Martwię się swoim penisem...

[Gość: mat]

Już pomijam to, że jest dość mały. Ale ma dużego żołądzia, który jest moim
zdaniem zbyt wrażliwy na dotyk - tzn. każde dotknięcie sprawia ból. Poza tym
podczas erekcji napletek nie zsuwa się do końca, bo jak już wspomniałem
żołądź jest dość duży. To chyba nie jest normalne?

[Gość: ktoś]

Żąłądź jest bardzo unerwionącześcią penisa, więc czasem dotyk palcem może
sprawiać bul, to normalne. A co do napletka, to jeśli się on całkiem nie zsuwa
to może to być stulejka. Należy udać się do lekarza od tych spraw a on coś
poradzi, być może będzie potrzebny zabieg obrzezania.

[kamaoka]

hehe, nie przejmuj sie tym opbrzezaniem:) to nie az tak:) moj chlopak tez mial
tak ze mu sie napletek nie zsuwal do konca, poszlismy do urologa, pan mu
podcial wiazadelka i teraz jest juz dobrze:) a nei zadne obrzezanie:)

[Gość: ktoś]

No czasem faktycznie nie jest potrzebne, no ale prawdopodobne

ale spoko

pozdro

[pia.ed]

No moze "obrzezania" nie trzeba, to byla taka niescisla nazwa.
Ale do lekarza musisz pojsc, bo pod napletkiem zbieraja sie brudy, ktorych
nie mozesz dokladnie wymyc.
Wielu Amerykanow jest obrzezanych wylacznie ze wzgledow higienicznych.

[kamaoka]

juz chcialm skomentwoac ze tych wiele amerykanow to zydzi, ale sie powstrzymam:)

[Gość: Halina]

Jak najbardziej katoliccy Amerykanie to czynia przu urodzeniu, wiadomosc na
100% pewna!

Halina nie pisz glupot!

[Gość: ;-)))))]

Halina napisał(a):

> Jak najbardziej katoliccy Amerykanie to czynia przu urodzeniu, wiadomosc na
> 100% pewna!


BZDURA!
Strata napletka wiaze sie ze strata zonow erotycznych ...

Obecnosc napletka nie ma nic do HIGIENY.

Zamiast klepac BZDURY warto aby popierac sie na informacjach naukowych!

Katoliccy AMERYKANIE "nie robia tego przy urodzeniu" szpitale popieraly
ta praktyke bo w ten sposob robily pieniadze ($ 150.00 za lebka od
ubezpieczen!) Byl to doskonaly dochod dla rzeznikow !!!

Jak ubezpieczenia przestaly placic za "obrzadki natury religijnej" ta
praktyka sie po woli konczy!

Circumcision as an alleged alternative to hygiene in prevention of penile
carcinoma is an oft voiced argument.
The author has quoted figures based on the 1971 national cancer survey (US) and
extrapolated from the unsupported assumption that all penile carcinomas
occurred in uncircumcised males.
More recent data calculate the relative risk in the US to be 3.2 times greater
in the intact male. Using the author's own source, the quoted incidence of
penile carcinoma in the US was one per 100,000 (1969-71). This is a comparable
incidence with that in Finland at the same time, where the circumcision rate is
less than 1%, of 0.5 per 100,000 (1970) with a 78% relative 20-year survival
rate.
Thus, I find Marshall's argument at a meeting of the Society for Paediatric
Urology, that one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week, for 25 years,
to prevent one case of carcinoma of the penis, enough to prevent me from
setting out on such a course.

Circumcision itself is, of course, not a riskless procedure, so its risks have
to be compared to those of penile cancer.

Sydney Gellis, MD, then a pediatrician at the New England Medical Center and
avid opponent of circumcision, wrote in 1978 that it was "an uncontestable
fact" that there were "more deaths from complications of circumcision than from
cancer of the penis" www.cirp.org/library/general/gellis1/ . This
comparison does not take into account that there remains at least some (if not
the entire) risk of penile cancer after the procedure.

Deaths from circumcision and related causes are estimated at 229 per year.

Circumcision in the neonatal period is contraindicated.14 The American Academy
of Pediatricians concluded: “There is no absolute medical indication for
routine circumcision of the newborn.” The American Medical Association concurs.

www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2003/

----->>>>>> 140 x $ 150 = $ 21,000 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! do banku rzeznika!

Jest to wylacznie obrzadek z powdow RELIGIJNYCH!

Typowa mutylacja podobna do tego jak w Afryce "obgryzano
dziewczynom "clitoris" ....

Jeszcze jeden ze skandalow medycyny amerykanskiej czasami nieslusznie
motywowany obserwacjami w szpitalach wojskowych i skutkami wojny
koreanskiej ....

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Medical%20analysis%20of%20circumcision
"Several groups have developed in the past twenty years to oppose circumcision.
Most of the groups are not opposed to adults choosing circumcision but regard
neonatal circumcision as a sexual mutilation, and consider it barbaric,
primitive, unnecessary, and dangerous. Most oppose infant circumcision in all
cases but many are particularly concerned when the procedure is done without
pain relief, still a common practice. Many of these groups try to avoid
vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid confusion with the adult
circumcision issue; the critics of the movement, however, often use such
vocabulary."



encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Circumsission
"Prevalence
Approximately one sixth of males worldwide are circumcised
www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/ ; the vast majority
for religious or cultural reasons. The United States For other uses see United
States (disambiguation)

The United States of America (U.S.A.), is the only country that still
practices circumcision routinely on a majority of infants for non-religious
reasons.

Routine neonatal circumcision in the United States grew out of a widespread
fear that masturbation caused various diseases, a view now universally rejected
by the medical community. Circumcision was thought to reduce masturbation and
other sexual behavior considered undesirable. Circumcision, depending on how it
is practiced, can have a significant impact on masturbation; see masturbation
for a detailed discussion.

Circumcision is now also dwindling in the United States. The rate has been
steadily decreasing from near universality in the 1960s to approximately 55%
today. While some states no longer pay for the procedure under Medicaid, more
than 75% of the states still do.

In most of these countries the predominant religion endorses circumcision, such
as Islam or Judaism."

Several groups have developed in the past twenty years to oppose
circumcision. Most of the groups are not opposed to adults choosing
circumcision but regard neonatal circumcision as a sexual mutilation, and
consider it barbaric, primitive, unnecessary, and dangerous. Most oppose infant
circumcision in all cases but many are particularly concerned when the
procedure is done without pain relief, still a common practice. Many of these
groups try to avoid vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid
confusion with the adult circumcision issue; the critics of the movement,
however, often use such vocabulary.

The goal of most of these groups is to end, and possibly even criminalize, the
forced circumcision of male and female individuals. Anti-circumcision groups
take a varying approach toward Judaism and Islam. Some make no distinction
between differently motivated types of circumcision, while others ask for
reform instead of criminalization www.noharmm.org/anti-semitism.htm .
Among Jews and Muslims, circumcision is religiously prescribed for all baby
boys, and in those countries where the population is mostly Jewish or Muslim,
circumcision is prevalent. Most Jewish and Muslim groups oppose the anti-
circumcision movement, as they fear that it could stigmatize or criminalize a
key practice of their religions.

[Gość: ;-)))))]

pia.ed napisała:

> No moze "obrzezania" nie trzeba, to byla taka niescisla nazwa.
> Ale do lekarza musisz pojsc, bo pod napletkiem zbieraja sie brudy, ktorych
> nie mozesz dokladnie wymyc.
> Wielu Amerykanow jest obrzezanych wylacznie ze wzgledow higienicznych.

Od kiedy RELIGJA jest nazywana HIGIENA!
Higiena muzulmanska, islamska czy zydowska?
Walisz jak krowa na lace!

Myj zeby nie bedzie problemow z higiena!

[Gość: mmm]

a wlasnie ze ma znaczenie dla higieny, a jak sie na tym nie znacie to sie nie
wypowiadajcie!! pia.ed ma racje! wiec na nia nie napadajcie!!
p.s nie zapomnijcie ze obrzezanie chroni przed co prwda rzadkim ale jednak,
rakiem prącia!! pozdro
p.s 2 zeby nie bylo... nie jestem zydem, a kobietą lekarzem

[Gość: ;-)))))]

mmm napisał(a):

> a wlasnie ze ma znaczenie dla higieny, a jak sie na tym nie znacie to sie nie
> wypowiadajcie!! pia.ed ma racje! wiec na nia nie napadajcie!!
> p.s nie zapomnijcie ze obrzezanie chroni przed co prwda rzadkim ale jednak,
> rakiem prącia!! pozdro
> p.s 2 zeby nie bylo... nie jestem zydem, a kobietą lekarzem


Ale BZDURY KLEPIESZ!
Przeczytaj sobie artykuly NAUKOWE a nie jakies tam wypociny ....

NIE MA, NIE BYLO i NIE BEDZIE ZADNYCH DOWODOW NAUKOWYCH ZE
OBRZEZANIE W JAKI KOLWIEK SPOSOB CHRONI PRZED RAKIEM!

Jako "lekarka" powinnas wpierw zrozumiec CO POODUJE tak zwango RAKA!

Badania naukowe jedno a ty drugie!

Czy dlatego ze masz miec dziury w przyszlosci w zebach to bedziesz
wczesniej usowac zeby?

Typowa glupota!

Rak zdarza sie jeden przypadek na 100,000 czyli 99,000 osob obrzezac aby
twierdzic ze mozna zapobiec w tym jedynym przypadku?

Tylko "lekarz" moze byc tak naiwny i tak glupi!

Circumcision as an alleged alternative to hygiene in prevention of penile
carcinoma is an oft voiced argument.

The author has quoted figures based on the 1971 national cancer survey (US) and
extrapolated from the unsupported assumption that all penile carcinomas
occurred in uncircumcised males.

More recent data calculate the relative risk in the US to be 3.2 times greater
in the intact male.

Using the author's own source, the quoted incidence of penile carcinoma in the
US was one per 100,000 (1969-71). This is a comparable incidence with that in
Finland at the same time, where the circumcision rate is less than 1%, of 0.5
per 100,000 (1970) with a 78% relative 20-year survival rate.

Thus, I find Marshall's argument at a meeting of the Society for Paediatric
Urology, that one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week, for 25 years,
to prevent one case of carcinoma of the penis, enough to prevent me from
setting out on such a course.

Circumcision itself is, of course, not a riskless procedure, so its risks have
to be compared to those of penile cancer.

Sydney Gellis, MD, then a pediatrician at the New England Medical Center and
avid opponent of circumcision, wrote in 1978 that it was "an uncontestable
fact" that there were "more deaths from complications of circumcision than from
cancer of the penis"

www.cirp.org/library/general/gellis1/
This comparison does not take into account that there remains at least some
(if not the entire) risk of penile cancer after the procedure.

Deaths from circumcision and related causes are estimated at 229 per year.

Circumcision in the neonatal period is contraindicated.14 The American Academy
of Pediatricians concluded:
“There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the
newborn.” The American Medical Association concurs.

www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2003/
Jest to wylacznie obrzadek z powdow RELIGIJNYCH a nie medycznych!

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Medical%20analysis%20of%20circumcision
"Several groups have developed in the past twenty years to oppose circumcision.

Most of the groups are not opposed to adults choosing circumcision but regard
neonatal circumcision as a sexual mutilation, and consider it barbaric,
primitive, unnecessary, and dangerous. Most oppose infant circumcision in all
cases but many are particularly concerned when the procedure is done without
pain relief, still a common practice. Many of these groups try to avoid
vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid confusion with the adult
circumcision issue; the critics of the movement, however, often use such
vocabulary."

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Circumsission
"Prevalence
Approximately one sixth of males worldwide are circumcised
www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/
; the vast majority
for religious or cultural reasons. The United States For other uses see United
States (disambiguation)

The United States of America (U.S.A.), is the only country that still
practices circumcision routinely on a majority of infants for non-religious
reasons.

Routine neonatal circumcision in the United States grew out of a widespread
fear that masturbation caused various diseases, a view now universally rejected
by the medical community. Circumcision was thought to reduce masturbation and
other sexual behavior considered undesirable. Circumcision, depending on how it
is practiced, can have a significant impact on masturbation; see masturbation
for a detailed discussion.

Circumcision is now also dwindling in the United States. The rate has been
steadily decreasing from near universality in the 1960s to approximately 55%
today. While some states no longer pay for the procedure under Medicaid, more
than 75% of the states still do.

In most of these countries the predominant religion endorses circumcision, such
as Islam or Judaism."

Several groups have developed in the past twenty years to oppose
circumcision. Most of the groups are not opposed to adults choosing
circumcision but regard neonatal circumcision as a sexual mutilation, and
consider it barbaric, primitive, unnecessary, and dangerous. Most oppose infant
circumcision in all cases but many are particularly concerned when the
procedure is done without pain relief, still a common practice. Many of these
groups try to avoid vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid
confusion with the adult circumcision issue; the critics of the movement,
however, often use such vocabulary.

The goal of most of these groups is to end, and possibly even criminalize, the
forced circumcision of male and female individuals. Anti-circumcision groups
take a varying approach toward Judaism and Islam. Some make no distinction
between differently motivated types of circumcision, while others ask for
reform instead of criminalization www.noharmm.org/anti-semitism.htm

Among Jews and Muslims, circumcision is religiously prescribed for all baby
boys, and in those countries where the population is mostly Jewish or Muslim,
circumcision is prevalent. Most Jewish and Muslim groups oppose the anti-
circumcision movement, as they fear that it could stigmatize or criminalize a
key practice of their religions.

Jezeli jestes tak jak twierdzisz "lekarka" to tylko potwierdzasz i
dokumentujesz jak glupi moga byc niedouczeni lekarze!

[Gość: achilles]

zaglądnij na strone www.stulejka.com

[pia.ed]

Zanim cos zrobisz z uwrazliwionym penisem, to zakladaj wygodne bokserki i
wygodne, nie obcisle spodnie!

[Gość: ;-)))))]

mat napisał(a):

> Już pomijam to, że jest dość mały. Ale ma dużego żołądzia, który jest moim
> zdaniem zbyt wrażliwy na dotyk - tzn. każde dotknięcie sprawia ból. Poza tym
> podczas erekcji napletek nie zsuwa się do końca, bo jak już wspomniałem
> żołądź jest dość duży. To chyba nie jest normalne?

Moglbys sie martwic jak by byl DUZY z malym zoledziem!
To jest tylko kwestja doplywu krwi!

Zamiast sie martwic zacznij ZYC!

Naiwnemu przeszkadza maly penis, a glupiemu murzynowi z MALYM MOZGIEM
duzy dodaje odwagi!

Mozg ci jest bardziej potrzebny od penisa!
Moglbys sie martwic gdybys mial za maly mozg, a nie za maly penis!


Odnosnie brzezania to oczywiscie homoseksualisci jak zawsze popieraja
obrzezanie bo latwiej kal czyscic zamiast wydlubywac z pod napletka!

www.babycenter.com/comments/baby/newborns/5036

Do goscia z Honolulu

[pia.ed]

Czasem piszesz madre rzeczy, ale nie zawsze!
Zydzi stosuja obrzezanie wszedzie gdzie sie znajduja na calym swiecie, bo tak
jest nakazane w ich pismie.
Natomiast obrzezanie w Stanach jest czynnoscia higieniczna. Czytalam o tym
kilkakrotnie.
Poza tym seria "Sex and the City", ktora musi byc oparta na faktach (akcja
rozgrywa sie w NYC) jeden odcinek poswiecila wlasnie temu tematowi.
Jedna z bohaterek spotkala mezczyzne ktory byl nieobrzezany, co spowodowalo
wielka konsternacje nie tylko u niej, ale i u jej doswiadczonych przyjaciolek,
bo ZADNA z nich nie spotkala w swoim zyciu nieobrzezanego mezczyzny!
Stwierdzenie ze do "one night stand" wybieraly wylacznie Zydow byloby
absurdalne!
Byc moze robi sie to juz rzadziej niz kiedys, ale fakt pozostaje faktem:
obrzezanie istnieje w USA nie tylko ze wzgledow religijnych.

Do "lekarki" pia.ed

[Gość: ;-)))))]

pia.ed napisała:

) Czasem piszesz madre rzeczy, ale nie zawsze!

ZAWSZE!

) Zydzi stosuja obrzezanie wszedzie gdzie sie znajduja na calym swiecie, bo tak
) jest nakazane w ich pismie.

Wiec jest to z powodow RELIGIJNYCH a nie higienicznych!

) Natomiast obrzezanie w Stanach jest czynnoscia higieniczna. Czytalam o tym
) kilkakrotnie.

To poczytaj sobie jeszcze raz:

Circumcision as an alleged alternative to hygiene in prevention of penile
carcinoma is an oft voiced argument.

The author has quoted figures based on the 1971 national cancer survey (US) and
extrapolated from the unsupported assumption that all penile carcinomas
occurred in uncircumcised males.

More recent data calculate the relative risk in the US to be 3.2 times greater
in the intact male. Using the author's own source, the quoted incidence of
penile carcinoma in the US was one per 100,000 (1969-71). This is a comparable
incidence with that in Finland at the same time, where the circumcision rate is
less than 1%, of 0.5 per 100,000 (1970) with a 78% relative 20-year survival
rate.

Thus, I find Marshall's argument at a meeting of the Society for Paediatric
Urology, that one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week, for 25 years,
to prevent one case of carcinoma of the penis, enough to prevent me from
setting out on such a course.

Circumcision itself is, of course, not a riskless procedure, so its risks have
to be compared to those of penile cancer.

Sydney Gellis, MD, then a pediatrician at the New England Medical Center and
avid opponent of circumcision, wrote in 1978 that it was "an uncontestable
fact" that there were "more deaths from complications of circumcision than from
cancer of the penis"

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gellis1/

This comparison does not take into account that there remains at least some
(if not the entire) risk of penile cancer after the procedure.

---)
Deaths from circumcision and related causes are estimated at 229 per year. (----

Circumcision in the neonatal period is contraindicated.

The American Academy of Pediatricians concluded:
----)))
“There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the
newborn.” The American Medical Association concurs.
((((-----
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2003/

Jest to wylacznie obrzadek z powdow RELIGIJNYCH!

Typowa mutylacja podobna do tego jak w Afryce "obgryzano
dziewczynom "clitoris" ....

Jeszcze jeden ze skandalow medycyny amerykanskiej czasami nieslusznie
motywowany obserwacjami w szpitalach wojskowych i skutkami wojny
koreanskiej ....

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Medical%20analysis%20of%20circumcision

"Several groups have developed in the past twenty years to oppose circumcision.

Most of the groups are not opposed to adults choosing circumcision but regard
neonatal circumcision as a sexual mutilation, and consider it barbaric,
primitive, unnecessary, and dangerous.

Most oppose infant circumcision in all
cases but many are particularly concerned when the procedure is done with
pain without anestesia relief, still a common practice.

Many of these groups try to avoid vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order
to avoid confusion with the adult circumcision issue; the critics of the
movement, however, often use such vocabulary."


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Circumsission

"Prevalence
Approximately one sixth of males worldwide are circumcised

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

; the vast majority for religious or cultural reasons. The United States For
other uses see United States (disambiguation)

The United States of America (U.S.A.), is the only country that still
practices circumcision routinely on a majority of infants for non-religious
reasons.
----))))))))))
Routine neonatal circumcision in the United States grew out of a widespread
fear that masturbation caused various diseases, a view now universally rejected
by the medical community. (((((------


Circumcision was thought to reduce masturbation and other sexual behavior
considered undesirable. Circumcision, depending on how it is practiced, can
have a significant impact on masturbation; see masturbation for a detailed
discussion.

-----)))) Circumcision is now also dwindling in the United States. ((((--

[dr-mengele]

W usa obrzezuja prawie wszystkich zaraz po urodzeniu. Mode ta zapoczatkowali
zydowscy lekarze,ktorzy uciekli przed nazistami do usa. Zaczeli wmawiac glupim
ludziom ,ze to dla higieny a na mysli mieli zgola co innego. Wiadomo,ze zyd nie
ma napisane na czoleze jest zydem, nie roznia sie zbytnio wygladem od
innych,ale w czasie wojny niemcy rozpoznawali ich po tym,ze byli obrzezani
dlatego zapoczatkowanie obrzezywania mialo raczej na celu brak mozliwosci
rozpoznania zyda po braku napletka.
Polki ,ktore rodza w usa musza wyraznie powiedziec lekarzom ,ze nie zycza sobie
tego zabiegu bo jelsli nic nie powiedza dziecko zostanie obrzezane.
Z ta higiena to jakis wymysl. Moze kiedys gdy zyli na pustyni i nie mieli duzo
wody mialo sens nie posiadanie napletka ,bo zanim zdazyl sie nazbierac "ser" to
sie wytarl w spodnie. Teraz gdy wszyscy maja dostep do mydla i wody taka
operacje uwazam za idiotyczna. Skoro bog stworzyl czlowieka z napletkiem to
zaczy ,ze do czegos on jest potrzebny,przeciez nikt nie odcina sobie np. uszow
choc w tym wypadku mozna by wmowic ludziom ,ze to dobre dla higieny,bo gdzie
bedzie sie zbieral "miod" jak nie bedzie malzowin usznych.

RZECZOWA ODPOWIEDZ

[Gość: pia.ed]

Nie mam tendencji do zwalania wszystkiego na Zydow, ale ciesze sie ze
potwierdziles to co napisalam przedtem, i za co zostalam zmieszana z blotem
przez pana rodem z Honolulu.