Sarah wrote: > Laurent, a philosophical point first: Just because victims of a > crime don't complain about it doesn't mean that no crime has been > committed>
I'll go along with that. Secondly, just a few minutes on the internet will reveal many men who > are unhappy this was done to them I suppose you'd find unhappy people about just anything, good or bad. Others talk of marriages > breaking up because of how long it takes them to have an orgasm. Don't have that problem, thank G.. My colleague's mate and also a friend's father who had it done as adults had no such side effects, neither a decrease in the quality of orgasm. Which as you said doesn't mean this never happens. > I have no idea what percentage of men wish it hadn't been done to > them, but certainly high enough to warrant taking another look at > doing it. > OK so there are negative side effects for a percentage of the population. However, Randy complains not about the side effects but about the lack of consent, which you also mention. There does not appear to be evidence today that Randy was traumatized as a baby, although he very well might have been. Jerry's complaint is, I hope, more philosophical (being left as nature intended) than about having severe side effects. I can understand all 3 of you about the consent issue, and there's nothing to argue since there can be no consent from a baby. I for one didn't advocate one way or the other, aside from "the Covenant" which I respect. Still, to condemn it as as severe a crime as pedophilia is exaggerated IMO. Reason is this: a pedophile's victim is almost guaranteed to have severe trauma for the rest of his/her life, and to spend years in therapy, finding it difficult to have a normal relationship, etc. On the other hand, only a small percentage of circumcision "victims" will have severe side effects. The only thing in common about the 2 is most victims can't help in reproducing the pattern, but for different reasons. Laurent
