didn't mean to put you down. You're quite sensitive for a rapist Linz or is that just you protecting your naughty slut on skateboards reputation?

Anyway...to honour! Whether it be on the open air waves or the sanctity of the bedroom, wherever it resides in the human heart, may it be expressed with fullness.

Oh yes, and to flouncing! May it only be for short durations.

You've maintained your flounce longer than I did. I can't stay mad for more than five minutes. This is clearly a grave moral flaw. I mean, I'm at the forefront of those upholding the legitimacy of rational anger, but I just can't keep it up. I'll have to do an Anger Management Course, to learn how to stay angry much, much longer. Hard-core Objectivists are really good at it—they can do it for a lifetime. I guess they think they'll go to Heaven and sing tiddlywink songs with Ayn for ever. I have to confess there's only one person whose non-stop singing I would so warp myself for, and I'm sure I don't have to mention his name.

And Claudia, please read what I said. I'm the world's greatest fan of your "something honorable." But it's not either that or celibacy in my book. You were putting me down for enjoying casual sex, in the absence of the total height. I tried to make it clear that I've had the total height, applaud the total height and still seek the total height. I've written tomes about the total height, and founded SOLO for the total height (in all spheres). If right now, however, all I confront is airheads, neurotics and repressed neo-Puritans I'll settle for shoving their faces in the pillow and showing them what life is about even if they pretend they don't want to know. They're always grateful, and I have a good time!

Gee, I guess I'm a rapist after all! Send that slapper Louise after me!

Had one of her relatives visit me today. Confirmed my assessment is right on the money. What a surprise!

Linz

It's not recreational sex that denotes cynicism, it's the sarcastic retort toward something honorable.

Time for me to flounce from this one.

You're saying ANY talk of a power imbalance is just more ghastly feminazi bullshit - I say a power exchange lies at the very core of every sexual encounter.

Ghastly feminazi bullshit. Straight out of Ugly Wimmin's Studies. Pernicious rubbish.

Linz, if you sarcastically refer to my "being a paragon all my life" for integrating my sexual life with a code of moral value, I will only conclude that you sir, have become cynical in the self-affirming area of romantic love.

I am the biggest romantic there is. Finding fellow-romantics these days is the hardest thing on earth, seemingly. While remaining on the lookout for one I settle for recreational sex rather than be celibate. Hardly makes me a cynic. If and when I find a fellow-romantic again, I'll not be (and never have been) self-righteous about the choices of others who have yet to find the "total height" for their "total passion." Sanctimony is so easy from a comfort zone.

Linz

for something this serious and this grey. A full police inquiry has been launched into these happenings and a host of others, that's how much doubt there is within the force itself that their own are uncorrupted.

Ok, Rickards was found not guilty and you're right to hang your hat on his innocence if a just justice system is your highest value here.

The next highest value for me, in terms of a free society, is an uncorrupted police force where cops know the difference between right and wrong morally. They are the point of contact between the citizen and the law.

In this trial, the court took 72 hours to deliberate, precisely because a moral code had been grossly breached on so many occasions, blurring the line between corrupted and uncorrupted. Lies were told by the accused and their witnesses, lies were told by the complainant and her witnesses. Schollum and Shipton have been found to be corrupted. Rickards has not, but his reputation is ruined. He did not come out and admit these things before the inquiry, it's been squeezed out of him like blood from a stone.

I know he was not on trial for immorality, he was on trial for rape. But this is where the blurring is just reality asserting itself. You're calling this nothing but PC feminazi bullshit - I'm calling it sexual abuse. You're saying it was youthful indiscretion - I'm saying he was not a youth, she was. You're saying ANY talk of a power imbalance is just more ghastly feminazi bullshit - I say a power exchange lies at the very core of every sexual encounter. Rand didn't romanticize a rape for nothing. She took great pains to embibe a power conflict all the way through the relationship between Roark and Dominique... from their very first meeting.

Linz, if you sarcastically refer to my "being a paragon all my life" for integrating my sexual life with a code of moral value, I will only conclude that you sir, have become cynical in the self-affirming area of romantic love.

Hope that's not the case

I never said he needs to be fired for being found innocent. I see your point and I agree with it.

But I'm saying he isn't fit for command because he's making blanket statements about the innocence of convicted rapists and then not backing them up with any context.

He's slagging off the system that he was happy to be part of prior to this trial. Because I never heard a peep out of him prior to this about pre-trial media beat-ups or the appalling sluggish sloth in the system that runs up the cost of defending oneself against the government with its bottomless treasure chest. Didn't hear him complaining about plea-bargains and jail-house confessions and such when they benefitted his career. And prior to this I never heard him mention anything about prison reform.

These were all issues that he must have known about if he was as good a copper as you say. And yet they never bothered him until he was on the receiving end. And now the trial of his mates is tainted for reasons he won't divulge?

Having a Policeman, especially a wannabe senior policeman, slag off officers, (and in an off-hand way slagging off jurors, judges and the CPS) in the press without giving them the opportunity to respond in a professional manner is not the behaviour of a commander anyone -- particularly those he intends to command -- is going to trust.

And now he's undermining public trust in the system with his comments and still wants his old job back? Really? In a system corrupt enough to try three coppers and wrongly convict two of them?

Something does not compute. The only thing that makes sense to me in all this is that he believes his mates were innocent because they were cops. That's not a healthy  attitude in our system - one where the police police themselves.

than a rapist: someone who falsely accuses another of rape.

I confess I was unaware that Nicholas had "admitted making up a rape complaint against a group of Maori youths". I've since been unable to find out more about this claim, which leaves me to worry if a) it's true, or b) if this is a gross case of the media's selective reporting of facts.

If it is true, she should have done time for it. As she should now if her claims against Rickards are indeed false, as the 'Not Guilty' verdict would imply. I say if because I'm still not entirely convinced of his innocence.

While I couldn’t find a corroboration of Nicholas’ admission, I did find this: One News quoted Detective Chief Inspector Rex Miller as saying he didn’t believe the flatmate was a credible witness. Miller said he had flown to Australia to interview the flatmate but came away with the view she was lying about the sex being “consensual”: “I gained the impression that she was ashamed of what had happened and didn’t want to be reminded of it. It was just a gut feeling that I had that she wasn’t being as truthful as she could have been.”

Only Nicholas and Rickards know the whole story. All I know is that one of them is a despicable scumbag -- and that I'd rather my police commissioner came with a record that is beyond reproach.

... based on what. He said the same thing on TV but wasn't pressed on it. But this is not grounds for removing him from his job. Hasn't he been punished enough for something he didn't do?

"he's defending them because he believes they're innocent."

And he has something other than blind loyalty to base that on. Or are the 12 jury members, the judge, the prosecution and the investigating Policemen all gotten too by the feminazi PC brigade?

And how does Rickards explain by one of the quartet involved in the Mt Manganui case, a Tauranga fireman named Warren Graham, plead guilty to the abduction portion of the days festivities?

He's not defending them because they're guilty; he's defending them because he believes they're innocent.

Read the whole interview. Note the fact that the serial bringer-of-rape-charges slapper admitted to fabricating a charge of rape against 6 young Maori.

The day fundamental tenets of justice are overturned and folk are removed from their jobs because of the demented cackling of PC witches whereby those folk are deemed guilty of charges they've been cleared of is the day justice is no more. Spare me the ghastly feminazi PC bullshit about "power dynamics." Uncoerced adult humans are responsible for what they do. End of fucking story.

Linz

I have a profound objection to being accused of being desensitised to rape.

I said sexual abuse. The context being; Louise Nicholas aged 17. Bob Schollum aged 33. Clint Rickards aged 27. Brad Shipton aged 25.

I don't think "youthful indescretion" is an excuse here. The only youth is the woman.

"I’d suggest standing by best mates and convicted rapists, Schollum and Shipton, is a pretty good indicator too."

I don't much care for his sex antics, but if they were consensual and he has the common sense to admit them (so they won't be fodder for blackmail) then I've no problem with his being a cop.

I have a huge problem with his being a cop, especially a top cop and still sticking by his mates: the convicted rapists and kidnappers.

They are criminals, he should not be excusing them. He should, in fact be bloody angry at them! Not only did they rape and kidnap, they broke their oath as Policemen, betraying not only themselves but their brother officers and the public.

Those men are beneath contempt and the fact he doesn't acknowledge that makes me wonder if he holds loyalty to his mates over and above the oath he swore to uphold the law.

And that makes him unfit for duty IMHO. I don't want cops who overlook or excuse instances of criminal behaviour by brother officers. Especially instances of VIOLENT criminal behaviour.

Geez, Linz, sounds like you're trying to save Reardon Steel from nationalization and blackmail!

... my "flounce" to say that it's 3.30 in the morning and I'm basking in the afterglow of a long, steamy night of passion. With someone I've never met before. So I'm still a "slut." Unapologetically. It was consensual. No false pretences. We were both sluts. Consenting sluts. If he came back twenty years from now and accused me of "rape," I would hold him in total contempt, and I hope any jury would too.

Recreational sex is just fine in my book. In fact, it's delicious. I don't care what Ayn Rand said. See my essay, "Romance and Rationalism." Love as well? Well, that's great—the ultimate—if you can get it. But I've grown a bit tired of folk who are in love but won't admit it. Or who admit it but are too afraid to act on it. That's part of the bizarre neo-Puritanism of our time, and I have no patience with it, and I refuse to be a monk on account of it.

I joked that on the night of Dunc's farewell drinks I fell in love with at least seventeen people. Actually, I did fall in love at first sight with one person (no, not Kasper) and I believe I detected mutual interest, but to pursue him in the context of this neo-Puritanism & prudery would be just too hard. Recreational bonking is so much easier.

And Claudia, I have no objection to your being passionate in your objection to Rickards' reinstatement, even though I equally passionately believe it's wrongheaded. I have a profound objection to being accused of being desensitised to rape.

Linz

I did listen to the first two hours of your show and I did hear you condemn rape as a crime. I also heard you emphatically assert that Rickards should have his job back as Assistant Commissioner of Police, this despite his conduct and that of his friends, that came out of this trial. I am not being a brickwall - I am in passionate disagreement with you about your assertion of his reinstatement.

should not be a moral blank cheque for any type of exploititive abuse of the past. Admitting he was wrong now is not good enough for me. He was a police officer at the time for gods sake! I couldn't care if he became a brilliant officer later, he fucked up.

And knows he did. But yes, he must be made to pay. And pay & pay & pay.

The context of the "group sex" itself is grossly unequal. The power difference is gigantic. Men who have ANY modicum of respect for women do not place them in that position even if the women "consent". It is malevolent - why else do you think the flatmate got the hell out of dodge in self-confessed shame and never came back? They've been taken advantage of in a brutish way and they know it, the judge knows it and so does the jury. That's why these pieces of shit have been severely reprimanded. Do you think the judge would advocate giving Rickards his job back? Louise Nicholas herself admits that she was not physically forced into it - she was intimidated into it. And she was not approached by a man-hating counsellor, she was approched by the police.

She most certainly was not intimidated into it. She was a willing, laughing participant, as the flatmate testified, who frequented the police bar looking for it. I had this funny notion we believed in being responsible for our own actions around here.

Regarding intimidation by a group of men, I had some try this on me at 16, but I ran. Had they been cops I might not have - where do you run to - the cops?

Ah.

And another thing, some of us have not been sluts and slappers during our youth, some of us have always had a sexual life integrated with a code of moral value and know who we fuck matters. Perhaps that's why we're not desensitized to being outraged at sexual abuse when we hear it.

Ah, that's me all right. A desensitised apologist for rapists. Did you actually listen to the show yesterday and hear me express my views on rape?

As for my youthful indiscretions, I was not an Objectivist back then and just went with the flow. I am a very bad person, no doubt. Must be great to have been a paragon all one's life.

I'm outta this one.

Linz

Edited to add—yes, I'm doing a "flounce" from this thread, other than to add info as to when I'm on air. I recognise a brick wall when my head's banging on one. But I shall continiue my campaign on air against the feminazis' man-hating stigmatising of consensual sex as rape and against their vendettas, just as I shall continue my campaign against all forms of force-initiation, rape most emphatically included.

should not be a moral blank cheque for any type of exploititive abuse of the past. Admitting he was wrong now is not good enough for me. He was a police officer at the time for gods sake! I couldn't care if he became a brilliant officer later, he fucked up.

The context of the "group sex" itself is grossly unequal. The power difference is gigantic. Men who have ANY modicum of respect for women do not place them in that position even if the women "consent". It is malevolent - why else do you think the flatmate got the hell out of dodge in self-confessed shame and never came back? They've been taken advantage of in a brutish way and they know it, the judge knows it and so does the jury. That's why these pieces of shit have been severely reprimanded. Do you think the judge would advocate giving Rickards his job back? Louise Nicholas herself admits that she was not physically forced into it - she was intimidated into it. And she was not approached by a man-hating counsellor, she was approched by the police.

Regarding intimidation by a group of men, I had some try this on me at 16, but I ran. Had they been cops I might not have - where do you run to - the cops?

And another thing, some of us have not been sluts and slappers during our youth, some of us have always had a sexual life integrated with a code of moral value and know who we fuck matters. Perhaps that's why we're not desensitized to being outraged at sexual abuse when we hear it.

That’s how I see it.

I agree with Claudia: Rickards is not fit to be a policeman let alone ‘top dog’ at police HQ.

According to the jury it wasn’t rape.

Nevertheless, the burning question for me is, did Louise Nicholas ever say “no” during these orgies? Did she, in sighting that big black greased-up truncheon, whimper a ‘no’? Would those cops, in the ecstatic throws of a power-hungry ‘consensual’ gang-bang, have pulled up on this new thrill if she had? Because if she did say no - whisper it, mumble it, choke on it - even once, then every one of those cops who were present is a dirty and depraved rapist.

Of course, this is speculation. None of us here were there.

The only debate here should be: should Rickards get his job back?

I say - nay, yell - an emphatic “NO!”. By his own admission he conducted himself in a manner unbecoming an officer.

The other night I saw “Babel” in which a troubled teenager was acting out in a highly promiscuous way. She was not a slapper; she was a virgin. When a cop came around to her house on police business she went into the bedroom and came out completely naked. The cop was shocked, disturbed... and probably aroused. She took his hand and put it on her breast. He pulled it away. Rejected, she covered herself and broke down in tears. He hugged her, then sat her down and covered her with his jacket.

He could have had her. He chose not to. As a policeman in a position of power, he had integrity.

Rickards did not.

Show me the woman he sleeps with, and I will tell you his valuation of himself.

While I don’t believe he is guilty by association, I’d suggest standing by best mates and convicted rapists, Schollum and Shipton, is a pretty good indicator too.

The punishment is fine, as long as Glenn comes along.

Rickards has already acknowledged his behaviour all those years ago, when he was 24, a married constable with 2 kids, was wrong. But it wasn't rape. She was a police groupie who happily encouraged and participated in the antics. Some years later some ideologically-driven man-hater persuaded her that she'd actually been raped, on this and multiple other occasions. She became a serial rape-charger. None of the 18 or so complaints she laid apart from the Rickards one was deemed to have any credibility. She lost that one in court too because her flatmate testified she'd been a happy, laughing participant. As I said, they were both sluts, she and Rickards, but they were consenting sluts. As I also said on air yesterday, I myself at that age was a slut-on-skateboards. Is there no moral statute of limitations on youthful indiscretions? (Not that I regret a single one of mine!) Rickards has more than paid his dues in terms of proving himself to be an exceptionally good cop. This slapper is part of a vendetta against him, pure and simple. The Ride of the Witches made that even more obvious.

Linz

You obviously have more faith in our justice processes than I do.

Your punishment can be me and my four girlfriends, one of them a mordi, paying you a visit with a jar of Vaseline and a broomstick.

Schollum and Shipton were convicted of gang-rape while they were serving as Policemen. Clint Rickards is their best friend and colleague. If he were innocent and judges rape to be a heinous crime that he has played no part in, why, as the Assistant Commissioner of Police would he continue to hold Schollum and Shipton in high regard and call them his closest friends? Because he’s one of their ilk. I don’t believe he should have his job back. He doesn't have a reputation above reproach – far, far from it. This is where a gross breach in moral integrity has come back to bite his sorry arse. A high place of honor within the force and authority over citizens should go to a man of superior moral fibre than him. This gang of friends are serial exploiters of young, foolish females.

Seems I'm in Claudia's sin-bin for "sluts & slappers." May I pick the punishment?

Hopefully it'll be even more severe after "Ride of the Witches" today.

...until we got to "Consensual??", my interest was firmly piqued.

Thank goodness that was nipped in the bud

Sluts yes, consenting sluts - NO! A group sexual conquest that starts in the vein of slutty and consensual can most certainly, easily twist into something brutal and ugly. Five strapping, horny men in authority and uniforms with one naked teenage girl in the room?? Consensual?? Give me a fucking break! Rickards is standing by his "best mates" with his full loyalty and with the full knowledge that they've been found GUILTY of similar pack rape. That's the sort of "honorable" policeman he is. These men are cunts.

Here's a copy of a letter written by my other half and sent to Annette King (her reply is non existent, she did pass it on to the police
(but that is another thread)

Dear Minister

I was horrified to read on the Stuff web site that a review of the police act is considering giving the police commissioner the power to sack officers suspected of committing crime.

It is a fundamental part of our justice system that people are innocent of a crime until they have been found guilty by a court of law. The sacking of an officer who has not been convicted of a crime but merely suspected of a crime would be in direct contradiction to this cornerstone of our justice system.

In addition, if this change was made I would strongly suspect that anyone suspected of a crime would make a formal complaint about any officer involved in the case in an attempt to avoid conviction. After all, what jury would not take strong note of a defence lawyer asking a police officer in court about disciplinary proceedings against them? This would subject countless officers to ill founded complaints wasting resources that could be applied to significantly better areas like crime prevention and law enforcement.

The vast majority of our police officers are honest and law abiding. Where there are problem officers, they like everyone else in New Zealand should be subjected due process through the justice system. Of course in some circumstances officers may be suspended from duty but the overwhelming importance is that the justice system is applied to all and people are innocent until convicted.

I urge you to strongly resist the overthrowing of the presumption of innocence.

Regards

Great show Linz,
I listened between pesky phone calls and interruptions of work.

You tackled some really interesting people and subjects.
@A voice of reason@ was recognised by the many people who voiced their pleasure hearing you on air.

What I said was that Clint Rickards and Louise Nicholas were both sluts, but they were consenting sluts. I also referred to women who have miraculous "recovered memories" years after having consensual sex whereby it suddenly becomes "rape" are sluts and slappers. "Gold-digging, opportunistic sluts and slappers," to be precise.

the film The Hunger also features that lovely little Trio in E flat by Schubert. I just adore it.

It is the same piece then. The Opera is "Lakmé" by Leo Delibes. The specific song is a duet, although I don't remember it being called the flower duet exactly, probably just the choice of translation. It's an Indian princess and her servant girl singing a (?lesbian) love-song in French.

The same piece is featured in the movie "The Hunger" with Bowie, Deneuve, and Sarandon. This movie is quite good, but viciously brutal in a few brief scenes. Deneuve is an immortal vampire whose 300 year-old lover Bowie is dying for some reason. He goes to see Sarandon who is an expert on aging. Sarandon meets and is seduced by Deneuve. Quite a film. It also features another favorite of mine, "Bela Lugosi's Dead."

The still is from www.balkon.hu

Delibes' Lakme is the same but more correct - wink.

Cheers

I found the BA piece. It is "Flower Duet".

Thanks all.

Is Sandi refering to the duet from Delibes' Lakme? There was a long running ad in the US for British Airways that used that piece.

I remember my foreskin.

Blair Anderson Christchurch, NZ ph.txt 027-2657219

That was Mario's secret, KASS Nessun Dorma, commented on here at length. Pay attention!

I've restickied it for you. Click on the link & you'll have the performance for ever.

I don't recall the ad you mention. If you describe the music I may be able to help.

Linz

I am certain that the councillor's will have a very loud and clear message and I, as I assume many other listeners, despatched a few scathing emails to those concerned.

Can you please tell me the title of your introduction piece from Mario?
I have heard this many times before and I do confess, it makes my toes curl each time I hear it and today I decided that I must have it.

On the same subject, can you remember the British Airways advert on the telly? I have always been fond of that piece as well and have idea what it is called.

Cheers

I second Ross, at least as far as fragrance goes. I always loved living in Spanish Harlem, because you could literally smell Spring in the air on the stairways.

Ted

"Supposedly nature made real big bushes on the ladies to trap the scent to attract the males. That's not particularly needed now, and today a tidier bush wins out over "nature."

Who said it wasn't needed now! And who said a tidier bush wins out over nature? You speak for yourself, Mister.

In *my* experience there's as much variation in pubic hair thickness & length as there is in any other aspect of human physicality, with some requiring a light coiffure, and some definitely not.

In days of old when good personal hygiene wasn't valued or possible, people—particularly prostitutes—used to shave their pubes to control lice & disease, hence the invention of the merkin. Well, newsflash!, these days hot water & soap are readily available and I see no need to whip out the Schick Triple Blade and whip it all off.

That said, there's nothing wrong with a lovingly trimmed bush—just as there's nothing wrong with a nicely trimmed foreskin—but over and above that, quite frankly, the only place I want to feel five o'clock shadow is on my face.

Vive le buisson!!

While male circumcision may be an issue, it's an incredibly minor issue in the face of what confronts us with radical Islam. Here is the unmitigated naked horror of what confronts us; it is truly savage and barbaric. WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PICTURES; STRONG STOMACH REQUIRED.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/11/islamic_jihad_i....

6-9 am Mon-Tues, 6-8.30 am Wed, Thurs, Fri.

...what time are you on air at Radio Pacific?

What is often referred to as euphemistically as "female circumcision" is clitorectomy. This is vile and irreversible, the same as removing the glans of the penis. Just sewing up the labia is barbaric but reversible, and is done to girls to prove virginity.

Sandi,

I don’t know, I’ve never seen it. However, being below the clitoris, I don’t see why the urethra need be covered in the procedure. I didn’t say the labia are totally closed, just enough to totally cover the clitoris.

It wouldn't be fair for circumcisons done 30 years ago, but the AMA should recommend they only be done for medical necessity. Wonder how many left wing would be religious dictator types might not like that for religious reasons though...

After notice is given, then let the lawsuits begin.

BTW, the judicicial activism was sarcasm for those who don't know me.

Next we'll be having cases of the circumcised suing for their loss of enjoyment of life, and for the humiliation and mutilation and mental trauma they've been put through. Something to look forward to, I guess.

Humans do find out about sex through word of mouth, so males need not have foreskins to teach them masturbation. But circumcized boys do find out about masturbation, if not they are not tutored, during puberty, usually at the time of nocturnal emmissions; while uncut boys learn to masturbate well before producing sperm. I am circumcised myself, and have never had any complaints from my partners, but I am quite sure that I would also prefer to be uncircumcised.

I must most strongly object to those who view circumcision as a matter of parental choice. The child is being mutilated without recourse. The doctors should be sued for lack of informed consent, the parents for negligence. Religious reasons are simply absurd. If I can be hounded for weeks for making the mistake of calling myself a pantheist, I am surprised that those who view this as a matter of religious freedom are not just outright banned. Although, it is refreshing to note that these two factions, the antipantheists and the religious freedomists seem to be separate groups. I do see the reasoning behind advocating change through persuasion rather than immediately by law. But that is the reason why we have activist courts here in the US, to force people to do the right thing by judicial fiat. I assume that at least some uncircumcized democrats can jurisdiction shop to make this a matter that goes to the Supreme Court.

Given your description of female circumcision Jon, how then does a woman pee?

Not all procedures that get called “female circumcision” involve the removal of the clitoris. My toddlers’ doctor told me that she and her colleagues often debate the ethics of re-performing “female circumcisions” on post-partum women. She said there is a large community of Ethiopian women in town who request this after delivery. Apparently, for them, this means re-sewing the labia to absolutely cover the clitoris (it must get torn or surgically undone for delivery.)

Male circumcision is barbaric mutilation. Every medical reason has been shot down. The most pathetic being penile cancer—more men die of breast cancer than die of penile cancer, yet who has ever suggested male infant breast removal, a procedure whose consequences would pale compared to those of removing so many thousands of nerve endings.

As for those who think that cut men enjoy sex, so who cares?… Well, I’m sure those Ethiopian women can enjoy sex even though their clitoris will never again see the light of day. That’s hardly a justification for doing such a thing to an infant girl or boy. Marcus would do fine without earlobes and all but piano players would make out just fine without pinky fingers—so what, caveman?

For full disclosure: I am cut and would gladly give my left nut to get my foreskin back.

I hate doing the whole seperate posts for separate replies but there wasn't much common ground for the three.

Your point on biological reasoning is something I brought up with my "leviticus level biology" remark. I've been reading the book lately and I've noticed that much of it is just the best biological information that humans had at the time written in a very mystical format (with a few rules thrown in to help maintain the order of a human society). All of it applied at the time.

Mortality rates were too high to risk on sex for pleasure. Dead things do carry disease. And pork is the most dangerous type of meat if not cooked properly.

But most of the life and death issues of biblical biology have been solved at this point and circumcision is one of them.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Like I was saying I can definitely see the begining of a moral justification for a position of outlawing it, but I don't see it as a legal battle that's likely to be won. I liken this particular fight to the ARI stance on libertarianism,... If the ideas aren't there and haven't convinced people it's wasted effort trying to change the body politic.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

From what I heard it was mainly the doctor who needed charged. The parents were just delivered some pretty devastating news and probably easily suggestable (I'm not saying it lets them off the hook entirely but they at least fixed things as soon as they realized how wrong it was).

But by all accounts the main doctor involved was a little too deeply involved in his agenda to keep the experiment going consequences be damned.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

"What male would be happy with sand stuck in a sticky place?"

What female would be happy with sand stuck in a sticky place?

How about the sewing up of her vagina then?

Perhaps the religious purposes of circumcision actually had a genuine function and purpose.

For example, if you live in the middle east, you will undoubtedly experience many sandstorms (which are very nasty indeed). What male would be happy with sand stuck in a sticky place?

For a life residing in a giant sandpit, would circumcision be a wise idea?

If a technological improvement existed, for any particular part of the human body, that was in every way superior to the part that nature provided, would it be immoral to replace the nature given part with the man made part? Lets suppose that it's a superior heart that will outlast and outperform any natural heart by tenfold, and will increase the childs lifespan. The child has not given permission for this, and the window for introducing this technology is the first 6 months of life. It is a completely unnecessary operation, because the kid is healthy, but the parents want this new technology for their child, because they can see that it will lengthen his life. Of course, as with all operations, there is the chance that something might go wrong, but it's a low risk, and, on balance, they're prepared to take it.

"Pretty big price for an unnecessary opperation."

Yes, but it wasn't the circumcision that gave him a sex change. I'm pleased that you wouldn't want to ban it. The majority of parents want what's best for their kids, so they are open to rational persuasion.

that foreskins are essential requirements for stimulation into sexual activity. Millions upon millions of circumcised men have no trouble with that, foreskin or not.

To use the term "perfect" in a biological context is nigh on meaningless. I have B.A. in biology. The statement that if foreskins were bad they would evolve away does need a little bit of qualification. But the question as you pose it is not well-formed.

It's not question of being bad, it's a question of just how essential are they. Even given all the arguments for them, I hardly see them as essential. It's not like life stops if you lose it.

If you like the look of your penis without a foreskin, that's fine. Did you have it removed as an adult and was it for aesthetic reasons?

At birth. No way would I remove it if I still had it.

I am all for the right of adults to mutilate themselves.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's not a mutilation, and its certainly not evil. Misguided perhaps, but certainly not evil.

Given that freedom is action without coercion, by either party, freedom of religion does not even apply to m*slims, whose "religion," (actually, a criminal political conspiracy to establish dictatorship) if practiced in its current form, requires the initiation of force.

The concept of "freedom of religion" arose only in christiandom, because christianity does not require the initiation of force, and recognizes the separation of religion and state "render unto Caesar"

As for Judaism, (depending upon what Rabbi you ask) it is permissable simply to remove a symbolic part of the foreskin or even to perform just a pinprick depending on the cicumstances. I have no problem with that. If fundamentalist Jews have a problem with this, they can move elsewhere.

Waiting for people to become rational before we stop them from mutilating children is a bit too unprincipled for my comfort.

Ted

I agree.

In that case, the parents and Doctors were definitely perverse criminals and should have been judged accordingly.

I heard the story about two years ago around the time I discovered Objectivist and libertarian forums and I just saw a documentary on it two weeks ago.

http://www.moss-fritch.com/medical_error.htm
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2813gender.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2101678/
a href=http://www.godspy.com/life/Being-Brenda.cfm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

"There was a case several years ago of identical male twins where one recieved a botched circumcision."

...a tall story to me.

If sex change was possible, surely penis reconstruction was also possible.

When put into the context of adults choosing to do this for aesthetic or other reasons, it's basically a personal issue in the same way plastic surgury, piercing, and tatooing are. When it comes to kids it gets tricky.

The science it was initially based on is the same science that brought us "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as thou dost with womankind for it is an abomination." In many ways appropriate for its time (higher mortality rates meaning sex for pleasure was a luxury few could afford back then) but just ultimately silly in this day and age to still be followed.

I'm not sure I'd want to outlaw it as yet though. I think a first major step would be rational persuasion away from the practice on a large scale. I'm affraid of outlawing it because it might be deemed a prohibition of the free excercise of religion for some. On a pragmatic level I can't stop thinking "In the law, religion trumps sex everytime."

But the more I think about it, I'm thinking there is a good moral justification for it. There was a case several years ago of identical male twins where one recieved a botched circumcision. Since the child was so young reconstructing the penis would've been difficult so instead one of the twins was given a male to female sex change opperation... as an infant mind you. This was used as a scientific test case for nature vs nurture. The "control" brother developed basically normal, the affected brother developed "lesbian" tendancies and a strong tomboy streak and reportedly never felt comfortable in her own skin. Years later she was explained the nature of her situation and spent the rest of her few short years before suicide as a male. Pretty big price for an unnecessary opperation.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Marcus and I do agree for once, (and so does the evidence of all mammals with external penes). Foreskins do serve a purpose or two. (Protection and as a stimulation toward the sexual exploration that untutored males need in order to learnt to mount and copulate.) To use the term "perfect" in a biological context is nigh on meaningless. I have B.A. in biology. The statement that if foreskins were bad they would evolve away does need a little bit of qualification. But the question as you pose it is not well-formed.

If you like the look of your penis without a foreskin, that's fine. Did you have it removed as an adult and was it for aesthetic reasons?

The "procedure" to which you refer is a mere mechanical stretching of the membrane which does not provide the real thing, but only a loose simulacrum.

I know one person who chose to have himself circumcized at 18. As a Latino raised in the American North East (where doctors until recently routinely circumcized all but Hispanic children) he felt "strange" in the locker room. My sister threatened up and down to sue if my nephew was circumcized, since it is still done routinely without explicit consent. The procedure also generates hospital fees.

I am all for the right of adults to mutilate themselves.

Ted

The practice is believed to have arisen as a form of blood sacrifice.

It was also used as a means of identifying one side from the other in times of war.

And if foreskins were that unhealthy, God would not have made them in the first place. Oops, I mean they would not have been evolved in the first place.

How do you know they are not devolving as opposed to evolving, or is man born in a state of  perfection? If what Robert said is true, then very little is known about it the foreskin.

And unlike hair and fingernails, they don't grow back!

Purportedly this is not true. There is a treatment where the foreskin that is left can be stimulated to regrow, which apparently has some significant success, if anyone can be bothered to put themselves through it.

it sounds pretty good. In regards to this:

"Tell me again why I should want to trade this for something out of Leviticus level biology."

I have not said that anyone "should" be cut, just that it is not barbaric or evil that people are. Despite what Ted Keer says, I am NOT mutilated, and cutting it off me was NOT a form of human sacrifice.

Circumcision is mutilation, and except for valid reasons (a medical condition where the foreskin is too tight) should indeed be illegal. The practice is believed to have arisen as a form of blood sacrifice. STD's are used only as a rationalization. Circumcized children tend to learn to masturbate later than non-circumcised, due to the lack of needing to clean oneself and manipulate the organ. But any reasons other than the first necessity I mentioned are simply anti-pleasure barbarisms.

And if foreskins were that unhealthy, God would not have made them in the first place. Oops, I mean they would not have been evolved in the first place. And unlike hair and fingernails, they don't grow back!

Ted

How about we change tack here.

There are many reasonable and valid statements and arguments, regarding the issue "to cut or not to cut"

My question to everyone is: Should the act of circumcision of children be made illegal?

Jeff wrote,

"it reduces sensitivity on the penis" If so, thank heavens!"

It reminds me about a year ago I came across a TV documentary about attitudes to sex in the 19th century. Apparently, Puritans in the US and UK were so concerned about masturbation that they invented all sorts of spiked contraptions to put on their dicks. Anyway, they didn't quite work (lack of willpower) and they came to conclusion that circumcision was the best solution because it lowers the sensitivity and therefore decreases the temptation to masturbate.

They even went so far as to experiment with female circumcision. However, they decided against it because they realised that circumcised women were less likely to want to have sex with their husbands.

At the risk of giving too much detail I'll explain.

It's only super sensitive when the head itself is exposed, that part is super sensitive. You could practically drop an A-bomb on my foreskin while it's covering the head and I wouldn't feel it. The key factor is more sensitivity when it's most needed and wanted, less sensitivity when it isn't needed and not being forced into some sort of permanent middle ground.

And as to what it can take (physical resiliancy), you can get as rough as you like with it and you never have to use lube. Also, exposure of the head only comes at the most opportune times (during actual penetration or your partner has to make a conscious decision to touch it outside of simply touching the penis).

Tell me again why I should want to trade this for something out of Leviticus level biology.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

We had this discussion at great length a year ago on the old SOLO HQ:

http://solohq.solopassion.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0671.shtml

Suffice it to say that the arguments made there against this medical procedure convinced me not to do it to any sons I might have.  Hygiene in the form of soap, water and condoms appear objectively better solutions to potential foreskin hazards than do acts of involuntary surgery.  When they turn 18, they can make their own choices at that time like adults.

"it reduces sensitivity on the penis" If so, thank heavens!

At the risk of wading into what is clearly an overheated debate, I have to say... If mine were any more sensitive, I'd be regularly making a lot of foolish suggestions to the ladies on this forum.

Y'all need to get out more.

first off, you don't know whether Im in favour of the chop, or not, because I haven't actually said.'I've said that I think it's a trivial issue.

So Richard, involuntarily removing a little flesh is OK with you but removing all of it is evil.

It depends on the intent and consequences of removing the little bit of flesh, and the FACTS are, that male circumcision is not motivated by evil intent and the consequences are a zillion miles from calamatous, while female circumcision, other than for medical reasons, most certainly is. That is a fact, no matter how much you stomp and blather.

Well get this through your thick fucking heads. I regard any surgery on the genitals of infants, and children (of either gender) for non-medical reasons -- in the 21st century -- to be barbaric.

All that says to me is that you dont' have things in perspective.

I don't care if you remove a micron or a mile. The parent is a gaurdian of their children, they are supposed to look out for their best bloody interests -

And, rightly or wrongly, that's what they believe they are doing.

 "If just the glans of the clitioris were removed the effect would be a little less sensitivity during sex, similar to a circumcised male penis." And how do you know that? ESP?

I was told this by a nurse, who often attends circumcisions, and who more than likely has a reasonably intimate relationship with her vagina. She also told me that, in her experience, circumcisions performed with a local anaesthetic are far less stressful, with a much lower impact on the infant, than a number of other procedures they are put through.

(see the link in an earlier post) - to name two of the people I've met who have personal experience of how insensitive a cut penis is compared to an uncut one.

Well, Landon, cringes at the things uncircumcised men put their dicks through in porn films, and he  can't bear the "slightest bit of roughness". In that case, i'd have to ask whether being circumcised  and therefore less sensitive, isn't in fact an improvement, enabling circumcised men to go beyond the bounds of what the uncircumcised can handle.

They both involve the right to remove body tissue.

Is the circumcision of a child, actually a violation? If that is the case, then so must be the act of cutting fingernails, toenails and hair. For argument sake, it is not necessary to cut hair, but for many people it makes life less stressful for an infant, if their hair is kept tangle free and out of their face. Whilst others believe with religious fervour that it is bad to cut hair at any time, (Sikhs are a classic example of this).

Some parents consider that in the best interests of their infant, it is best to cut their nails, to prevent the child from scratching itself. “My son's fingernails were long so I had to cut them right after his birth”
http://answers.yahoo.com.au/question/index?qid=20061024092359AANk8n0
Whilst people from different cultures do not. For example, in Asia, long fingernails on men, signify that they do not do much manual labour.

Many parents opt to have braces attached to the perfectly good functioning teeth of their children, regardless of whether it is really necessary or not. Some parents put their personal fears and desires ahead of the true benefits to their children. Aesthetically, some parents might consider buck teeth, to be not so pleasing to the eye, others may feel the same way about foreskins, whilst others extol the magnificence of the hooded cobra in its natural habitat.

Medically, ethically and anything else that ends in “lly”, it could be said that buck teeth may damage the jaw and foreskin removal is mutilation which outstrips any reasonable medical reasoning for the procedure. I am certain that medical and ethical arguments could be made, supporting and damning both. It is left to the parents to weigh the argument and assert their decision. Just as it is for them to assert their right to name their child. A name that the child will officially bear until the child reaches the stage of development, when it can assert its own choice, should they so desire it.

Children are not born independent and are totally reliable on the actions and decisions made by its parents for survival. Parents must make constant decisions on behalf of their children, whose welfare is totally dependant on these decisions.. They care for their child using the knowledge they have obtained during their personal experience of life. This knowledge is tapped and asserted as the rights of guardianship of the children they are raising.

Inoculation, dentistry, food, sleep times, play, education, are excellent examples of parents asserting the rights of their children, over their children, on a consistent basis. Parents must assert the rights of their infant. The right assumed by the parent over their child will diminish in accordance to the development of the child. Some children, for example those suffering from of Downs Syndrome, will have varying levels of development and therefore the parents must continue to assert the rights of their child, as the child approaches adulthood and perhaps for life. Parents are legally bound to do this. If a parent fails to assert the rights of their children, then they are held accountable for their failure.

Society values the rights of children and has laid down certain rules, in accordance to the protection and welfare of children. Here is where the argument really starts. Circumcision is not deemed by society to be illegal, some shun the practise, others embrace it. Child abuse is deemed by society to be one of the most heinous of crimes. To some, child abuse is a crime far greater than murder, yet society does so little to protect the most important part of a child's’ existence, namely “the mind”.

On one hand, society dictates censorship to protect its children from apparent corruption, whilst encouraging a more poisonous form of corruption, to permeate under the guise of religious teachings, rites and directives.

Perhaps it is time that society needs to re-evaluate the rights of children. I would certainly welcome this, but I do have reservations. Is society generally educated to a level that would be capable of doing this objectively?

or just a person who puts way to much info out on the internet?! Anyway, this issue just really gets me riled up. It is one of my soapbox issues, never failing to send me into a stream of upset ranting. Probably more info that anyone here needed in that last post, but good lord it is hard to be polite and ladylike when I get started on circumcision.

Kelly

Linz, seems that the main advantage you list of circumcised dicks is lower incidence of STDs. It remains to isolate the causes of that and determine if uncut fellas can take measures to avoid the higher incidence without too much fuss.

Just like with cleaning out the cheese. Hygiene's a big thing nowadays with people of both sexes doing a lot more grooming down there to keep it cleaner and fresher-looking -- shaving the pubes on a very-regular basis for instance. (Supposedly nature made real big bushes on the ladies to trap the scent to attract the males. That's not particularly needed now, and today a tidier bush wins out over "nature.") I know I'd be cleaning out there regularly at the first signs of cheese. I'd say the case is clearly in favor of going uncut if there's a means of counteracting higher STD risk.

Being hetero I have to view the aesthetics of the penis in a more "objective" fashion (not in terms of what I'd prefer, if you will), and don't see what's so aesthetically pleasing to the supposed majority of pollees who say they prefer cut penii. Aesthetically, I'd have thought an uncut, cheese-free dick is an obvious winner.

Kelly, you titillater, you!

James H-N:

Wow, there's a code of social responsibility for broadcasters in New Zealand? What would they do with Howard Stern?

BTW, Howard Stern is now available in streaming form over the internet from sirius.com. The whole world can hear him now and hear/judge for themselves how good he is at what he does. Linz has some standards to reach for as a radio entertainer.