or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Revamp

The excellent David Wilton outlines the situation here: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/20...h-reasons.html To summarise: This is an article in British weekly newspaper The Observer shamelessly promoting circumcision, after presenting an entirely biased & one-sided case of the medical evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ealth-children This is the email address of Renton's immediate boss: lifeandstyle.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk This is the...
What FF said. If you are in a circumcising culture and you happened upon a website that jolted you out of it then YOU GOT LUCKY. Don't pretend that this makes you a better person than most circumcising mothers in any respect other than being better informed.
Quote: Originally Posted by Yulia_R As for the intact rates, I don't have the link, but if you think about it, the math is quite simple: USA is the ONLY contry that is still circ-ing for non-religious reasons; the rest of the countries that do circ are whether Jewish or Muslim. Not strictly true: from Papua New Guinea to Africa there are often tribal reasons. The Xhosa in South Africa is a good example. Thing is: the Chinese and most of...
Guys, chill the anti-science, anti-doctor talk. That's only going to set us back and alienate people we really need to win around...
This is just a pro-cut creep attempting to publicise his new Twitter feed, by the looks of things.
Argue with her.
Yo Vachi, I haven't posted here for a while but this seeing this article lured me back. My take on it is as follows: while lacking the expertise in statistics and medicine to have any truly informed opinion I'll just state that it clearly contradicts with much of the research already out there (see the post above mine by carrie, although idk about the $ angle, seems a tad conspiracy hypothesist to me) & that since it wasn't conducted on infants I'm not sure you can...
I'm not sure Perspective {oh, the irony of that name in this context!} but the exact second is 1:25:43 {your version might vary} and it seems to be pretty clearly a penis. You can see the little slip of a ridge where it goes from glans skin to shaft skin, as far as I can tell. Could be a mess of fake umbilical but from the position...I don't think so. I might be wrong?
Well this is a surprise! I saw it myself and there was certainly no sighting that I observed. As far as I could tell it really did just leave it at the cord and very pointedly avoided any display of the penis or testes. Nothing below the belly-button got a viewing. I am quite clear in my memory of that. I might be wrong but I doubt it. Edit: Upon closer examination {certainly not involving a process of the initials B.T., I just have a photographic memory, alright?} it...
Quote: Originally Posted by MoonJelly I wanted to thank you again, James. Your thoughts and suggestions have really helped me focus on the strongest argument we have. And I think being able to keep it simple will help me. I feel empowered to bring it up more frequently and to more people. In fact, I might be doing so tonight! You're welcome, again. As an intact man it is simply the most immediately obvious, to me. It is easy to get lost...
New Posts  All Forums: