Customer Discussions > Health forum

Male circumcision.

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 9401-9425 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 8:48:21 PM PDT
Panthor,

"It reminds me of politics when people think "their side" can do no wrong. Health forum retcon!"

This is exactly why groups like this have no credibility in the scientific and even the majority of the lay communities. They accept any "evidence" that supports their POV uncritically, ready to pounce on anyone who questions the evidence. They have their heads buried in their (imaginary) foreskins and are so personally invested in the issue that they refuse to accept the damage done to our cause by outlandish and ludicrous claims (like foreskin rings, etc. sold on the Internet).
I keep the voice of reason will raise it's head but I've only seen it a few times.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 8:50:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2011 8:54:42 PM PDT
CDR,

Are you attempting to place an order from the Dr. Anaconda website?

We have a special on sting ray leather accessories.

Posted on May 31, 2011 9:11:48 PM PDT
@ KS

"You're not touching my genitals you liberal degenerates and sodomites."

How about: Incestuous Degenerates and Sadists.
(Punitive Personality Disorders.)

Sorry for the following "context":

deMause, Lloyd, "The Universality of Incest," The Journal of Psychohistory, Fall 1991, Vol. 19, No. 2, 123-164.

Kitahara, Michio, "A Cross-Cultural Test of the Freudian Theory of Circumcision," International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy,"5(1976): 535-46.

Kitahara references circumcision as a punishment for growing up.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:12:42 PM PDT
gcavener says:
Does MD mean *mentally deficient*? My point is that the only reason for penile reduction surgery is so that you can afford a bigger Mercedes.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:13:48 PM PDT
gcavener says:
Is a whole penis better than 80% of a penis? Are you serious?

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:15:53 PM PDT
gcavener says:
Mr. Smallerstaff, what is your problem? I object to women deciding what is best regarding the mutilation of a male's genitals.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:17:58 PM PDT
gcavener says:
Panthor,

I would guess that I believe that a complete penis is better than one that has the best part of it hacked off.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:25:42 PM PDT
Gary,

"Does MD mean *mentally deficient*? My point is that the only reason for penile reduction surgery is so that you can afford a bigger Mercedes."

Are you sure you're not Robert in disquise?

Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz,
My friends all drive Porches, I must make amends,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

Really, I liked your cut and paste job but Robert is the circumcised one. Perhaps you and he should have a penis duel to settle the issue!

I hate to say this but my money is on Robert.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:27:54 PM PDT
TD says:
>>Not usually a part of circumcision.

Ooookay, *what* isn't part of circumcision, the "surgery" or the "reduction"?

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:28:58 PM PDT
TD says:
>>I am truly sorry that you don't enjoy sex due to your circumcision, but many men do and even sire children.

And many don't, which is adequate reason not to do it until the owner of the penis can decide for himself.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:31:03 PM PDT
"You're speaking in terms of surface area while I'm speaking in terms of length."

Of course you are. You'll grasp at any little minute weaselly change of definition to prove your point, no matter how ridiculous it is. Of course, even this weak attempt at wiggling out of the question is wrong. In infants and most men (at least when flaccid), the foreskin extends beyond the tip of the penis, so yes, it does reduce the length as well. So, good Dr., how is it not penis reduction surgery?

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:31:30 PM PDT
TD says:
>>You're speaking in terms of surface area while I'm speaking in terms of length.

Dude. Seriously. Reduction is reduction, whether you're talking about surface area OR length. And it does truncate the overall length anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:32:28 PM PDT
Gary,

"Mr. Smallerstaff, what is your problem? I object to women deciding what is best regarding the mutilation of a male's genitals."

Who said anything about women deciding about the mutilation of a male's genitals?? Not me.

Mr. Smallerstaff, honestly, Gary, is that the best you can do? ;)

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:35:58 PM PDT
TD,

Not so and thoroughly discredited. Circumcision doesn't change the size of the penis.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:37:05 PM PDT
"Mr. Smallerstaff, honestly, Gary, is that the best you can do? ;)"

Yeah, he needs to go back about ten pages and see what I was coming up with... ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:37:45 PM PDT
TD,

"And many don't, which is adequate reason not to do it until the owner of the penis can decide for himself."

Many don't what??

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:38:05 PM PDT
"Not so and thoroughly discredited. Circumcision doesn't change the size of the penis."

Not true at all, as I already said, but you ignored me once again. And you're still ignoring the fact that tissue is removed. That is reduction whether it's length or not.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:39:42 PM PDT
Robert,

I agree completely. Gary is an amateur. :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:41:09 PM PDT
I don't accept your definition, Robert.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:43:16 PM PDT
TD says:
>>Not so and thoroughly discredited. Circumcision doesn't change the size of the penis.

It's simple geometry. If you truncate a cylinder, the cylinder is no longer as long. Which explains painfully tight erections and scrotal webbing as the tissue necessary for erection is pulled from elsewhere. It's also simple math. Remove 15 square inches of tissue from an organ, the organ is smaller by definition.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:44:41 PM PDT
TD says:
>>Many don't what??

Many are not happy being circumcised without consent, and many can't sire children (either due to injury or related dysfunction). I though that was pretty clear.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:45:30 PM PDT
TD,

"Ooookay, *what* isn't part of circumcision, the "surgery" or the "reduction"?"

Yes.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:47:42 PM PDT
Gary,

"I would guess that I believe that a complete penis is better than one that has the best part of it hacked off."

I think that would depend on the man to which it is attached!

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:47:55 PM PDT
TD says:
re·duce
[ri-doos, -dyoos]
verb, -duced, -duc·ing.
-verb (used with object)
1. to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.

re·duc·tion
[ri-duhk-shuhn]
-noun
1. the act of reducing or the state of being reduced.
2. the amount by which something is reduced or diminished.
3. a form produced by reducing; a copy on a smaller scale.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2011 9:48:54 PM PDT
TD says:
>>*what* isn't part of circumcision, the "surgery" or the "reduction"?"
>>Yes.

So now you're saying circumcision isn't SURGERY? How on Earth do you wiggle out of that?
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  1018
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 10, 2009
Latest post:  Jun 10, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 62 customers

Search Customer Discussions