The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Life  % width posts: 701

Why is circumcision not practiced in Poland?


TheOther 6 | 3,664
4 May 2012 #391
US women don't like uncut men? Seems that US men don't like their local chicks anymore... :)

boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com

Quite a few losers posting there, but still some very funny remarks on that blog (don't miss the 'Older Posts' at the bottom of the page).
PennBoy 76 | 2,432
4 May 2012 #392
Seems that US men don't like their local chicks anymore... :)

Hmm. Well there are many pretty American girls, far more than people in other parts of the world realize. The posters say the girls are snobby, most girls with good looks are. I think in general American women are easier to talk to and be with then for instance Polish, Polish women always gotta put their 'two cents in' and are more difficult.

That is not the topic of this thread. Don't make it to be closed for cleaning.
natasia 3 | 368
4 May 2012 #393
its about preferences on both sides ;)

I'd better not start going into my preferences, or this thread really will need to be closed for cleaning ...

(I knew this discussion was going to de-generate at some point ; )
TheOther 6 | 3,664
4 May 2012 #394
That is not the topic of this thread. Don't make it to be closed for cleaning.

With that link I was merely suggesting that the reason why American ladies presumably don't like uncircumcized men might not be a question of what is better - circumcized or uncut - but a question of where a man comes from and how rich he is. On topic. ;)

PS:
I know that you guys don't like us straying too much off topic, but this is a forum after all and people visit here to chat. You can't always stay on topic within a thread because the discussion takes different turns all the time.

Read the forum rules.
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,879
4 May 2012 #395
Charlotte, earnestly Jewish

wrong. she wasn't jewish. she met a jewish guy and converted, which came at some time after this episode.

Why did Nature provide the foreskin in the first place? What is it there for?

This has already been discussed and you should know it's a very poor argument. The human body is not a perfect design, not by a long shot. Suggesting that nature created something, therefore it must be necessary and perfect, is a losing argument. Several examples of this have already been cited on this thread.
sascha 1 | 824
4 May 2012 #396
Suggesting that nature created something, therefore it must be necessary and perfect, is a losing argument.

nobody said its perfect, but hey its there. so, and it has a purpose.

Several examples of this have already been cited on this thread.

depending on who gave the example...

Heads. Best removed from some people.

? loosing ground???
natasia 3 | 368
4 May 2012 #397
Heads. Best removed from some people.

goal : )

nobody said its perfect

i did ; )
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,879
4 May 2012 #398
nobody said its perfect, but hey its there. so, and it has a purpose.

i'm not going to repeat myself.

depending on who gave the example...

it doesn't matter who. if a complete idiot posted, "getting bit by a king cobra is bad for your health," it would still be true, because it's a fact.
sascha 1 | 824
4 May 2012 #399
i'm not going to repeat myself.

sehr gut.

it doesn't matter who.

in your particular case it does

if a complete idiot posted, "getting bit by a king cobra is bad for your health," it would still be true, because it's a fact.

really?
natasia 3 | 368
5 May 2012 #400
if a complete idiot posted, "getting bit by a king cobra is bad for your health," it would still be true, because it's a fact.

just like this fact?

yes, yes i believe it does because i know for a fact that millions of women across the country nodded their heads during that episode in agreement

dnalroct 1 | 7
5 May 2012 #401
Jews and Muslims were the only ones circumcised up until the last 50 to 75 years. When doctors of Jewish backgrounds started filling the ranks in the US, they pushed it on unsuspecting parents and it has become more mainstream.

PS. It is barbaric.
modafinil - | 416
5 May 2012 #402
My Indian doctor told me everyone should wear a turban. This is healthier as there is less chance of a head injury, so obviously we should all be wearing turbans for health reasons.
Meathead 5 | 469
5 May 2012 #403
400 posts on the circumcision thread and still growing!
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,879
5 May 2012 #404
yep. it suuuuuure does get talked about a lot.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,768
5 May 2012 #405
again, there is a long list of things that nature gets sooooo wrong at a consistent rate, even though it shouldn't be there or isn't really necessary, unless you have some sort of explanation as to why foreskin is much less of a "mistake" compared to say an appendix in today's man.

Sorry, missed your response-it's been a while
Appendixes can rupture for apparently no cause and often enough to warrant people having them removed. Foreskin doesn't seem to exhibit, with any notable regularity, the tendency to be life-threatening despite safe and clean living. An appendix can do that so I have to reject that comparison, can you convince me to rethink that?

Okay so aside from that, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if we use the argument that foreskin is naturally occurring then it doesn't mean squat because we could, from various perspectives, take the approach that nature gets it wrong all the time.

Let me know if that's what you're stating and then I am ready to agree with that it is true, we COULD do that but it would be silly to use that line of reasoning in this case.

Just to make sure we don't go down the road of disease or virus, I have to state that those are not consistent, those are mutations due to contact with other organisms and not even statistically in the same galaxy as a healthy baby boy born with all his bits and pieces where they ought to be. I don't know what you could be talking about that is as frequently occurring and unencumbering to pull your logic through but I am curious to find out.
pawian 223 | 24,581
6 May 2012 #406
Just chop the whole dam thing off then there will be no problems.

Before I take the final decision, I am practising home circumcision on bananas.

Circumcision-Decision-11269.jpg

What do you think?
urszula 1 | 253
6 May 2012 #407
This should be a decision for men who turn 18. Either they can mutilate themselves or not, but don't do it on innocent babies.
It hurts just the same wheather you're 18 or just born, except babies can't talk.
Shaved heads and shaved dicks look the same.
natasia 3 | 368
6 May 2012 #408
I think we should invite the male members of this site to post themselves, as it were, and then we females can have a good butchers (perhaps not the best choice of idiom) and say definitiwnie which we prefer ... this may lead us to a sensible conclusion as to why circumcision is not generally practised in Poland ... (practise being, of course, with an 's') (said the schoolmarm)
Foreigner4 12 | 1,768
6 May 2012 #409
^Why should we care what you think on the matter?
natasia 3 | 368
6 May 2012 #410
Well, I guess that what you (plural, all males) think about what we (plural, all females) think about your dicks is ... something that sometimes does cross your minds? In the same way that we probably wouldn't want to do something to our bodies which made us less attractive to you.

But as I imagine you know, I was just joking.

Everyone should just go and read up on the history of circumcision around the world on Wiki. I know we are supposed to express our own original opinions here, but we do also need to get our facts from somewhere, and that's as good a source as any.

Some interesting titbits. For example, the Greeks didn't like circumcision at all, because they felt that a man was only truly naked when the foreskin was pulled back, and if you cut it off, then he was always on display. A view reflected here quite strongly in this discussion. And the reasons for circumcision or not were always cultural, the medical/cleanliness arguments always having only been to give validity to often religiously-based practices. There is stacks of myth about all of this - that circumcision was a rite of passage in some societies, or a punishment in others, or something done because apparently a snipped dick is less good at producing sperm that will thrive in all women, so good to have a hubby with one ... i.t.d.

I just thought it might be fun to look at everyone's dicks, that's all. Remotely, as is. Thought it could be so presented as to be relevant to the topic ...
Peter Rossa 2 | 30
6 May 2012 #411
Americans are waking up too and beginning to question and reject this mutilation.

In fact, as is their way, they even have their own Super Hero to combat this menace:- Foreskin Man!
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,879
6 May 2012 #412
Appendixes can rupture for apparently no cause and often enough to warrant people having them removed. Foreskin doesn't seem to exhibit, with any notable regularity, the tendency to be life-threatening despite safe and clean living. An appendix can do that so I have to reject that comparison, can you convince me to rethink that?

this is a meaningless comparison. you're just missing the point. you CANNOT say that because it's there, it must be perfect, it must be perfectly designed. THAT is what I'm saying and an appendix, or wisdom teeth, or any of the countless other examples, show that we are far from perfectly designed. STOP grouping me in with other posters. Read what I write and take it for face value.

Okay so aside from that, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if we use the argument that foreskin is naturally occurring then it doesn't mean squat because we could, from various perspectives, take the approach that nature gets it wrong all the time.

so now you should already have your answer for this.
sascha 1 | 824
6 May 2012 #413
fascinating how people can get philosophic about sth so small and tiny....and possibly of minor importance
Foreigner4 12 | 1,768
6 May 2012 #414
THAT is what I'm saying and an appendix, or wisdom teeth, or any of the countless other examples, show that we are far from perfectly designed. STOP grouping me in with other posters. Read what I write and take it for face value.

Yes I've read that and I understand what you're getting at but so what? Yes, I get it, naturally, we get deforimities and some can be deadly but so what? This bit of skin we're reflecting on doesn't have any history of killing the owner nor causing him great discomfort in any great numbers I've ever heard of.

this is a meaningless comparison. you're just missing the point. you CANNOT say that because it's there, it must be perfect, it must be perfectly designed.

That isn't what I wanted to communicate, perhaps you're grouping me in with other posters on this thread? I'm not saying because it's there it must be perfectly designed but if there is a flaw in the design could you please point me to (no pun intended) what it is and how often and to what degree it occurs to warrant removal?

We could take the approach that "nature" gets it wrong all the time but then we have to define what "nature" is and what "gets it wrong" means, like how "wrong" is wrong enough to cut it off?

You feel what I'm sayin?
Ironside 51 | 12,447
6 May 2012 #415
It is a fashion statement not a health issue and I wonder how did it happened to be so in the USA.
Peter Rossa 2 | 30
6 May 2012 #416
I would say its a religious issue masquerading as a fashion statement/health issue, a Middle Eastern religion trying to force its will upon us.
isthatu2 4 | 2,694
6 May 2012 #417
What? Christianity? That sh!t was forced on us 15 hundred years ago buddy.
As for fashion statement????? Seriously,in my time Ive worn some stuff Im glad wasnt caught on camera but, having my man bits dangling out in public was never a fashion craze I heard of...........
natasia 3 | 368
7 May 2012 #418
like how "wrong" is wrong enough to cut it off?

well, the simple answer is, not wrong enough in this case ... or, as some would have it (me among them), perfect and not in any way wrong, so totally no physiological or aesthetic grounds for its removal.

Fuzzywickets, stop this nonsensical defence that the foreskin is 'not automatically perfect just because Nature designed it' and that that therefore somehow justifies cutting it off ... please ... circumcision is not based on medical or hygiene grounds. It is to do with deep-rooted cultural/religious 'notions'. And Poland is on the 'what? No way!!' side of the argument ... (omg i am so impressed with my constant referral to the original question ... no wonder I am so good at exams ; )
p3undone 8 | 1,132
7 May 2012 #419
I believe it has to do with religion more than anything else.
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,879
7 May 2012 #420
Yes I've read that and I understand what you're getting at but so what? Yes, I get it, naturally, we get deforimities and some can be deadly but so what? This bit of skin we're reflecting on doesn't have any history of killing the owner nor causing him great discomfort in any great numbers I've ever heard of.

So what nothing. That's it.

That isn't what I wanted to communicate, perhaps you're grouping me in with other posters on this thread? I'm not saying because it's there it must be perfectly designed but if there is a flaw in the design could you please point me to (no pun intended) what it is and how often and to what degree it occurs to warrant removal?

That's a question for someone else. I never said that everyone should be circumcised, just that some people prefer it one way or the other. Moving on.

We could take the approach that "nature" gets it wrong all the time but then we have to define what "nature" is and what "gets it wrong" means, like how "wrong" is wrong enough to cut it off?

Sure, valid question.

It is to do with deep-rooted cultural/religious 'notions'. And Poland is on the 'what? No way!!' side of the argument

I couldn't give a rat's a$$ where it came from. I also couldn't care less what "side" Poland is on. All countries differ one way or another. Some have natural dicks, some don't. I really don't see what you people are attacking me about.


Home / Life / Why is circumcision not practiced in Poland?