# Msnbc This Morning



## sweetfiend (May 22, 2004)

MSNBC has an article about the controversy surrounding circ this morning and it comes with a poll! I was the first vote! Exciting to see that 100% against, until I realized it was only little ol' me.


----------



## alsoSarah (Apr 29, 2002)

Could you post a link?

alsoSarah


----------



## jamesong5 (Dec 5, 2006)

I voted !!!! But the pro circ's are out and voting scarry.


----------



## jamesong5 (Dec 5, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16776931/

try this


----------



## babygrant (Mar 10, 2005)

The votes are almost 50/50







:

I voted though.


----------



## snangel (Nov 27, 2006)

I just voted, no circ is ahead


----------



## stacyg (Oct 19, 2004)

No's are in the lead now!!


----------



## BamaDude (Aug 17, 2006)

Not perfect, but easily the most fair and balanced article on circumcision I've read in the mainstream press.

I voted.


----------



## Lizzardbits (Jan 21, 2006)

when I voted it was 40/60 with our lead







so keep voting people! Let them know that we want our boys left INTACT!!!!!


----------



## blsilva (Jul 31, 2006)

I voted! We're winning 68/32 right now.


----------



## guestmama9908 (Jan 23, 2007)

I voted too! We are winning!


----------



## 2crazykids (Jun 19, 2005)

66 no circ now!


----------



## guestmama9908 (Jan 23, 2007)

61 to 39 now!


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

60% now


----------



## Haydee (Jan 10, 2006)

The intact lead has dropped to 56%... get voting everyone!


----------



## stacyg (Oct 19, 2004)

bUmP


----------



## Amydoula (Jun 20, 2004)

I voted!


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

It's 57% NO now.

This quote from the article really scares me, though:

"However, recent studies have prompted the group (the AAP) to review its policy on circumcision, with a decision expected within the next several months on whether changes need to be made."

And listen to the crap spewed by the AAP prez:

"These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision's potential health benefits, says AAP president Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer.
"There have probably been hundreds over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV," says Berkelhamer."


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
It's 57% NO now.

This quote from the article really scares me, though:

"However, recent studies have prompted the group (the AAP) to review its policy on circumcision, with a decision expected within the next several months on whether changes need to be made."

And listen to the crap spewed by the AAP prez:

*"These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision's potential health benefits, says AAP president Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer.*
"There have probably been hundreds over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV," says Berkelhamer."

Yeah, I saw that, too. That could suck, especially given the bolded part.


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

Yes, scary








I was just coming here to post this, I'm glad someone beat me to it


----------



## 13Sandals (Sep 22, 2006)

i voted...the article brings up the New Zealand study - my personal pet peeve. I wrote the editor of MSNBC no less than 7 times with the link of the author's retraction - telling them to stop headlining that study..so I got to write again. the study is debunked - it should not be getting any more press. I do believe the journalists actually believe that if a study has been published, its TRUTH. They don't seem to understand that publishing only opens it up to peer review - and then follow up is needed....

anyway - I do like the way the poll is worded on the negative side - even summed up the argument that we don't cut off any other healthy body parts to prevent disease.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

It was 51% against when I just voted.


----------



## Haydee (Jan 10, 2006)




----------



## Treece (Apr 5, 2006)

It's 48/52 (yes winning)

I did notice that circers CAN'T agree on why but intactivists CAN. Yay go us!! We are united!! (72% of intactivists said ALL, whereas the circers 45% said health reasons, 43% said all, 5.4% conformity, 3.4 said religion)


----------



## Julz6871 (Jun 14, 2006)

I just voted, but procirc is leading now 52% Yikes!


----------



## 13Sandals (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Treece* 
It's 48/52 (yes winning)

I did notice that circers CAN'T agree on why but intactivists CAN. Yay go us!! We are united!! (72% of intactivists said ALL, whereas the circers 45% said health reasons, 43% said all, *5.4% conformity*, 3.4 said religion)

they are just trying to make themselves feel better by saying its 'medical'.. I don't believe that at all. they use dubious medical reasons to justify being conformist. imho







:


----------



## 2crazykids (Jun 19, 2005)




----------



## Rhiannon Feimorgan (Aug 26, 2005)

Oh no, we are down to 47%! Come on, Vote!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
"However, recent studies have prompted the group (the AAP) to review its policy on circumcision, with a decision expected within the next several months on whether changes need to be made."

And listen to the crap spewed by the AAP prez:

"These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision's potential health benefits, says AAP president Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer.
"There have probably been hundreds over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV," says Berkelhamer."

I wonder if these "recent studies", of which there have "probably been hundreds" have been done on properly cared for intact penises - or on penises that have been traumatized by ignorant medical professionals who can't resist retracting a still-fused foreskin. ARRGH!!


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

i voted!


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I wonder if these "recent studies", of which there have "probably been hundreds" have been done on properly cared for intact penises - or on penises that have been traumatized by ignorant medical professionals who can't resist retracting a still-fused foreskin. ARRGH!!

And what's the "probably" all about? Is he just pulling a number ("hundreds") out of his rear-end?


----------



## MommyTo3 (Aug 11, 2003)

I just voted. Now it is 55 Yes/45 No.


----------



## 13Sandals (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I wonder if these "recent studies", of which there have "probably been hundreds" have been done on properly cared for intact penises - or on penises that have been traumatized by ignorant medical professionals who can't resist retracting a still-fused foreskin. ARRGH!!


and some of these studies - including some quoted in the article, have not held up under peer review, but are still being touted as proof of medical benefits. things don't look good from the AAP perspective. i feel so sorry for these US boys - and for us as a society as well.


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

"If it was something that was clearly beneficial such as immunizations, I'd agree that parents have the right to make the decision," says Reiss, "but God made man with a foreskin for a reason."

Oh well, I guess we all have our blind spots.









...The voting is fast and furious!
I went back to do it again, and see whether the number went up to be sure it was counted. Uh... the number went up by 18 in the few seconds it took me to go back and do it again.


----------



## fishface (Jan 6, 2007)

I voted! bump!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
And what's the "probably" all about? Is he just pulling a number ("hundreds") out of his rear-end?

Yes.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

UUUgghh.
What an annoying article in many ways...

Ok, did anyone see the pros/cons comparison... HORRIBLE, and sited from the AAP

And how the internet is rife with incorrect information by intactivists... just for once I'd like to know WHAT information is so incorrect and be able to respond- but no one ever says what the 'bad information' is.

And then the Gay Men's Health medical website that was on a recent post... argh, now that's some BAD information (clean w/ antibacterial soap) Yikes.

Jessica


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

"No" is down to 44%.

(If you close your browser and then re-open your browser, you can vote multiple times.)

I keep going back and forth between the voting page and this page:

http://www.tampontification.com/donate.php


----------



## amyb15 (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetfiend* 
MSNBC has an article about the controversy surrounding circ this morning and it comes with a poll! I was the first vote! Exciting to see that 100% against, until I realized it was only little ol' me.

Let's all vote together.


----------



## Greg B (Mar 18, 2006)

Unfortunately, this article is pretty biased. It all but leaves out information on the foreskin sexual function, particularly glaring is the ommission of that information in the side bar on disadvantages to circ.

In addition it makes the "protection" from AIDS sound way too positive. It ignores the qualifications of the protection.

It is no wonder to me that many people are still strongly in favor of circ. We still have a long way to go in just getting unbiased information out there.


----------



## guestmama9911 (May 24, 2005)

I was just coming here to post about this. Definitely voted all of the above!!


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

Ugh. "Yes" is winning.









And the reason most commonly given? The stupid "locker room" and "to look like his father" "reasons."

I wonder if these people plan on sitting their 13 year old circumcised sons down and explaining to them that "they're circumcised because their dad is."

Hopefully they'll have the pepto-bismol ready for when their sons puke at the thought of their dad's penises.

All of the above is also winning the "yes" side, which includes the locker room false belief.


----------



## mntnmom (Sep 21, 2006)

It's disturbing that so many people are pro circ, but is it surprising?
But it is promising that this is a mainstream conversation! Where I grew up noone would DARE talk about something like this in public. How many people will atleast THINK about circ' who would have just done it because " that's what you do"?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bugmenot* 
Ugh. "Yes" is winning.









And the reason most commonly given? The stupid "locker room" and "to look like his father" "reasons."

I wonder if they're planning to have pubic hair transplants made, too? I've never seen a little boy's penis that looked like an adult one, circumcision status notwithstanding. What bizarre thinking.


----------



## Prensa (Jul 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
"No" is down to 44%.

(If you close your browser and then re-open your browser, you can vote multiple times.)

I keep going back and forth between the voting page and this page:

http://www.tampontification.com/donate.php


I don't understand this

it is a poll, if "no" wins it doesn't mean anybody actually "wins" something

the whole point of taking a poll on a topic is to get an idea what the public views are, if one person is voting multiple times it invalidates the whole thing, doesn't it?

why would you want to do that?

(I'm genuinely asking, because I am curious.)

to me it seems like it would be more informative to *actually find out* that 58% (or whatever) of the people who read this article and voted at the end *still* believe that circumcision is the thing to do, and see what reasons they picked.


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mntnmom* 
It's disturbing that so many people are pro circ, but is it surprising?
But it is promising that this is a mainstream conversation! Where I grew up noone would DARE talk about something like this in public. How many people will atleast THINK about circ' who would have just done it because " that's what you do"?

That IS a good start. Get them to question "should I really consent a doctor to put a knife to my son's penis when there's nothing wrong with it?"

If the thought crosses someone's mind, hopefully they'll research it.


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I wonder if they're planning to have pubic hair transplants made, too? I've never seen a little boy's penis that looked like an adult one, circumcision status notwithstanding. What bizarre thinking.


Those have GOT to be the top two reasons that infuriate/confound me. Little boys don't care what their dad looks like, and by the time they know what circumcision is, they could really care less what someone else has.

Just about the only time a child might care is if:
a) Their brother(s) is/are different
b) They notice that a friend is different and they ask why. I have heard stories that some kids will know the status of several of their friends, but they quickly grow out of that stage of their lives. And if they do notice (and they are at that "curiousity" age), it's usually entirely by accident and they know not to make a big scene of it.


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Prensa* 
I don't understand this

it is a poll, if "no" wins it doesn't mean anybody actually "wins" something

the whole point of taking a poll on a topic is to get an idea what the public views are, if one person is voting multiple times it invalidates the whole thing, doesn't it?

why would you want to do that?

(I'm genuinely asking, because I am curious.)

to me it seems like it would be more informative to *actually find out* that 58% (or whatever) of the people who read this article and voted at the end *still* believe that circumcision is the thing to do, and see what reasons they picked.


While I don't agree with ballot stuffing, if someone sees "no" more than "yes", they may realize that "hey, not everyone is doing it after all."

(And you know the other side is stuffing these polls, but that doesn't make it ok for us to stuff.)


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

I skimmed through several pages of comments, and I have to say I'm really disturbed at the amount of really obvious fetishists that have posted. I mean, REALLY obvious. uke


----------



## warrior mama (Feb 9, 2006)

I voted.


----------



## Kat_shoshin (Feb 16, 2007)

I voted... but now that I am expecting and can topically discuss it with my friends, it disturbs me how many think that they would get it done - just because.

I make my point without being pushy - that I don't feel I have the right to cut off a piece of my son's body without his consent. Most of my friends have not had children and aren't really thinking about these things yet; They feel that we won't be doing it because my husband is intact - but really - I don't believe in piercing a baby's ears either.

Luckily I live in Nova Scotia - the province in Canada with the lowest circ rate in the country - 1%. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edwa...ml#skip300x250

To get it done it costs over $300 and you need to do some serious planning to achieve it - very few drs. will do it and after 10lbs or 10 days it must be done under general anaesthetic in the hospital. My friends may think now that they would do it - but given the inconvenience factor it will be put to the test how badly they believe in it or not. My thoughts are - they won't bother because they just think they would out of default. Most have has more experience with circ'd penises and uncirced would be outside their realm of experience.

The article attached also shows that one province over - the rate is 33%. The difference? Price is one - the other I believe is acceptance that this is okay - normal. It's a very small province and really - it would only take one doctor to believe in it and charge so little to affect the whole provinces data in this way.

In the prenatal class I took we were told that it is risky and there are no real benefits to it. Some of the dads seemed confused and asked why it used to be done for health reasons. They were told that was based on inaccurate data and that we no longer believe that to be true. One guy kinda looked hurt. I think being told it was better for them was something they needed to believe.

53% no as of my vote.


----------



## krankedyann (May 28, 2005)

It's currently 47/53 in favor of no-circ.


----------



## Rhiannon Feimorgan (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kat_shoshin* 

Luckily I live in Nova Scotia - the province in Canada with the lowest circ rate in the country - 1%. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edwa...ml#skip300x250

Yay Nova Scotia! But last time I saw statistics, Newfoundland had a 0% Ric rate. Yes that's right, 0 baby boys were routinely circed in the last reporting year. (I don't think this takes into account religious circ or cases of some perceived pressing medical need)

That to me is great news! There are 2 provinces (3 if you count Qubec which also has realy low circ rates) where none or almost none of the new babies are mutilated!


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

The scary thing about readng all the replies on the discusson secton is that it very much gives the impression that parents have to retract and clean the foreskin.

Jessica


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

NO is up to 59%

I'm afraid to go and read the comments... I've been so blissfully unaware that fetishists actually exist


----------



## QuietTempest (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *13Sandals* 
i voted...the article brings up the New Zealand study - my personal pet peeve. I wrote the editor of MSNBC no less than 7 times with the link of the author's retraction - telling them to stop headlining that study..so I got to write again. the study is debunked - it should not be getting any more press. I do believe the journalists actually believe that if a study has been published, its TRUTH. They don't seem to understand that publishing only opens it up to peer review - and then follow up is needed....

anyway - I do like the way the poll is worded on the negative side - even summed up the argument that we don't cut off any other healthy body parts to prevent disease.

Can I get the link to information on the author's retraction?


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

Yeah! I'd love to see that, too!







:







:


----------



## Treece (Apr 5, 2006)

OK, I'm brave, um, sorta. I'm reading some of the messages posted on the Circ Poll. First of all the stupidity is mind boggling







:. It justs angers me. Why do I even bother reading it? DO I think I could possibly change the mind of one fetishist? I mean







what the







is wrong with these people? I don't get it.


----------



## MommytoHHH (Sep 12, 2006)

Voted


----------



## memz (Feb 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rhiannon Feimorgan* 

That to me is great news! There are 2 provinces (3 if you count Qubec which also has realy low circ rates) where none or almost none of the new babies are mutilated!

Just wondering...Quebec is a province of canada ...i think?


----------



## memz (Feb 1, 2007)

Just voted. 61 for the NO


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

65% NOOOO!!!


----------



## Kim22 (Jul 14, 2003)

Still 65% no.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Follow-up article on Msnbc:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17520298/


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

One of the great pro intact comments is from a woman who lives near me. I wonder if she is on this site.


----------



## guestmama9911 (May 24, 2005)

It always pisses me off when people use old men as an excuse. Let them decide to have it done in their later years, then!


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

Yeah. 200 babies die every year so elderly men may be even less likely to have an incredibly rare problem???


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

We were lagging for a while there, but now NOOOOO is up to 67%


----------



## CaraNicole (Feb 28, 2007)

i just voted! we are wining!

Do you think newborn boys should be circumcised? * 30615 responses
Yes *33*%

No *67*% If yes, why?
* 10492 responses
Religious beliefs.*3.7*%
Conformity. You don't want a boy to look different from his father or the other kids in the locker room.*5.4*%
Health reasons. It prevents diseases and it's cleaner.*46*%
All of the above.*40*%
Other. *4.6*%

If no, why?
* 20806 responses

The medical reasons aren't compelling. And even if they were, doctors don't normally cut off human tissue from infants to prevent potential health issues years later.*6.1*%
It's unethical. Circumcision is a medical procedure performed on a non-consenting human. Boys should be able to decide for themselves when they grow up.*9.6*%
It's cruel. Why are we putting babies through this?*4.3*%
All of the above.*78*%
Other.*2.1*%


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

Awesome


----------



## EricaLeigh (Apr 25, 2005)

I just voted I'll post a link to my friends!


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

68% No!!!!!


----------



## jaxinsmom (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *memz* 
Just wondering...Quebec is a province of canada ...i think?











I thought that post sounded a bit funny as well ~ the op must have just mis-typed.


----------



## jaxinsmom (Jul 24, 2006)

could someone please tell me what to look for to pick out a 'fetish' when reading circumcision sites such as these?

Would really love to know as I've been reading the discussion on the Msnbc board and some of the statments made are ... baffling ... truely, and I would love to know a few key things to look for to know that this person is probably a circumfetish.

Any help??

ETA -- this discussion board is at 46 pages







:


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

69%


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

Nauseating quote from that follow-up article:

Quote:

As an expectant mother of my first son, my husband and I never considered not circumcising our son. It was not a health issue that prompted our decision; it was the issue of imagining our son in the locker room in high school and being the only boy with an "odd-looking" penis. High school is tough enough without the added pressure of having an abnormality on your genitals. Circumcision has been going on for years and all men live through it. To us, there is no decision to be made.
HELLO! An "abnormality on your genitals"???!!! Honey, that's not an abnormality. That's the shape of a boy's body when nobody has taken a knife to it.


----------



## buckeyedoc (Nov 9, 2006)

It's amazing to see such informed and UNinformed comments posted right next to each other in the follow-up article! The religious one was not even accurate.


----------



## Attached2Elijah (Jun 27, 2004)

Buahahaha 71% no!


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

Holding strong at 71%


----------



## QuietTempest (Aug 5, 2004)

_It is also important to note that there are different means by which (to) circumcise. My obstetrician did not cut my son at all. Instead, she used a plastic cap, which ended up falling off the same day that his umbilical cord did. All we had to do was clean his penis with a cotton ball soaked in water when we changed him._
- *Brennan, Raleigh, N.C.*








: Sometimes a person's blatant ignorance or stupidity (take your pick) is just too much for me to comprehend.


----------



## bugmenot (May 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelGS* 
Nauseating quote from that follow-up article:

*As an expectant mother of my first son, my husband and I never considered not circumcising our son. It was not a health issue that prompted our decision; it was the issue of imagining our son in the locker room in high school and being the only boy with an "odd-looking" penis. High school is tough enough without the added pressure of having an abnormality on your genitals. Circumcision has been going on for years and all men live through it. To us, there is no decision to be made.*

HELLO! An "abnormality on your genitals"???!!! Honey, that's not an abnormality. That's the shape of a boy's body when nobody has taken a knife to it.

Agreed with you 1000%!

I'd like to know where that person is. Is she in the western USA where the circumcision rate is around 30% (or less), or out east, where the percentage is anywhere between 50-60%?

All men live through it? Uhhh... She hasn't heard that people have DIED from this operation? What about people (including teens) who restore?

And where does she live that high schoolers look at (and talk about) other penises in the locker room?


----------



## Genesis (Jan 8, 2007)

I voted.







I read the results and am glad No is winning, but let me tell ya though, that "cleanliness" argument is getting REAL old.


----------



## PNWmama (Sep 2, 2006)

I voted! No-circ is still in the lead


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Claire and Boys, please, oh so please, delete the quote. It's really sick and doesn't have a place here.


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

Sorry to cause offence, none was intended. Maybe I mised the intention, I thought it was satire (with the part about women who prefer circed men being shallow and ignorant.


----------



## juju's mom (Mar 30, 2005)

voted. No's still ahead!


----------



## txgal (Jul 16, 2003)

"*What is done to females is decidedly not circumcision - it is amputation,"* wrote Carol of Gainesville, Fla. "For him to compare the two either shows his ignorance of so called female 'circumcision' or is his attempt to employ scare tactics to advance his position."

Um okay, that makes total sense







: I think that is what can be so frustrating about this, is people complete lack of common sense. I used to have a button that said "through age and experience, I come to learn that common sense is not so common", so true.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

I voted too - NO is at 69%!

Why is it we've moved away from standard childhood tonsilectomy, but circumcision is STILL so prevalent!







:


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Claire and Boys, please, oh so please, delete the quote. It's really sick and doesn't have a place here.

Wait, did you read the whole thing?

(I can't find it now-where did it go?







)

As I remember it, it was very funny satire.
(my foreskin was so big I tripped over it, so stinky it was embarrassing?)
(so I finally got the "Calvin Klein" cut, and am now successfully married to a woman as shallow as myself??)


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

Yeah, it got deleted...

I checked, and the person who posted it is pretty vocally anti-circ on those forums.


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

wow, someone made a good point on there.....Re. The African study, the men that got circed probably could not have sex for a couple of months after the op while they healed.. I wonder how much that contributed to the alleged lower risk of HIV/STDs?

I never thought of that







:


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

I voted last night, but it's the same this morning as it was when I voted: 69/31. Maybe it closed after I voted?


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

Well, as of this minute there have been 38,459 responses.









It takes a lot of votes to move the percentage point, once the poll has been up for a while...


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

There's a new one. We're LOSING 53/47. Let's get'm, grrlz.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19294881/


----------



## mere2hayden (Jun 15, 2007)

69% said NO! YAY!


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

Not on the new one.









It's still 53/47


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

47% no! VOTE! VOTE!


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

hey 'look like daddy' folks! if your dh has buried penis, are ya goin' for that too with an 'extra high and tight' flaying? after all, wouldn't want to make daddy feel bad...you know, in the locker room comparing penises after puberty- er, uh, hmmmn.

wow, all those reasons ARE pretty sick, eh?


----------



## ramlita (Mar 26, 2002)

:









No has crept up to 48%...


----------

