[ ARC forum 2 ]

Bring 'em on!

Written by Paul B. at 15 May 2002 14:42:20:

As an answer to: A few points, PaulB... written by AJ at 15 May 2002 01:44:43:

> Sorry, PaulB, I had to pick you up on just a few errors and such you made

So when are you going to do it?

> A more correct term would be "partial circumcision".

"Circumcision" means "to cut around". What is called a "partial circumcision" is cut in exactly the same manner as a "full" circumcision, so it is hardly in any wise "partial". The only procedure that would come close to being a truly "partial" circumcision, would in fact be a dorsal slit.

> A more pleasant term would be "foreskin trimming".

In the same fashion as having one's toes "trimmed" for vascular disease I suppose.

> I doubt that anyone really "wants" to have surgery, PaulB.

Seems you did. Most of us figure if you had wanted something other, you'd have found a way to achieve it. Plenty of others have.

> Sometimes it's just neccessary.

"Convenient" would be closer to the truth, even "pragmatic". "Necessary" is rationalisation at the nth degree.

> Hardly, PaulB, ask any doctor and they will tell you that a dorsal slit etc are extremely common solutions for resolving similar conditions.

You asked a doctor, and he told you you should have a circumcision, which indeed you did. How is that - according to you - fact, consistent with your statement here?

> The loss of "sexual sensitivity" is extremely tiny (if at all), and is usually offset by having a functioning, pain free penis which allows direct stimulation of the goods.

"Direct stimulation of the goods" seems to figure strongly in your arguments. As you appear unable to grasp more subtle concepts, I shan't even try to explain any. It seems that looking at your "goods" is a major occupation - perhaps even pre-eminent.


Answers: