@209: "It's very sweet and naive that you think that all parents are as lovely and selfless as yourself but I can tell you that the real world isn't like that."

Naive, eh? LOL. mydriasis as expert reader of human parenting motivations. Pardon me while I smirk.

Sure, the average parent is more likely to throw thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours at a nonexistent problem, just so their kid can be a better Barbie doll, when there is a big screen TV still waiting to be bought. Yeah, right. Sure they do that. The vast majority of us have bags and bags of money just waiting to be spent on unnecessary medical procedures that cause us all manner of inconvenience, and inflict untold hours of pain on our kids.

Far more likely they're going to say "Screw it, your teeth are fine, the dentist said so," than "Here, let me just get my wallet and empty it."

@217 nocutename
What does it say about you? Just that and nothing more. The only right way to do it is the way you want it in the moment. That's for you to decide and me to figure out. Improvisation and a tuned in partner make the dance.

@219 AnastasiaBeaverhousen
There's a reason it's called grinding.

@220 (avast2006): Actually, it's far more likely that instead of buying that big screen tv, I'm going to be fixing the car or repairing the roof, paying for the kid's music camp, paying the property taxes . . .

Thank you for the support.

@219: You said, "the IN and partially out hard and fast thrusting is what gets my G-spot off and the close, steady grinding gets my clit off."
Okay, I'll take that, too!

@222: Well, you already covered the "responsible" angle pretty thoroughly the first time.

I'm just laughing at the idea that even irresponsible, frivolous people would think that clapping the kid in a stainless steel smile for the sheer hell of it is way up on their discretionary spending list, ahead of say, that big-screen (hey, monday night football isn't going to watch itself, kid), or keeping themselves supplied in tequila and ciggies.

Unless you are one of those baby-beauty-pageant-circuit whackos, either responsible parenting or irresponsible selfishness is probably going to keep the kid out of the clutches of the orthodontist unless he actually needs it.

My friends and I just wrote a song about one of these questions :-)

http://www.mthed.net/stone_soup/music/Re…

@207 an intact man tends to stick much closer to the woman, and remain inside more, since he is not completely relying on HER tissues as he exits and enters for the sliding sensation...his thrusting tends to be deep but with less "recoil"/more steady contact with the clit and other sensitive tissues.

Sounds like you just described Coital Alignment Technique - or as @221 put it: grinding.

It is an interesting theory, but what you're really saying is not that uncut men are more sensitive, but rather that their physiology gives them more stimulation. Still, a valid reason for research.

Oh, and making the argument about condoms is about at the level of insisting kids rely on abstinence. Yes, condoms are a far more effective way of avoiding STIs but that depends on reliable use. The literature survey study I posted upstream suggests that the lifetime outcomes for circumcised males are better. I think that difference would disappear if kids did use condoms reliably.

@avast

Go back. Read the actual exchange. From the beginning. Please. (Or read my summary below)

I don't have to be an "expert reader" of things that people say outright or of things that are made very, very clear.

I never tried to make a sweeping statement about all parents, what I did say was something about my own experience and then somehow was corrected on it. Repeatedly.

@cute

See above.
I just don't appreciate complete strangers telling me they know more about my own life experiences than I do. I find it kind of offensive to be honest.

I said it was done for cosmetic reasons (181), then avast suggested I might be mistaken (183), I insisted no, I'm not (191), then you swept in at (197) to insist AGAIN that no, no, you know more about my family than I do. Finally at 203 I think, I said for the third time: yes. I do indeed know what I'm talking about. I explained that while what you were saying would apply to the majority of cases in the world, it doesn't really apply in my case or in the circumstances I grew up in. The reason I suggested you might be uncomfortable with parents subjecting their children to braces for cosmetic and finicky reasons is because I thought you were against circumcision and making a kid get braces so they can look the way you think they should look is problematic for near-identical reasons. I may have remembered wrong, so sorry.

So yes, on the fourth time having to defend a very simple statement I got bitchy. Sorry. See above. This is why I typically try to avoid, tooth-and-nail ever talking about my family even in a very indirect hypothetical way. Should stick to that rule a bit better.

@Beaver

"the whole all the way out and back in again thing just is not what trips my trigger. (the IN and partially out hard and fast thrusting is what gets my G-spot off and the close, steady grinding gets my clit off.)"

I'm with you sister. But I've never found that cut guys ever had any trouble doing things that way.

We all generalize our personal experience a little bit right? I found the uncut guys I was with to be prettty lousy in terms of sexual stuff.

Hey nocutename,

This is totally off topic but I just posted something important to you in the Jan 18 comments.
I hope it is of any help to you and your family.

Best wishes.

@200/204 (EricaP, nocutename), precisely.

One thing that does contain some urea is sweat. Yet nobody freaks out thinking they're peeing on themselves every time they sweat.

Urea or no urea, pure urine or purely something else, what difference does it make?...

@228(mydriasis), yeah, we all do, but we know the danger in that. European men are mostly uncut, and judging by what European women tell me they aren't all bad at sex.

Generalizations are unavoidable, I agree, we are generalizing machines. But they're always a bit dangerous. It's like optical illusions: we're programmed in such a way that we have them, and that can be ocasionally dangerous, so we should be aware of them.

@230:
Thank you for your story and suggestions. I appreciate them both.

As someone living next door to the U.S., I can only speak as an outsider (but I try to be observant; OTOH, you're somewhat hard to ignore). I consider it to be staggering that being born with a foreskin - something that is naturally occuring in billions-upon-billions of baby boys – has been turned into a pathological condition that requires immediate surgical intervention. Please, just stop and think about that for a moment.

There are a few boys who are born with the condition of aposthia (no foreskin), considered either a birth defect or a rare recessive genetic trait. I find it grotesque that certain segments of society or entire countries (thanks to ankylosaur for examples of where it is uncommon) would want to emulate a birth defect. I don't think there is any other birth defect that people consider to be an improvement over the statistical norm. [And, just for the record, I don't consider eyesight better than 20/20 to be a "defect".]

This is one of those times when I wish I had a database for a mind, where I could instantly cite studies I'd read, let's say a decade ago. There was at least one study that followed the medical histories of babies, both circumcised and intact. It turned out that circumcised boys were far more affected by pain post-circumcision, as if that by itself had made every part of their bodies more sensitive to pain. I can't recall how long that disparity lasted, but it did exist.

So, you'll have to excuse me if I scream when I hear people saying that babies don't feel pain as acutely or that its effects are short-lived.

@235 You'll have to excuse me if I get irritated when people expect us to take vague gestures at evidence as actual evidence.

@235, I suspect that, given the prevalence of circumcision in America, if indeed frequent pain were a consequence, there would be many complaints by American men.

I understand, to a certain extent, your horror at the idea of 'obligatory circumcision for newborn babies'. But then again, many cultures (including a couple I've been exposed to) also have similar "birth-defect-like" procedures to mark either birth or adulthood; and nobody complains that they are obligatory. They're simply a part of the culture.

As long as there is no big damage -- and those studies you alluded to notwithstanding, most of the data/cases linked to here in this thread don't offer much positve or negative on the subject of circumcision -- I don't see why this should be a bigger deal than getting a big tattoo. OK, the idea that doctors will insist on it (which several people here have reported they do in America) is a bit annoying -- perhaps one could make doctors present this as more of a choice? But other than that, I don't see a big problem here.

@ 237
Thank you for your story. I've been trying to unravel more thoughts ever since last week's column was published.

If the obsession over removing foreskins (for non-religious reasons) was fed by American purity leagues on an insane anti-masturbation crusade, I agree it was the move from the old-fashioned and unprofitable practice of having a female midwife attend at a (home) birth, as the upwardly-mobile American dream could not be fulfilled without having a (male) doctor deliver (note the switch to an active verb) a baby in a so-called sterile and presumed superior hospital environment (despite mounting evidence in the decades since of the greater danger from iatrogenic illnesses to all patients).

The fee-for-service medical model was determined to keep the practice of circumcision routine. Why not, when each snip meant more dollars. And, while the doctor is snipping, why not encourage episiotomies, too? The other practices that became more popular than medically required were induced labour and Caesarean sections. Why? Because both could be scheduled, so the woman was delivering according to a doctor's timetable (sleep, golf games) instead of the baby's inclination to venture forth into the world. Oh, yay. More dollars. And convenience and hospital efficiency, too.

As long as childbirth was now being classified as an illness, it was a terrific opportunity to further turn a pregnant woman into a helpless, compliant patient. Give her drugs to take away the pain, and coincidentally relax the muscles she'd need to be able to push properly. Restrict movement and prevent gravity from helping. With the drugs and/or C-section, she'd have to stay in the hospital for many days, recovering.

Then add the disinclination and lack of patience required to promote breastfeeding which meant baby formula got pushed as the only logical and thoroughly modern alternative. The other reason for offering baby formula (besides profit) was that a woman who was not lactating would regain her libido more quickly, thereby being able to once again fulfill her natural wifely duties. [ /sarcasm.] And let's not forget the efficiency of having numerous babies separated from their mothers and in a nursery. Hmmm, what's that I hear about baby mix-ups?

Mass production techniques should be restricted to factories, not maternity wards. Anyway, I've had my rant and am going to try to cool off for a while.

@240 Helenka - your rant against the modernization of labor and delivery is fascinating, especially ironic as it comes within the same rant against circumcision. On one hand, you find it staggering that parents have the choice to circumcise their sons. On the other hand, you rail against women being hospitalized for delivery of their children as some type of monetary conspiracy by doctors and hospitals, while supporting the choice of parents to opt for a home delivery by a midwife.

Just so I have this straight in my mind:

Infant circumcision that carries minimal documented risks and some documented health benefits - insanity that makes you want to scream.

Home delivery of a newborn without medical professionals able to immediately intervene for much more common problems like shoulder dystocia, nuchal cords, uterine or cord prolapse and hemorrhage, amniotic fluid embolus, etc. that can kill the baby (death presumedly kills the baby's ability to one day feel sexual pleasure), and potentially kill the mother - a viable alternative medical decision best left to discretion of the parents.

@Tims (241)

Right on the money.
I enjoyed this more than eating a snack size box of timbits to my face.
(I'll also stop joking about your name now)

@Helenka

A few comments

1. Please give sources for your info regarding the relative safety of home vs. hospital birth.

2. Women should breastfeed if at all possible, no question. But I doubt the shift was some sort of conspiracy so women will put out more.

3. Studies have shown that it's exceedingly hard to convince a woman that someone else's baby is hers. Women know their own babies and the babies know them. Men on the other hand...

I would never ever in a million years have a home birth personally (it's c-section or nothing). Personally I don't think it's in the best interests of the baby to have a home birth either. However, creating a different environment in maternity wards would be a good idea imo.

Mrs. J would have died had we tried birthing our son at home. In all likelihood he would have died too.

@Hunter

Though I am petite, that's not why.

P.S. Your need to take anyone who feels good about themselves down a peg is quite unfortunate. I love my body and I wish more women felt the same. Just because the norm for women my age is to hate their bodies doesn't mean I have to.

Actually in the short time I've been kicking around in the comment section here, you've also wanted to take down Erica.

Am I obnoxious for being one of the many people who pointed out the anti-semetic nature of your earlier comments? Am I obnoxious for expressing a preference for cut men (a preference Dan seems to think is pretty common). Or am I just obnoxious because I'm selective, and confident enough to stick by my likes and dislikes?

Regardless of why you want to take me down,I'll give you a little spoiler alert: it won't work.

@ 240 (uh, I don't want to be arguing with someone named Tim Horton ::sighs:: it's so un-Canadian)

First of all, I got carried away in my comment (railing against the excesses of American medicine) but I don't want to give the wrong impression. I was a 7-mo premie. If it hadn't been for an emergency C-section, I would not be alive today. Furthermore, as someone who has had six operations over the last dozen years, I do not deny the absolute necessity and safety provided by a hospital setting and more than a couple brilliant doctors.

However, many women fought to reclaim childbirth as not-an-illness since the rebirth of feminism in the early 1970s. Medical intervention should be available if required. That's one of the primary reasons why birthing centres attached to hospitals exist today: so that a woman may use a midwife in an environment that doesn't scream SICK but have surgical options in case of an emergency. For a not-at-risk birth, the woman is in control, not a doctor or a faceless administrator.

@ 240 (again)

Anyway, back to the topic and I'll try not to confuse anybody (including myself).

... staggering that parents have the choice to circumcise their sons

I'm opposed to the fact that parents are free to choose a medically unnecessary (primarily cosmetic) procedure which they may have been bullied into, either by doctors (who used to have undisputed god-like status) or societal pressure.

Infant circumcision that carries minimal documented risks and some documented health benefits....

That does not sound like a glowing recommendation FOR routine circumcisions. OTOH, would a botched circumcision that results in penile amputation and subsequent surgical intervention to turn the not-outwardly-a-boy into an insta-girl be called a mere minimal risk? Yes, I know this is an extreme case but, for me (and I'd say the parents, not to mention the baby involved), I'd call it ONE too many.

If the health benefits were undisputable, then it would stand to reason that the rates of circumcision would be more even around the world and actually increasing. But they are not and vary wildly. And are dropping significantly in several countries.

So I will reiterate my stand: automatically removing healthy functioning tissue is unnecessary and wrong. I am not aware of any other body parts routinely removed without cause (and approved by major medical associations). [That does not include preventative removal where there is a high genetic predisposition to cancer. The most common is breasts, but I've heard of stomachs, too.]

@195: a-HA!!! No wonder Hunter78 didn't answer my response from last week!! Does that make him an un-cut up?

@#200 & (#204 & # 231)
"The question for me, is: why do people care? Why do people act as if ejaculate would be okay, but if it's pee then she'd better not do that.

It is uncontroversial that some women ejaculate a bunch of liquid at the moment of orgasm, and that for some women, those orgasms are especially intense. What does it matter if there's some urea in the liquid or not?"

The problem has nothing to do with the fact if it's urine or not, my moto is "whatever floats your boat".
MY problem is that folks are INSISTING that it's something that is is not.
(Perhaps because THEY'D be ashamed if they thought it was urine???)
I've seen quite a few people citing the "medical evidence" (Dan included here according to his statement) when in fact, there is very little reliable research. Most articles I could find in legitimate journals point back to the same 2-3 papers on the subject that had very flawed research methodology. It seems to be a case of "if we repeat it enough times, it MUST be true".

Not having access to a lab myself, this is what I CAN tell you (at least about my "ejaculate"). When first collected it is a clear-ish colored, albeit somewhat cloudy, liquid. It is odorless and has a slightly salty taste (was described as a "heavy water" taste/texture). In samples taken 30 seconds apart, first "ejaculate" then actual peeing, the 1st is the cloudy sample, and the 2ND is clear. Both samples test almost exactly the same with a 10 parameter urinalysis reagent strip. Upon standing for 30 minutes, the first sample appears to separate out, leaving a small amount of a denser white liquid in the bottom of the container.

I'm willing to bet that a lab with a centrifuge could tell you exactly what the separated materials are, and if you also collected a fluid sample of other vaginal fluids occurring before the "ejaculation" you could control for that as a contaminate. Seems like fairly straightforward research to me if anyone actually cared enough to do it.

As for the accounts of "ejaculate" being sweet tasting/smelling (I've read & seen Flower Tucci claim this, among others), that is probably due to ketonuria, which comes from excessive dieting or other rare metabolic conditions.
(Here's the clue..do you think they eat very much before shoots?? ;) )

Once again, I was never claiming to have a problem with the actual ACT of this type of "ejaculation", it's most definitely an interesting sensation, but just don't claim it's some magical elixir or rare phenomenom ("squirters" are not unicorns LOL).
Also do not try to shame the folks who might be put off by what this may actually be.

I have to repeat...whatever floats your boat, but not everyone wants it in their harbor.
So call it for what it is and let the person/people involved make an informed decision.

@ #201
Thanks Silvio!

@ #225 :D

Dan Savage! You need to be more informed about female circumcision. The most common form of female circumcision is called "excision." It is NOT removing the entire clit; it is taking a slice off the clitoral hood. It is thought to be "cleaner," & there are religious reasonings. This is far LESS invasive than male circumcision, which removes 20,000 nerve endings & 80% of erectile skin. The worst form of female circumcision isn't that common, where they cut off the clit & sometimes sew the labia together. This is much more extreme, & comparable to the many botched circumcisions that men deal with. Some have lost the frenulum, some have lost the glans, some have lost their entire penis to circumcision. Genital cutting of either gener IS comparable & should be talked about in this way. Both are painful & unnecessary, both are done for supposed "health benefits," both are done LEGALLY in some countries, both are supported by their respective societies, & both are shunned by societies that embrace cutting the opposite gender. It's sick & should stop, for both men & women.

@251 re: @195: Hunt---I was trying to be funny!
I guess when it comes to unintentionally pissing guys off, I'm batting 1,000.

@253: Any real benefits of penis circumcision and female genital cutting in the U.S and other nations continues to escape me. Personally, I have never seen an uncut penis. I wouldn't think the original package would be that much harder to keep clean.
I agree with you; if truly UN-beneficial, these practices should stop.

@253 You have your facts confused, excision is used to describe many different types of procedure many of which do involved the damage of removal of the clitoris. There is no need to minimize the damage done to girls in order to strengthen the argument against cutting boys which should is also damaging and should also be banned.

"I don't see why this should be a bigger deal than getting a big tattoo."

Are you kidding? People would *freak* if anyone started tattooing newborns.