Which member of the US Olympic Men's Rowing team is intact?

Left to right:
Glenn Ochal, born in Philadelphia PA 01mar1986
Henrik Rummel, born in Copenhagen on 26sep1987 and moved to the US when he was 12
Charlie Cole born in NYC on 21jun1986
Scott Gault, born in Berkeley CA on 31jan1983

In case you could not tell from looking, it's Henrik the hunky Danish-American who has the complete package. What a shame that the otherwise attractive American-born men had their manhoods mutilated thanks to our senseless genital mutilation cultural custom masquerading as a "medical procedure."

These leave-nothing-to-the-imagination uniforms confirm something that was all too apparent at the San Francisco Pride Festival: the significant size differential between intact and circumcised men, especially for those who got clipped before puberty.

This article on the Peaceful Parenting website gives and explanation of the other differences between intact and circumcised males:

https://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/inta...gnificant.html

Warning: contains clinical images of intact boys, gruesome examples of freshly mutilated boys, and illustrations of the respective outcomes in adults. Intended for informational purposes only.

Actually, this photograph reflects the damage done by fluoride in drinking water and
failure to properly floss after meals, with additional damge caused by food preparation
in aluminum and teflon cookware and failure to apply sunscreen to one's anatomy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Intact Sonoma:

Left to right:
Glenn Ochal, born in Philadelphia PA 01mar1986
Henrik Rummel, born in Copenhagen on 26sep1987 and moved to the US when he was 12
Charlie Cole born in NYC on 21jun1986
Scott Gault, born in Berkeley CA on 31jan1983

In case you could not tell from looking, it's Henrik the hunky Danish-American who has the complete package. What a shame that the otherwise attractive American-born men had their manhoods mutilated thanks to our senseless genital mutilation cultural custom masquerading as a "medical procedure."

These leave-nothing-to-the-imagination uniforms confirm something that was all too apparent at the San Francisco Pride Festival: the significant size differential between intact and circumcised men, especially for those who got clipped before puberty.

This article on the Peaceful Parenting website gives and explanation of the other differences between intact and circumcised males:

https://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/inta...gnificant.html

Warning: contains clinical images of intact boys, gruesome examples of freshly mutilated boys, and illustrations of the respective outcomes in adults. Intended for informational purposes only.

---

To my eyes, Glenn, the first guy looks actually larger. A ruler would be proof.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Intact Sonoma:

---

Or take a cue from Archimedes and dunk them in a graduated beaker of warm water... now there's a research project! :thinking:

Amputating the foreskin removes 30-50% of the skin of the whole enchilada and affects the blood supply and lymph flow; therefore the average circumcised man ends up being around 30% smaller in overall volume and (of particular interest to hetero women) having less girth at the base.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

To my eyes, Glenn, the first guy looks actually larger. A ruler would be proof.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Intact Sonoma:

Or take a cue from Archimedes and dunk them in a graduated beaker of warm water... now there's a research project.

---

That may yield inconsistent results...:wink:

Rulers are a great tool for measuring just about anything because they're objective rather than subjective. Although objective results can interfere with our bias.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

That may yield inconsistent results...:wink:

---

Not to take sides on the circumcision issue — personally I believe in educating against circumcision while having mixed feelings about compulsory laws — but to my mind this post Is fairly detrimental to the integrity of the anti-circumcision movement. I guess dedication & desperation decree the low road.

Bigger pricks! studly studs! Olympics! size matters! check out the meat at Pride! Is the best way to push a political belief to play to the most absurd (and damaging) cliches about male sexuality?

Not to mention the privacy element. The intact Dane has a perfect right to speak of his parts, but did the other three likewise hold press conferences to flex their foreskins? Won't be long before Presidential candidates will be pushed to reveal all — God help us. When it comes to privacy and private parts, there's always that old problem of the slippery slope.

One has to go pretty far to "offend' me, but this does. YMMV.

Cheers—
Conrad

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Intact Sonoma:

Or take a cue from Archimedes and dunk them in a graduated beaker of warm water... now there's a research project.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

That may yield inconsistent results...:wink:

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Rulers are a great tool for measuring just about anything because they're objective rather than subjective. Although objective results can interfere with our bias.

---

However in this case, like quantum physics, the act of measuring may change what is being measured.: pinocchio: :wink:

yes indeed... another barrier to quantitative data collection!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

However in this case, like quantum physics, the act of measuring may change what is being measured.: pinocchio: :wink:

---

This discussion leads me to believe that SIZE DOES MATTER! (sorry guys....)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Intact Sonoma:

yes indeed... another barrier to quantitative data collection!

---

I don't see anything offensive in the post that started this thread. Of course, it's not a scientific or even very rational presentation, as the photo shown gives no accurate comparison of tallywhacker sizes, nor of the circumcised or uncircumcised status of each member, and even if that weren't the case, it'd be anecdotal. But I take it as a sort of joke intended to draw peoples' attention to a very serious issue. Kirsten ("Intact Sonoma") has done a lot of admirable work (and taken a lot of flak) fighting against this ritual child abuse. I don't think we can reasonably fault her for trying a different tack by approaching it more humorously, even if the joke was lost on some of you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Bigger pricks! studly studs! Olympics! size matters! check out the meat at Pride! Is the best way to push a political belief to play to the most absurd (and damaging) cliches about male sexuality?

---

The simple fact is that, as several studies show, penis size (especially thickness) does affect the sexual satisfaction of a significant percentage of women (and gay men), as well as being correlated with male self-esteem. This is not the world's most earth-shaking issue, but it's important enough to be mentioned, whether or not you're comfortable with hearing it. Kirsten and others have cited many more important reasons to illegalize nonconsensual circumcision here on Wacco, so if the issue mentioned here doesn't ring your chimes, I invite you to focus on the other concerns, such as:

* Circumcision is extremely painful. (BTW, some here on Wacco have said flippant things like "I don't remember the pain, so no problem!" The implicit lack of empathy for babies' suffering is appalling.)

* Circumcision kills an estimated 100-200 boys a year in this country alone (it's hard to get an accurate figure because the birth certificate doesn't usually mention circumcision as the cause of the infection or blood loss that kills the kid. After all, doctors don't want to threaten the legality of a quick procedure that's an easy money-maker for so many of them.) Botched circumcisions also mutilate (even more than "non-botched" ones) many boys per year, resulting in much suffering and even some suicides.

* Circumcision is not medically justified except in rare cases. Most, if not all, of the research claiming to correlate being uncircumcised with higher rates of this or that disease is fatally flawed. Even if some of those correlations are true, routinely cutting off a baby's healthy foreskin makes no more sense than routinely cutting off a baby's tits to avoid breast cancer later in life. Why not protect everyone from such a painful and permanent body alteration until they're old enough for informed consent--say about age 18?

* I haven't looked at the research myself, but I hear that some studies have documented a higher rate of certain psychological problems such as PTSD in circumcised men. I find this quite plausible, as they have survived a traumatic experience, even if they don't consciously remember it. Also, some studies have purportedly shown a higher incidence of militarism and other violence in societies which practice the most circumcision--presumably an extension of the psychological damage.

* As no less an expert than Moses Maimonides has stated, the purpose of the circumcision tradition is to decrease sexual pleasure--and it works! No matter how much sexual pleasure you may have had, you have no way of knowing how it might have been if your penis head weren't desensitized due to the loss of its protective covering. Foreskins evolved for a reason--duh! Also, some researchers tell us that the pleasure of the female partner of a circumcised male is also decreased, something I'd never heard about 'til I started studying this issue. Circumcision, and the notion that a circumcised penis (or vulva) is prettier or cleaner than an uncircumcised one, has a lot to do with deep-seated, puritanical disgust with our own genitals.

* There's also a gender equality issue here. All forms of nonconsensual female circumcision are illegal in the USA, including the most common type, a small nick of the labium which is way less damaging than male circumcision. Should we legalize at least some forms of female genital mutilation to achieve gender equality? I would argue that we shouldn't do that; we should illegalize all forms of nonconsensual circumcision for all genders.

* And of course, any such procedure in anyone below the age of consent is nonconsensual; the parents' consent is irrelevant, as it's not their body being needlessly permanently altered. Parents need to understand that their children aren't pieces of property belonging to them, and their kids' bodies aren't objects upon which to inscribe the symbols of their (the parents') beliefs. This is a fundamental human rights issue.

Quote:

---

Not to take sides on the circumcision issue — personally I believe in educating against circumcision while having mixed feelings about compulsory laws...

---

Conrad, to me this makes as much sense as saying "I believe in educating against rape while having mixed feelings about compulsory laws." My attitude used to be about the same as yours, but the more I'm educated about circumcision, the more obvious it is that it's a needless brutality which any rational person would support illegalizing just as we illegalize rape, murder and theft. For more education, I recommend this excellent website:
https://questioncircumcision.weebly.com/

Regards;

Dixon