinder - medical school.

>>>>END excerpt of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
>>>>list/message/2141

Keith L. Moore, PhD and Arthur F. Dalley II, PhD - did you
make any changes in your anatomy texts yet?

Thanks for reading, everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Bb. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com
post #2 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature of Fleiss et
al's paper on the hygienic functions of the male foreskin
elsewhere.

It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that
circumcision enhances the hygiene of the penis.

Jake.
post #3 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature of Fleiss et
> al's paper on the hygienic functions of the male foreskin
> elsewhere.
>
> It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that
> circumcision enhances the hygiene of the penis.
>
> Jake.

If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin when voiding or
washing, the hygeine "problem" becomes a non-issue.

Mark, MD
post #4 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Mark wrote:

> Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature of Fleiss et
>> al's paper on the hygienic functions of the male foreskin
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that
>> circumcision enhances the hygiene of the penis.
>>
>> Jake.
>
> If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin when voiding
> or washing, the hygeine "problem" becomes a non-issue.

Mark, studies have shown that a) parents are fairly hopeless
at teaching their children to do such things, and b) that
boys are equally hopeless at keeping themselves clean. I
know from my own experience when I had a foreskin that daily
washing was really inadequate. As a gay man, I have to say
that some (not all) men are terribly good at keeping
themselves clean.

>
> Mark, MD
post #5 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in message news:<ea3caee5.0404092230.dac1af5@posting.google.com>...
> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message
> news:<5ee850fe.0404091703.6f286afb@posting.google.com>...
> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-
> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
> > > Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature of Fleiss
> > > et al's paper on the hygienic functions of the male
> > > foreskin elsewhere. It is categorically *not*
> > > fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances the
> > > hygiene of the penis.> > Jake.>
>
> > If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin when voiding
> > or washing, the hygeine "problem" becomes a non-issue.>
> > Mark, MD
>
> Mark, at what age do you propose that we teach "Dirty
> Johnny" how to scrub his smelly PUTZ!?eh I ask because it
> may take "Dirty Johnny" as long as 12-years until he
> consciously learns how to retract his foreskin.

My two year old has a pretty good idea of how to use a
washcloth. If it took you 12 years to learn how to wash,
that's your problem.

Mark, MD
post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 

Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...

AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

See below.

First this...

THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES

"Jake Waskett" <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote:

><snip> It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that
>circumcision enhances
the
> hygiene of the penis.

Jake,

You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of
penises - there is "the penis" (intact; the one male babies
are born with) and there is the mutilated penis.

My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to
work fine (!) - but it *was* mutilated.

Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis...

Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was
literally ripped then sliced off my penis.

Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite
normal to those who sport them. But men with mutilated
penises reportedly have on average

immune function. See the postscript.

Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation,
encyclopedias use the term mutilation to describe
circumcision. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
list/message/2398

...

Bottomline Jake,

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of
"the penis" because following circumcision one does not HAVE
"the penis." One has something less...

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE
MUTILATED penis.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com

PS Penis function: Intact vs. Mutilated

As indicated above mutilated penis does not work like the
intact penis.

Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] write:

"One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle
movement between the mucosal surface of the two partners
during intercourse. The prepuce enables the penis to slip in
and out of the vagina non-abrasively inside its own sheath
of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus
stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only,
as when the male's prepuce is missing."

IMMUNOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Fliess, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] also write:

"...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that the
actual effect of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-
demonstated hygienic and immunological properties of the
prepuce and intact penis.

"The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions
like a one way valve, blocking the entry of contaminants
while allowing the passage of urine.7,8

"...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which
secrete cathepsin
B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-
antibody protein that generates an immune response on
contact with specific antigens)17...pheromones such as
androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]...

"...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and other
body fluids destroys bacterial cell walls..."

From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological
functions of the human

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3

(How odd that Jake questions this or that statement by
Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe - but does not question the
AAP/CMA circumcision anti-science discussed below.)

Anyway, the mutilated penis might be said to be a CRIPPLED
penis, immunologically speaking...

An ancient Jewish fellow, Maimonides, reportedly wrote:

sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.
For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and
[is mutilated -] has had its covering taken away from it,
it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their
memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for
a woman with whom

opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for
[mutilation].
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ [I've
substituted "mutilation/mutilated" in appropriate places]

REGARDLESS though whether the mutilated penis is
crippled.... FACT: Nearly 100% of babies join me in calling
for an end to American medicine's grisly most frequent
surgical behavior toward males. (Most babies SCREAM their
support - but some are rendered unconscious by the intensity
of the pain of having their penises ripped and sliced.)

KEY POINT...

ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION is *not* Jewish ritual
circumcision - most certainly it is not the ORIGINAL Jewish
ritual circumcision that left most of the foreskin on the
penis. More on this below.

AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

In late 1987, when I discovered American MDs using phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology to obtain consent to
perform "no medical indication" routine infant
circumcisions, I demanded an end to the obvious child abuse
and called for a religious exemption for Jewish
circumcision.

Pediatricians (the AAP, Jan/Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics)
immediately called for opposition to ALL religious
exemptions, saying in effect that if MDs were to be forced
to stop circumcising - so would Jewish ritual circumcisers!

Immediately thereafter (March 1988), the California Medical
Association/CMA House of Delegates ignored its own
Scientific Board and by voice vote instantly changed routine
circumcision from "no medical indications" to "an effective
public health measure." ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is
the exact definition of child abuse in California. Child
abusers can go to prison for up to six years per count.
Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a.)

In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially
stated in effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream
and writhe and bleed and sometimes die...and hide behind
PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice...

According to AAP,

"[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient
exist independent of parental desires...

"...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously
constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to
assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when
the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her
welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk...

"[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures
to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw'
power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission,
and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume
95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html

In 1980, one pediatrician wrote:

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an
acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter.
AJDC, 1980]

In 1986, another wrote:

"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for
whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The
failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

JEWISH RITUAL CIRCUMCISION

I still would like to see a religious exemption for Jews...

"[T]he LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But
Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and
touched Moses' feet with it...So the LORD let him
alone...(Genesis 4:24-26)" http://www.holyspiritinteractive-
.net/biblediscovery/zipporah.asp

KEY POINT: As indicated above, the original Jewish ritual
left most of the foreskin on the penis.

The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical
Writers Award for gathering much of the historical
evidence in "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy"
[NY: Springer 1980]

Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in
a 1983 article:

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of
the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to
prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order
to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism
1983;11(4):46]

Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish
Encyclopedia which indicates that a Jewish "rage for
athletics" occurred around 175 BCE when the Seleucid king
Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who adopted the
athletic Greek way of life.

ANCIENT NUDE WRESTLING AND CIRCUMCISION

Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his
tribute to Antiochus IV if he would build a Greek-style
gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.

As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews"
(a minority of Jews) found to their horror that a partially
exposed glans (i.e., a "mini"-circumcised penis) was
considered vulgar. Compounding the horror (of this minority
of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews - including
perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"
circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror,
especially because most of them were practised "in puris
naturilibus" and the Covenant of Abraham had become an
object of derision. Nevertheless, for a time at least, the
rage for Athletics spread even to the priests... [See
Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish
Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]

"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the
Greeks by epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem,
John Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading
them to think they were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL,
Stein RS. The Timetables of Jewish History. New York: Simon
and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz is president of the Jewish
Community Relations Council of New York.]

It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently
decided that stretching the foreskin was wrong and
threatened the extermination of those Jews who stretched
their foreskins:

"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of
John Hyrcanus, has the following: '...God's anger will be
kindled against the children of the covenant if they make
the members of their body appear like those of the Gentiles,
and they will be expelled and exterminated from the earth.'"
[Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish
Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]

But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no
stretching" decree to mean that it was all right not to
circumcise; for when the son of John Hyrcanus took power in
104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and killing his brother),
he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee
- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]

The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have
occurred one hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar
Kokba uprising against the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had
completely outlawed circumcision):

"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the
covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar
Kokba (see Yeb.
l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying
bare of the glans), without which circumcision was
declared to be of no value (Shab.

"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare
of the glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

God originally/allegedly told Jews to leave most of the
foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are ignoring Him...

But even God's original (minimal) ritual infant mutilation
is illegal in the U.S...

See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
list/message/2398

Fortunately, some modern rabbis (hotly contested by other
rabbis) offer American Jews an ideological basis not to
circumcise...

According to Rabbi MN Kertner:

"[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant
into Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What
is a Jew? New York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] Adult Jews who
wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted under Israel's Law
of Return, which indicates that even "religious"
circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed
until adulthood and beyond...

And according to Rabbi Michael Lerner:

"The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what
Judaism is designed to fight against, so it makes little
sense for us to be the perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi
Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
l.d. Putnam's Sons 1994:387])

RABBIS CHANGE THE BIBLICAL RULES

Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that "the
rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules"
(emphasis added):

"A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis'
pronouncement declaring Reform and Conservative not
Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all traceable to the [U.S.] Reform
decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt patrilineality - a
child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is
Jewish....

"....[I]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by
the Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000
year-old tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN
changed the Biblical rules (emphasis added)..." [Shanks H.
Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

Modern rabbis could switch back to "tip" circumcisions
- or even to NO circumcisions - if they really wanted to.

I still though favor a religious exemption for Jews. Jews do
NOT circumcise for medical reasons - they circumcise because
their God wants them to - at least this is what they
sincerely believe - and I believe them.

Which brings me back to ROUTINE (medical) infant
circumcision, American medicine's $400 million dollar per
year GRISLY most frequent surgical behavior toward males...

In the medical literature, "freeing adhesions," the first
step in routine infant circumcision, has been called
"tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment":

"Freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual
punishment and is unfounded physiologically and medically."
[Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An overview. Current Problems in
Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.]

Routine infant circumcision should have ended BILLIONS of
dollars' worth of infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I
exposed AAP's perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology...

Ending this barbaric MD behavior toward babies (see "brutal"
"barbaric" quotes below) would not only save $400 million
dollars per year^^^ ...

Ending it would stop the infant screams and (paradoxically)
PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males could make
for themselves in adulthood. (It is likely that - like most
males on the planet - American males would NOT chooose
circumcision in adulthood.)

^^^$400 million dollar per year figure is from
http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

INFANT CIRCUMCISION: A BRUTAL, BARBARIC PRACTICE...

"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal
procedure and listening to their screams, we couldn't take
it any longer." [Sperlich BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs
(Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]

"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation
in a surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a
barbaric practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of
Pediatric Nursing [1997]

"[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never
allow older children or adults to be subjected to such
practices, nor would they submit to it themselves..."
[Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E.
Wiswell, MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England
Journal of Medicine]

THINK ABOUT IT

AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED...

"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is
sliced off." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm
(paraphrasing Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision:
The Hidden Trauma)

"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into

http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald
Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

Sometimes (fortunately rarely) babies die or lose their
penises because of circumcision.

I say again, Jake...

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of
"the penis" because following circumcision one does not HAVE
"the penis." One has something less - one-half to one-third
less skin on the infant penile

immunological function.

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE
MUTILATED penis.

Thanks for reading, everyone. Sincerely,

Todd

Ds. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com
post #7 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Mark wrote:

> darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in message
> news:<ea3caee5.0404092230.dac1af5@posting.google.com>...
>> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message news:<5ee8-
>> 50fe.0404091703.6f286afb@posting.google.com>...
>> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-
>> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>>
>> > > Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature of
>> > > Fleiss et al's paper on the hygienic functions of the
>> > > male foreskin elsewhere. It is categorically *not*
>> > > fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances the
>> > > hygiene of the penis.> > Jake.>
>>
>> > If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin when
>> > voiding or washing, the hygeine "problem" becomes a non-
>> > issue.> Mark, MD
>>
>> Mark, at what age do you propose that we teach "Dirty
>> Johnny" how to scrub his smelly PUTZ!?eh I ask because it
>> may take "Dirty Johnny" as long as 12-years until he
>> consciously learns how to retract his foreskin.
>
>
> My two year old has a pretty good idea of how to use a
> washcloth. If it took you 12 years to learn how to wash,
> that's your problem.

Apparently, it's quite unusual for a two year old to be
able to retract his foreskin, Mark. According to some
studies, only around 50% of ten-year olds have a
retractable foreskin.

>
> Mark, MD
post #8 of 16

Re: Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...

Todd Gastaldo wrote:

> AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE
>
> See below.
>
> First this...
>
> THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES
>
> "Jake Waskett" <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>><snip> It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that
>>circumcision enhances
> the
>> hygiene of the penis.
>
> Jake,
>
> You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of
> penises - there is "the penis" (intact; the one male
> babies are born with) and there is the mutilated penis.
>
> My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to
> work fine (!) - but it *was* mutilated.

Ok, Todd. I accept that you feel it was mutilated.

>
> Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis...
>
> Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis
> was literally ripped then sliced off my penis.

You mean that the synechiae connecting your foreskin to the
glans were separated, and then the foreskin excised?

>
> Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE
> quite normal to those who sport them. But men with
> mutilated penises reportedly have on average

> immune function. See the postscript.

Be careful to be accurate, Todd. As the skin is double-
layered, one half of it will be ordinary shaft-skin. The
other half, some claim, is especially sensitive.

>
> Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation,
> encyclopedias use the term mutilation to describe
> circumcision. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
> list/message/2398

I'm sure, Todd.

>
> ...
>
> Bottomline Jake,
>
> Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene
> of "the penis" because following circumcision one does not
> HAVE "the penis." One has something less...

Ok, Todd, you feel free to split hairs.

>
> At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE
> MUTILATED penis.
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com

[repeat of earlier posts snipped]
post #9 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<YiZdc.58984$Id.27224@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> Mark wrote:
>
> > darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in message
> > news:<ea3caee5.0404092230.dac1af5@posting.google.com>...
> >> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message news:<5e-
> >> e850fe.0404091703.6f286afb@posting.google.com>...
> >> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> > message news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-
> >> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
> >> > > Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature of
> >> > > Fleiss et al's paper on the hygienic functions of
> >> > > the male foreskin elsewhere. It is categorically
> >> > > *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision
> >> > > enhances the hygiene of the penis.> > Jake.>
>
> >> > If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin when
> >> > voiding or washing, the hygeine "problem" becomes a
> >> > non-issue.> Mark, MD
> >>
> >> Mark, at what age do you propose that we teach "Dirty
> >> Johnny" how to scrub his smelly PUTZ!?eh I ask because
> >> it may take "Dirty Johnny" as long as 12-years until he
> >> consciously learns how to retract his foreskin.
> >
> >
> > My two year old has a pretty good idea of how to use a
> > washcloth. If it took you 12 years to learn how to wash,
> > that's your problem.
>
> Apparently, it's quite unusual for a two year old to be
> able to retract his foreskin, Mark. According to some
> studies, only around 50% of ten-year olds have a
> retractable foreskin.

If the foreskin isn't retractile, the hygenie issue isn't
exactly moot, but it is less of an issue. When the foreskin
has become retractile, then hygeine becomes a bigger issue,
and my contention is that virtually any boy with a
retractile foreskin can be taught how to keep himself clean.

Boys being boys, some might not *choose* to do so thorough a
job, but then some boys don't *choose* to wash their hair
properly when told to go bathe. Whaddya do then? I tell my
boys to go back and do it again...it only takes a couple
iterations of this particular paradigm before they learn how
to clean when they bathe.

Same thing with wiping after a poop. If the kid is leaving
skid marks in his shorts, you point it out and reinforce
proper bathroom hygeine.

I don't see the big deal. By the time a boy's foreskin has
become retractile, and hence needs to be retracted when he
pees or when he bathes, he can easily be taught how to do
both these things.

Mark, MD
post #10 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Ralph DuBose wrote:

> darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in message
> news:<ea3caee5.0404111818.5d411af@posting.google.com>...
>> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message
>> news:<5ee850fe.0404111015.ddfa109@posting.google.com>...
>> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<YiZdc.58984$Id.27224@news-
>> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> > > Mark wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in
>> > > > message news:<ea3caee5.0404092230.dac1af5@posting.-
>> > > > google.com>...
>> > > >> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message new-
>> > > >> s:<5ee850fe.0404091703.6f286afb@posting.google.co-
>> > > >> m>...
>> > > >> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > > >> > message news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-
>> > > >> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>>
>> > > >> > > Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature
>> > > >> > > of Fleiss et al's paper on the hygienic
>> > > >> > > functions of the male foreskin elsewhere. It
>> > > >> > > is categorically *not* fraudulent to state
>> > > >> > > that circumcision enhances the hygiene of the
>> > > >> > > penis.> > Jake.>
>>
>> > > >> > If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin when
>> > > >> > voiding or washing, the hygeine "problem"
>> > > >> > becomes a non-issue.> Mark, MD> >
>> > > >> > >>
>>
>> > > >> Mark, at what age do you propose that we teach
>> > > >> "Dirty Johnny" how to scrub his smelly PUTZ!?eh I
>> > > >> ask because it may take "Dirty Johnny" as long as
>> > > >> 12-years until he consciously learns how to
>> > > >> retract his foreskin.> > >
>>
>> > > > My two year old has a pretty good idea of how to
>> > > > use a washcloth. If it took you 12 years to learn
>> > > > how to wash, that's your problem.>
>> > > > >
>>
>> > > Apparently, it's quite unusual for a two year old to
>> > > be able to retract his foreskin, Mark. According to
>> > > some studies, only around 50% of ten-year olds have a
>> > > retractable foreskin.>
>>
>> > If the foreskin isn't retractile, the hygenie issue
>> > isn't exactly moot, but it is less of an issue. When
>> > the foreskin has become retractile, then hygeine
>> > becomes a bigger issue, and my contention is that
>> > virtually any boy with a retractile foreskin can be
>> > taught how to keep himself clean.>> Boys being boys,
>> > some might not *choose* to do so
>> > > thorough a job, but> then some boys don't *choose* to
>> > > wash their hair
>> > properly > when told to> go bathe. Whaddya do then? I
>> > tell my boys to go back and do it again...it only takes
>> > a couple iterations of this particular paradigm before
>> > they learn how to clean when they bathe.> Same thing
>> > with wiping after >a poop. If the kid is leaving skid
>> > marks> in his shorts, you point it out and >reinforce
>> > proper bathroom hygeine.> > I don't see the big deal.
>> > By the time a >boy's foreskin has become> retractile,
>> > and hence needs to be retracted when he >pees or when
>> > he> bathes, he can easily be taught how to do both
>> > these things. Mark, MD>>
>>
>> Mark, the evacuation of body waste is vital to the
>> overall function of the human anatomy. Foreskin and the
>> production of smegma is not, and can easily be eradicated
>> (unlike doo-dee) with one simple, safe & beneficial snip.
>> The hair analogy is also asinine, since forgetting to
>> wash one's hair will most likely never result in death.
>> LOL! Mark, unless you enjoy cleaning up smegma & urine
>> splatter from your bathroom walls, how can you insist
>> that non-retractable foreskin is less of an issue!? Not
>> to mention the risk of kidney failure, HBP and stroke!
>
> Stroke?? You are losing it dude.

A possible (albeit rare) consequence of UTIs.

> The fact is, you have no adequate explanation of the fact
> that so many areas of the world enjoy

> parts from little boys bodies.

Excellent as compared to what?

[Ralph's anti-semitic rant snipped]
post #11 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in message news:<ea3caee5.0404111818.5d411af@posting.google.com>...
> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message
> news:<5ee850fe.0404111015.ddfa109@posting.google.com>...
> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<YiZdc.58984$Id.27224@news-
> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > > darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in
> > > > message news:<ea3caee5.0404092230.dac1af5@posting.g-
> > > > oogle.com>...
> > > >> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message news-
> > > >> :<5ee850fe.0404091703.6f286afb@posting.google.com>-
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> > message news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-
> > > >> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
> > > >> > > Todd, I've commented on the distorted nature of
> > > >> > > Fleiss et al's paper on the hygienic functions
> > > >> > > of the male foreskin elsewhere. It is
> > > >> > > categorically *not* fraudulent to state that
> > > >> > > circumcision enhances the hygiene of the
> > > >> > > penis.> > Jake.>
>
> > > >> > If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin when
> > > >> > voiding or washing, the hygeine "problem" becomes
> > > >> > a non-issue.> Mark, MD> > >>
>
> > > >> Mark, at what age do you propose that we teach
> > > >> "Dirty Johnny" how to scrub his smelly PUTZ!?eh I
> > > >> ask because it may take "Dirty Johnny" as long as
> > > >> 12-years until he consciously learns how to retract
> > > >> his foreskin.> > >
>
> > > > My two year old has a pretty good idea of how to use
> > > > a washcloth. If it took you 12 years to learn how to
> > > > wash, that's your problem.> >
>
> > > Apparently, it's quite unusual for a two year old to
> > > be able to retract his foreskin, Mark. According to
> > > some studies, only around 50% of ten-year olds have a
> > > retractable foreskin.>
>
> > If the foreskin isn't retractile, the hygenie issue
> > isn't exactly moot, but it is less of an issue. When the
> > foreskin has become retractile, then hygeine becomes a
> > bigger issue, and my contention is that virtually any
> > boy with a retractile foreskin can be taught how to keep
> > himself clean.>> Boys being boys, some might not
> > *choose* to do so > thorough a job, but> then some boys
> > don't *choose* to wash their hair properly > when told
> > to> go bathe. Whaddya do then? I tell my boys to go back
> > and do it again...it only takes a couple iterations of
> > this particular paradigm before they learn how to clean
> > when they bathe.> Same thing with wiping after >a poop.
> > If the kid is leaving skid marks> in his shorts, you
> > point it out and >reinforce proper bathroom hygeine.> >
> > I don't see the big deal. By the time a >boy's foreskin
> > has become> retractile, and hence needs to be retracted
> > when he >pees or when he> bathes, he can easily be
> > taught how to do both these things. Mark, MD>>
>
> Mark, the evacuation of body waste is vital to the overall
> function of the human anatomy. Foreskin and the production
> of smegma is not, and can easily be eradicated (unlike doo-
> dee) with one simple, safe & beneficial snip. The hair
> analogy is also asinine, since forgetting to wash one's
> hair will most likely never result in death. LOL! Mark,
> unless you enjoy cleaning up smegma & urine splatter from
> your bathroom walls, how can you insist that non-
> retractable foreskin is less of an issue!? Not to mention
> the risk of kidney failure, HBP and stroke!

Yeah, there are uncircumcised men dropping like flies from
all these disasters.

You wanna advance the general state of men's health? Get on
a soapbox about smoking, drinking, driving fast and whoring.
I venture that these are bigger killers than smegma.

Mark, MD (pediatrician)
post #12 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Ralph DuBose wrote:

> Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<J_xec.68073$Id.61932@news-
> binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> Ralph DuBose wrote:
>>
>> > darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in
>> > message news:<ea3caee5.0404111818.5d411af@posting.go-
>> > ogle.com>...
>> >> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message news:<5-
>> >> ee850fe.0404111015.ddfa109@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> > message news:<YiZdc.58984$Id.27224@news-
>> >> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> >> > > Mark wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote in
>> >> > > > message news:<ea3caee5.0404092230.dac1af5@posti-
>> >> > > > ng.google.com>...
>> >> > > >> mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message
>> >> > > >> news:<5ee850fe.0404091703.6f286afb@posting.goo-
>> >> > > >> gle.com>...
>> >> > > >> > Jake Waskett <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >> > > >> > in message news:<nfBdc.48817$Id.9478@news-
>> >> > > >> > binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>>
>> >> > > >> > > Todd, I've commented on the distorted
>> >> > > >> > > nature of Fleiss et al's paper on the
>> >> > > >> > > hygienic functions of the male foreskin
>> >> > > >> > > elsewhere. It is categorically *not*
>> >> > > >> > > fraudulent to state that circumcision
>> >> > > >> > > enhances the hygiene of the penis.> >
>> >> > > >> > > Jake.>
>>
>> >> > > >> > If a boy is taught to withdraw his foreskin
>> >> > > >> > when voiding or washing, the hygeine
>> >> > > >> > "problem" becomes a non-issue.> Mark,
>> >> > > >> > MD> >
>> >> > > >> > >>
>>
>> >> > > >> Mark, at what age do you propose that we teach
>> >> > > >> "Dirty Johnny" how to scrub his smelly PUTZ!?eh
>> >> > > >> I ask because it may take "Dirty Johnny" as
>> >> > > >> long as 12-years until he consciously learns
>> >> > > >> how to retract his foreskin.> > >
>>
>> >> > > > My two year old has a pretty good idea of how to
>> >> > > > use a washcloth. If it took you 12 years to
>> >> > > > learn how to wash, that's your problem.>
>> >> > > > >
>>
>> >> > > Apparently, it's quite unusual for a two year old
>> >> > > to be able to retract his foreskin, Mark.
>> >> > > According to some studies, only around 50% of ten-
>> >> > > year olds have a retractable foreskin.>
>>
>> >> > If the foreskin isn't retractile, the hygenie issue
>> >> > isn't exactly moot, but it is less of an issue. When
>> >> > the foreskin has become retractile, then hygeine
>> >> > becomes a bigger issue, and my contention is that
>> >> > virtually any boy with a retractile foreskin can be
>> >> > taught how to keep himself clean.>> Boys being boys,
>> >> > some might not *choose* to do so
>> >> > > thorough a job, but> then some boys don't *choose*
>> >> > > to wash their hair
>> >> > properly > when told to> go bathe. Whaddya do then?
>> >> > I tell my boys to go back and do it again...it only
>> >> > takes a couple iterations of this particular
>> >> > paradigm before they learn how to clean when they
>> >> > bathe.> Same thing with wiping after >a poop. If the
>> >> > kid is leaving skid marks> in his shorts, you point
>> >> > it out and >reinforce proper bathroom hygeine.> > I
>> >> > don't see the big deal. By the time a >boy's
>> >> > foreskin has become> retractile, and hence needs to
>> >> > be retracted when he >pees or when he> bathes, he
>> >> > can easily be taught how to do both these things.
>> >> > Mark, MD>>
>> >>
>> >> Mark, the evacuation of body waste is vital to the
>> >> overall function of the human anatomy. Foreskin and
>> >> the production of smegma is not, and can easily be
>> >> eradicated (unlike doo-dee) with one simple, safe &
>> >> beneficial snip. The hair analogy is also asinine,
>> >> since forgetting to wash one's hair will most likely
>> >> never result in death. LOL! Mark, unless you enjoy
>> >> cleaning up smegma & urine splatter from your bathroom
>> >> walls, how can you insist that non-retractable
>> >> foreskin is less of an issue!? Not to mention the risk
>> >> of kidney failure, HBP and stroke!
>> >
>> > Stroke?? You are losing it dude.
>>
>> A possible (albeit rare) consequence of UTIs.
>>
>
> A point, stretched to the breaking point. But you did
> not make it, so why defend it?

Your post implied that you weren't aware of the fact. I
tried to increase your knowledge. I'm sorry if that offends.

>
>
>> > The fact is, you have no adequate explanation of the
>> > fact that so many areas of the world enjoy

>> > parts from little boys bodies.
>>
>> Excellent as compared to what?
>>
>
> Compared to historical standards and to what they
> expect. They have no apparent complaints about their
> personal equipment.

Expectations are generally based upon our experiences,
wouldn't you agree? If one has a lousy lifestyle, one
probably expects the same.

>
>
>> [Ralph's anti-semitic rant snipped]
>
> No Sir. I do not accept such criticism. This Darrint
> dude has been doing things that are dumb and I have been
> pointing this out. That is not anti-Semitism, that is
> righteous commentary.

I agree that pointing out errors is perfectly legitimate and
not inherently anti-semitic.

>What he is doing is dumb in a general way because there is
> a
>widespread tradition in most English speaking countries of
> treating
> folks, to a large degree, as individuals rather than as
> members of a
> tribe and that has been one of the best things that has
> ever happened
> to outside-the-mainstream people especially including
> Jewish folk. It
> has been a factor in their undoubted success and
> prominence. So why
> would he want to drag every conversation in the opposite
> direction?

You are arguing that Darrin is pro-semitic (you might
argue this is a form of inverse racism). I won't argue
with you there.

> My own ancestors got here in need of refuge from a place
> where they were just a little too different for their
> safety. Humor helps, I have tried that, but only up to a
> point. And the Darrint spiel is dumb in a specific
> manner also. On the one hand, he makes it brutally clear
> that he does not have much respect for non-Jews
> (Whatever) and on the other hand he is trying to sell
> people on this admittedly controversal proceedure on
> ones private parts. Only a fool would trust someone who
> blatantly looks down on him.

Perhaps so.

> So why should anyone be influenced by his arguments? What
> are his motivations?

My own belief is that arguments should stand on their own
merits (and, as a rule, do just that). Naturally, though,
people will over the course of time come to prejudge a
person's words by their conduct, as in the classic example
of the boy who cried 'Wolf!'.

I believe that most readers will be intelligent enough to
form their own opinions, of all participants in this debate,
including Darrin, you, and myself. My *personal* opinion,
for what it's worth, is that you do not do yourself any
favours with the material that we're discussing.

Jake.

> Regards
post #13 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

darrint68@aol.com (darrint68@aol.com) wrote

<snip>

> Have you ever wondered why every case of foodborne illness
> continues to occur on non-KOSHER meats?

So beef is non-Kosher (mad-cow --> CJD)?

Hmmm... Tell that to Grandma when the brisket rolls out.

Mark, MD
post #14 of 16

Re: Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)

Hanuman wrote:

> If I had to venture a guess...and maybe there's some
> actual statistics out there somewhere...I'd guess that the
> number of uncircumcised men who suffer serious illnesses
> or death as a result of disease which might have been
> prevented by circumcision comes out somewhere between
> 5,000 and 50,000 worldwide. Does it really make sense to
> mutilate millions in order to save thousands? I don't
> think so.

That guess seems ludicrously low, Hanuman. Is there any
basis for it?

>
> Hanuman
post #15 of 16
Thread Starter 

Re: Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...

"SKYY Vodka" <SKYY@yahoogroups.com> humorously trivialized
mass infant suffering...

"I got it. Foreskin good. Circumcision bad. Can we all go
home now? I'll turn out the lights. :-)"

SKYY, most American infant males are being made to scream
and writhe and bleed and sometimes die from genital
mutilation.

Most American FEMALES also have their genitals senselessly
mutilated - at about the same time. OBs are slicing vaginas
en masse (euphemism "routine episiotomy") -
surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring they are doing everything
possible to OPEN birth canals - even as they knowingly CLOSE
birth canals up to 30%.

Of the three crimes mentioned, I'd say the last - OBs
knowingly closing birth canals - is by far the worst.

Go ahead and turn out your lights SKYY...

I'll keep mine on.

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com

"SKYY Vodka" <SKYY@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:463519df.0404150113.1a2ccc53@posting.google.com...
> I got it. Foreskin good. Circumcision bad. Can we all go
> home now? I'll turn out the lights. :-)
>
> "Todd Gastaldo" <tgastaldo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<1cZdc.3984$k05.2259@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>-
...
> > AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE
> >
> > See below.
> >
> > First this...
> >
> > THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES
> >
> > "Jake Waskett" <chilliesmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ><snip> It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state
> > >that circumcision
enhances
> > the
> > > hygiene of the penis.
> >
> > Jake,
> >
> > You and I are talking about two very different "kinds"
> > of penises -
there is
> > "the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with)
> > and there is the mutilated penis.
> >
> > My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems
> > to work fine
(!) -
> > but it *was* mutilated.
> >
> > Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis...
> >
> > Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis
> > was literally ripped then sliced off my penis.
> >
> > Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE
> > quite normal to
those
> > who sport them. But men with mutilated penises
> > reportedly have on
average

deny
> > immune function. See the postscript.
> >
> > Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation,
> > encyclopedias use the
term
> > mutilation to describe circumcision. See http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-
> > list/message/2398
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Bottomline Jake,
> >
> > Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance
> > hygiene of "the penis" because following circumcision
> > one does not HAVE "the penis." One has something less...
> >
> > At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of
> > THE MUTILATED
penis.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com
> >
> > PS Penis function: Intact vs. Mutilated
> >
> > As indicated above mutilated penis does not work like
> > the intact penis.
> >

> >
> > Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] write:
> >
> > "One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth,
> > gentle movement between the mucosal surface of the two
> > partners during intercourse. The prepuce enables the
> > penis to slip in and out of the vagina
non-abrasively
> > inside its own sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin.
> > The female is
thus
> > stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction
> > only, as when the male's prepuce is missing."
> >
> > IMMUNOLOGICAL FUNCTION
> >
> > Fliess, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] also write:
> >
> > "...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that
> > the actual
effect
> > of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-
> > demonstated hygienic
and
> > immunological properties of the prepuce and intact
> > penis.
> >
> > "The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions
> > like a one way valve, blocking the entry of contaminants
> > while allowing the passage of urine.7,8
> >
> > "...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which
> > secrete
cathepsin
> > B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-
> > antibody
protein
> > that generates an immune response on contact with
> > specific antigens)17...pheromones such as
> > androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]...
> >
> > "...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and
> > other body fluids destroys bacterial cell walls..."
> >
> > From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological
> > functions of the
human

> > http://www.dogyob.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3
> >
> > (How odd that Jake questions this or that statement by
> > Fleiss, Hodges
and
> > Van Howe - but does not question the AAP/CMA
> > circumcision anti-science discussed below.)
> >
> > Anyway, the mutilated penis might be said to be a
> > CRIPPLED penis, immunologically speaking...
> >

> >
> > An ancient Jewish fellow, Maimonides, reportedly wrote:
> >

> > sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is
> > indubitable. For if at
birth
> > this member has been made to bleed and [is mutilated -]
> > has had its
covering
> > taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The
> > Sages, may
their
> > memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard
> > for a woman with
whom

my
> > opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for
> > [mutilation].
> > http://www.dogyob.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ [I've
> > substituted "mutilation/mutilated" in appropriate
> > places]
> >
> > REGARDLESS though whether the mutilated penis is
> > crippled.... FACT: Nearly 100% of babies join me in
> > calling for an end to American medicine's grisly most
> > frequent surgical behavior toward males. (Most
babies
> > SCREAM their support - but some are rendered unconscious
> > by the
intensity of
> > the pain of having their penises ripped and sliced.)
> >
> > KEY POINT...
> >
> > ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION is *not* Jewish ritual
> > circumcision - most certainly it is not the ORIGINAL
> > Jewish ritual circumcision that left
most
> > of the foreskin on the penis. More on this below.
> >
> > AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE
> >
> > In late 1987, when I discovered American MDs using phony
> > "babies can't
feel
> > pain" neurology to obtain consent to perform "no medical
> > indication"
routine
> > infant circumcisions, I demanded an end to the obvious
> > child abuse and called for a religious exemption for
> > Jewish circumcision.
> >
> > Pediatricians (the AAP, Jan/Feb 1988 issues of
> > Pediatrics) immediately called for opposition to ALL
> > religious exemptions, saying in effect that
if
> > MDs were to be forced to stop circumcising - so would
> > Jewish ritual circumcisers!
> >
> > Immediately thereafter (March 1988), the California
> > Medical
Association/CMA
> > House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board and
> > by voice vote instantly changed routine circumcision
> > from "no medical indications" to
"an
> > effective public health measure." ("Unjustifiable
> > physical pain" is the exact definition of child abuse in
> > California. Child abusers can go to prison for up to six
> > years per count. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a.)
> >
> > In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP
> > officially stated in effect that MDs can no longer make
> > infants scream and writhe and bleed
and
> > sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT
> > cowardice...
> >
> > According to AAP,
> >
> > "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her
> > patient exist independent of parental desires...
> >
> > "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding
> > obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or
> > refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry
> > considerable weight when the proposed intervention is
> > not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be
> > deferred without substantial risk...
> >
> > "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for
> > measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible
> > abuses of 'raw' power over children
when
> > ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
> > Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in
> > Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number
> > 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
> > http://www.dogyob.org/policy/00662.html
> >
> > In 1980, one pediatrician wrote:
> >
> > "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child
> > abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael
> > Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]
> >
> > In 1986, another wrote:
> >
> > "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing
> > those for whom we have chosen to be advocates."
> > [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC,
> > 1986;140:329-330]
> >
> > JEWISH RITUAL CIRCUMCISION
> >
> > I still would like to see a religious exemption for
> > Jews...
> >
> > "[T]he LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But
> > Zipporah took a
flint
> > knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses'
> > feet with it...So
the
> > LORD let him alone...(Genesis 4:24-26)"
> > http://www.dogyob.net/biblediscovery/zipporah.asp
> >
> > KEY POINT: As indicated above, the original Jewish
> > ritual left most of
the
> > foreskin on the penis.
> >
> > The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical
> > Writers Award for gathering much of the historical
> > evidence in "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy"
> > [NY: Springer 1980]
> >
> > Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice
> > in a 1983
article:
> >
> > "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip
> > of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period
> > to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump
> > in order to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E.
> > Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]
> >
> > Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish
> > Encyclopedia which indicates that a Jewish "rage for
> > athletics" occurred around 175 BCE when the Seleucid
> > king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who
> > adopted the athletic Greek way of life.
> >
> > ANCIENT NUDE WRESTLING AND CIRCUMCISION
> >
> > Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his
> > tribute to Antiochus IV if he would build a Greek-style
> > gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.
> >
> > As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout
> > Jews" (a minority of Jews) found to their horror that a
> > partially exposed glans (i.e., a "mini"-circumcised
> > penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror (of
> > this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many
> > Jews - including perhaps Jewish priests - were
> > stretching their "mini" circumcisized foreskins so as
> > not to appear circumcised.
> >
> > According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
> >
> > "[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with
> > horror, especially because most of them were practised
> > "in puris naturilibus" and the Covenant of Abraham had
> > become an object of derision. Nevertheless, for a time
> > at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the
> > priests... [See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others,
> > eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]
> >
> > "...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like
> > the Greeks by epispasm ('making themselves
> > foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400
> > others, eds.), 1901]
> >
> > Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of
> > Jerusalem, John Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the
> > Idumeans, "leading them to think they were Jews."
> > [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of
> > Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah
> > Gribetz is president of the Jewish Community Relations
> > Council of New York.]
> >
> > It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently
> > decided that stretching the foreskin was wrong and
> > threatened the extermination of those Jews who stretched
> > their foreskins:
> >
> > "The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of
> > John Hyrcanus, has the following: '...God's anger will
> > be kindled against the children of the covenant if they
> > make the members of their body appear like those of the
> > Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated
> > from the earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix.
> > iii. 190-192, under Circumcision in Singer I (and 400
> > others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav
> > 1901.]
> >
> > But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no
> > stretching" decree to mean that it was all right not to
> > circumcise; for when the son of John Hyrcanus took power
> > in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and killing his
> > brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of
> > Galilee
> > - "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]
> >
> > The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to
> > have occurred one hundred years later, after the
> > unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against the Roman
> > Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed
> > circumcision):
> >
> > "In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of
> > the covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of
> > Bar Kokba (see Yeb.
> > l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the
> > laying bare of the glans), without which
> > circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.

> >
> > "Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying
> > bare of the glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See
> > Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
> >
> > God originally/allegedly told Jews to leave most of the
> > foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are ignoring Him...
> >
> > But even God's original (minimal) ritual infant
> > mutilation is illegal in
the
> > U.S...
> >
> > See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
> > http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398
> >
> > Fortunately, some modern rabbis (hotly contested by
> > other rabbis) offer American Jews an ideological basis
> > not to circumcise...
> >
> > According to Rabbi MN Kertner:
> >
> > "[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the
> > infant into Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN
> > Kertner. What is a Jew? New York: Macmillan, 1973,1993]
> > Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted
> > under Israel's Law of Return, which indicates that even
> > "religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may
> > legitimately be postponed until adulthood and beyond...
> >
> > And according to Rabbi Michael Lerner:
> >
> > "The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what
> > Judaism is designed to fight against, so it makes little
> > sense for us to be the perpetrators on our children."
> > [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
> > G.P. Putnam's Sons 1994:387])
> >
> > RABBIS CHANGE THE BIBLICAL RULES
> >
> > Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that
> > "the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical
> > rules" (emphasis added):
> >
> > "A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox
> > rabbis' pronouncement declaring Reform and Conservative
> > not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all traceable to the
> > [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt
> > patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if
> > raised as a Jew, is Jewish....
> >
> > "....[I]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined
> > by the Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed
> > that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the
> > Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphasis
> > added)..." [Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment.
> > (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]
> >
> > Modern rabbis could switch back to "tip" circumcisions
> > - or even to NO circumcisions - if they really
> > wanted to.
> >
> > I still though favor a religious exemption for Jews.
> > Jews do NOT circumcise for medical reasons - they
> > circumcise because their God wants them to - at
> > least this is what they sincerely believe - and I
> > believe them.
> >
> > Which brings me back to ROUTINE (medical) infant
> > circumcision, American medicine's $400 million dollar
> > per year GRISLY most frequent surgical behavior toward
> > males...
> >
> > In the medical literature, "freeing adhesions," the
> > first step in
routine
> > infant circumcision, has been called "tantamount to
> > cruel and unusual punishment":
> >
> > "Freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual
> > punishment and is unfounded physiologically and
> > medically." [Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An overview.
> > Current Problems in Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.]
> >
> > Routine infant circumcision should have ended BILLIONS
> > of dollars' worth
of
> > infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed AAP's
> > perpetuation of
phony
> > "babies can't feel pain" neurology...
> >
> > Ending this barbaric MD behavior toward babies (see
> > "brutal" "barbaric" quotes below) would not only save
> > $400 million dollars per year^^^ ...
> >
> > Ending it would stop the infant screams and
> > (paradoxically) PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE
> > American males could make for themselves in
adulthood.
> > (It is likely that - like most males on the planet -
> > American males
would
> > NOT chooose circumcision in adulthood.)
> >
> > ^^^$400 million dollar per year figure is from
> > http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm
> >
> > INFANT CIRCUMCISION: A BRUTAL, BARBARIC PRACTICE...
> >
> > "After years of strapping babies down for this brutal
> > procedure and listening to their screams, we couldn't
> > take it any longer." [Sperlich BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs
> > (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]
> >
> > "Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their
> > participation in a surgical procedure that involves no
> > anesthesia to be a barbaric practice." (p. 205) Donna L.
> > Wong's Essentials of Pediatric Nursing [1997]
> >
> > "[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never
> > allow older
children
> > or adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would
> > they submit to it themselves..." [Veteran circumcision
> > cheerleader Colonel Thomas E.
Wiswell,
> > MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal
> > of Medicine]
> >
> >
> > THINK ABOUT IT
> >
> > AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED...
> >
> > "One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft
> > is sliced off." http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm
> > (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of
> > Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)
> >
> > "The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into

> > http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald
> > Goldman, PhD, author
of
> > Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)
> >
> > Sometimes (fortunately rarely) babies die or lose their
> > penises because
of
> > circumcision.
> >
> > I say again, Jake...
> >
> > Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance
> > hygiene of "the penis" because following circumcision
> > one does not HAVE "the penis." One has something less -
> > one-half to one-third less skin on the infant penile

not

> > immunological function.
> >
> > At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of
> > THE MUTILATED
penis.
> >
> > Thanks for reading, everyone. Sincerely,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health and medical
Cycling Forums › Forums › Other Stuff › Archives › General health and fitness › Health and nutrition › Health and medical › Sex and the female prepuce (female foreskin)