Topic: is it true that...

[mishca09]

is it true, that if you dont use the right toilet paper you may not feel comfortable after…. ya know?

does toilet paper really add to your confidence?

[8ullfrog]

Having a roommate who uses toilet paper like a woman has educated me on this point.

My family has always spent the money to get the good paper. Only time I had single ply was out camping or using the toilets at the beach.

Roommate buys the 7-11 single ply. It's noticeable.

He never puts it on the spool either, he just leaves it on top of the toilet.

Good news is he doesn't seem to know where the roll is, so we let him have his lousy one ply on top of the toilet, and just don't tell him.

He also throws the last third of the roll away. You would think someone that cheap would use it down to the cardboard.

I've also ended up pissing in the yard more than I'd like.

[mishca09]

I'm a little confused, your roommate uses toilet paper like a woman?

[8ullfrog]

From what I've seen women tend to use more toilet paper than men.

This is not the case with my roommate.

[smokester]

I find toilet paper like wine: generally you buy what is relatively cheap but does the job, but now and again it's nice to splash out.

No pun intended.

[ohcheap1]

Yep. Im American. Is this accurate?

Prince George Being Circumcised? What Total TOSH!

Of all the ludicrous pieces of claptrap that I have heard spouted about Prince George, there is nothing quite so bonkers - so utterly fantastical - as this idea that the boy is going to be circumcised.

Where has this nutso idea come from? I know exactly where: the United States.

Over in the US, it is quite common for wee boys to be circumcised, whatever their religion.
Well good for them.

But because circumcision is rife in the US, some doltish royal commentators have got it into their heads that it's happening all over the world.

I can just imagine the newsroom conversation: "Hey! American boys get circumcised - so when's this Prince Georgie going to be done? Who's gonna do it? What will happen to the royal foreskin? Find out - now! The public has a right to know!" Ahemmm! Do I need to spell it out?

Circumcision is a rarity in the UK - and is generally only done for religious or medical reasons. To think that Prince William and Kate are even considering having their boy circumcised is just crackers. Not that we should ever let the facts spoil a good story, but...

You might as well speculate that Wills is going to have George's name tattooed onto his bicep.

Or that the young royals are thinking of having George's ears pierced. Or that Kate has been giving serious thought to eating the placenta. Now that would be a story.

I can just see Kate and Wills tucking into the placenta over a decent bottle of chianti - though unfortunately for us benighted Royal pundits, there's about as much chance of that happening as there is of a royal circumcision.

[ohcheap1]

Anyone else care to post a less dramatic answer? I didnt know this was a thing but I never slept with any british men either so go figure.

[8ullfrog]

He answered your question. Not his fault if you don't like the answer.

[ohcheap1]

 Clearly you do not agree with this procedure. Unclear why you would think that millions of parents choose to "mutilate"  their children. I get it. The point of this post was to gain knowledge of this subject not to be thrown under a bus for being curious. Let us all research.

Conditions that may benefit from circumcision

Paraphimosis is a medical emergency. The foreskin is pulled back underneath the tip of the penis, becomes trapped and cannot be returned to its original position.
Paraphimosis sometimes happens as a complication of a medical procedure that involves pushing back the foreskin for a prolonged period of time. Such procedures include:
•   an examination of the penis
•   a cystoscopy – a medical procedure where a thin, flexible tube (catheter) with a camera on the end is inserted through the penis and up into the bladder
•   urinary catheterisation – a procedure in which a catheter is inserted through the penis and up into the bladder to drain urine out of the bladder
Paraphimosis causes a band of swelling to develop around the penis, which can block the blood supply. If paraphimosis is not treated, the lack of blood supply will mean that the tissue of the penis will begin to die.

Balanoposthitis is inflammation of the foreskin, usually caused by a bacterial infection.
Symptoms of balanoposthitis include:
•   pain when urinating
•   a discharge of pus from the penis
•   inflammation of the shaft of the penis
Balanoposthitis can be successfully treated using antibiotics. Most people do not have further infections. Circumcision is usually recommended only in adults in rare cases where someone has repeated infections (recurrent balanoposthitis).
Urinary tract infections
•   A urinary tract infection (UTI) is an infection of the urinary system.
•   About 4% of boys have at least one UTI before they are 16.
Research has found that circumcised boys are 10 to 14 times less likely to catch a UTI than uncircumcised boys. This is because many UTIs are thought to be caused by bacteria that gather inside the foreskin before spreading to the urinary system.
However, most UTIs are mild and do not cause serious damage. Circumcision is usually only recommended if a boy has a risk factor that increases the likelihood of repeated UTIs. Repeated UTIs can cause kidney damage.
An example of a pre-existing risk factor is a birth defect that causes urine to leak back up into the kidney. This carries the risk of bacteria spreading from the foreskin, through the urine, and infecting the kidney. In such circumstances, circumcision may be recommended.

Circumcision is known to reduce the risk of catching three sexually transmitted infections (STIs). These are:
•   HIV
•   syphilis
•   chancroid – an uncommon STI in England that causes painful sores on the genitals
Research in Africa found that heterosexual circumcised men are 38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men.
It is thought that the foreskin contains special cells that attract the cells of the HIV virus. This means that uncircumcised men who have vaginal sex with an HIV positive woman are more likely to develop the infection.
However, it is still unclear whether circumcision has the same protective effect for homosexual men who have unprotected anal sex. There also seems to be no protective benefits for female sexual partners of heterosexual circumcised men.
Circumcision is known to reduce the risk of a man getting syphilis and chancroid. This is thought to be because:
•   the foreskin may provide a warm, moist environment, which allows the syphilis and chancroid bacteria to grow and multiply
•   the foreskin often sustains tiny cuts (micro-abrasions) during sexual intercourse, which allow the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream
It is estimated that uncircumcised men are:
•   twice as likely to get syphilis
•   10 times as likely to get chancroid

Cancer of the penis
Research has shown that men who are circumcised in childhood are three to four times less likely to develop penile cancer than men who are uncircumcised. This is because many cases of penile cancer develop in the foreskin.
However, cancer of the penis is very rare. On average, 400 new cases are diagnosed each year in the UK.
However, in some rare cases a person may be more at risk, for example if they have a family history of penile cancer or a weakened immune system. In such cases, circumcision is recommended as a preventative measure.

[ohcheap1]

female circumcision, which I note you didn't respond on - what is your position on that?

Apparently no health benefits what so ever and the MEDICAL community deams it mutilation.

Just like a double mastectomy - I just don't see everyone performing a double mastectomy on their newborn girls because it has a potential medical benefit in a small number of cases.

Back to the extreme and I think you know that. While females are the major carriers of breast cancer; childhood onset, unlike UTI's, is unlikely.

In general I neither agree nor disagree with this particular procedure.

So referencing it to "child mutilation" was just............ cant think of a parallel here.

PS - you asked about accuracy - I answered, and to reiterate "Yes, the quoted post was accurate".

Thanks for the answer to the question though. I have no male children nor brothers so I wasnt aware that this was not a wide used practice. I asked my sisters if they had their sons circumcised and they both said absolutely "Yes". And if you knew the women in my family, vanity is far from our reality. Ha!!

[ohcheap1]

According to the WHO, 140 million women and girls are living with the effects of FGM (female genital mutilation)" - just because millions of people do it, doesn't make it right.

Valid point. But I do give medical science some credit. If they say there is no purpose for this then it does leave the door wide open for criticism. I have never researched this topic nor do I know any women who have had it done. I have, however, heard MANY African women speak against it.

Did you ask them "why", then?

Of course. Those 2 things go hand in hand dont they? Both of their pediatricians said it was a healthy practice and advised it. BUT gave them complete control of whether or not to do it. My sister, who had her first recently, had a hard time deciding. She is doing so many freakish things with this kid I could start a new thread called "why women over 40 shouldnt have children with a complete idiot". Ha!!  But ended up taking the advice of our middle sister who circumcised her son.

[6pairsofshoes]

Wow.  That's a leap from toilet paper quality.

The main point of female circumcision is to deprive women of the ability to experience sexual pleasure in order to control their sexual behavior.  Many children who have this procedure performed experience related functional difficulties either in terms of urination, or infections and other problems related to reproductive health.  I've never read any studies that attribute a single benefit to this.

There are radically divided schools of thought about male circumcision, but there have been some health benefits associated with removal of the foreskin.  As far as I know, men's ability to experience pleasure during sex is not limited or impeded by this.

Both procedures appear to be linked to religious practices even though there is no reference to female circumcision in any religious scripture. 

[8ullfrog]

Penn & Teller did a bit on this on cowpoo!

The procedure did look particularly strange and barbaric, yet the people crusading for foreskin rights also came off as complete nutjobs.

But for sure, it's a controversial subject. I think little c answered it just fine in his first reply, and any "Dramatics" were down to that poster.

This isn't exactly a subject I'm keen on bringing up with mom, but I don't believe it was presented as "Optional" until fairly recently.

That being said, it's nowhere as bent up as a bris.

[goldshirt*9]

FGM - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23410858
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288530/FGM-Heartbreaking-letter-desperate-11-year-old-girl-learns-sisters-genitals-mutilated-aunt.html
http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2012/12/united-nations-bans-female-genital-mutilation/
it go's on and on and on and on and on and on.
Not very "wanted" nor do they have any choice on the subject.

 13yr old dies from fgm in the uk http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/unkindest-cut-13yearolds-death-shines-spotlight-on-rise-of-fgm-in-egypt-8657104.html
A horrific procedure

[6pairsofshoes]

Other than Muslim women, I know of no Americans who advocate female genital mutilation.  (Actually, of the Muslim women I know, none support this practice at all.)

In the U.S., circumcising males seems to have been part of the sort of obsessive hygiene practices that became standardized with the increasing power of the medical profession as the 20th century progressed (this is in addition to traditional Jewish practices).  Discontinuing or at least questioning this practice became an issue in the 1970's as an adjunct of the women's movement and the idea of returning to nature.  I know men in their 40's who were not circumcised because of their mothers' progressive stance on the subject.  I don't know of any health issues that they experienced, either good or bad.

8ully, I don't know what your situation is, how you feel about it, but it sounds like an odd topic to discuss with your mother, although I know she can be bright and wacky by turns, so who knows.

[6pairsofshoes]

True. But there are a shitpotload of African women that advocate it. Be careful, this could become a race issue, and then it will become compulsory!

Americans advocating something doesn't stop it being mutilation, does it?

1)  Many of the African women advocating the practice are muslim, although I don't think all of them are.  I see them as women, not members of a social construct (I don't really think race exists, biologically).

2)  I mention the U.S. because I had the impression that this thread was somehow linked to American practices. I thought it was you who had introduced the subject into the thread.  Genital mutilation is just that regardless of geography.

[goldshirt*9]

  there there there.Its not always about Christ.

[6pairsofshoes]

ohcheap1 introduced the topic of nationality by referring to the fact that she's American.  chrisT responded with a general observation about Americans tendency toward cosmetic surgery on their children's genitals or something to that effect.

In my normal sleep deprived state the whole business melded together.  But I think that chrisT and I basically agree on most of these points.

There is a thriving cosmetic surgery business in the U.S. that is aimed at enhancing women's genitals, to make them more attractive and functionally perfect.  This is another field of practice entirely, but it's more in keeping with chrisT's original observation, although it has nothing to do with children.  My various e-mail boxes regularly receive offers to enlarge the male member that they suspect I have.  So it's a practice that applies to both genders. 

Occasionally, as in the case of actress Jamie Lee Curtis, there are children born with varying degrees of hermaphroditism that require corrective surgery.  My understanding is that in most cases, surgeons tend to correct to the female side, probably because of the relative ease of the procedure.

[SACPOP]

While in the context of this discussion the word mutilate could be defended as correct in its most semantic, literal sense, the word mutilate also carries with it a malicious connotation, thus the use of the phrase "child mutilation" w/r/t the process of male circumcision carries implications of inherently malicious intent.

[6pairsofshoes]

@chrisT, thanks for the clarification.  I knew I'd managed to get the sense of it screwed up somewhere along the line.  Mutilation is in the eyes of the beholder, but I assume we have evolved in our present forms because things have a purpose and suit that purpose well, otherwise we'd be dead.  Medicine attempts to "correct" nature and to address its shortcomings.  Sometimes what it does is cockeyed, however noble its intentions.

There's also a series of odd surgical practices performed on animals, mostly dogs, where they cut or crimp tails to a mere nub and clip ears.  I've never understood this, either.

[8ullfrog]

This is a really bless'ed weird derail. I wish I had something to steer the thread back on course, it was interesting.

[6pairsofshoes]

The title of this thread is "is it true that"

The first offered topic was about toilet paper.  That subject appeared to have been exhausted when ohcheap1 interjected a brief news article about the new Prince, which generated subsequent discussion.  That's hardly a derail, unless you think the entire thread should be devoted to a discussion of bath tissue.

[SACPOP]

As it's been presented to me, male circumcision is performed in the interest of health and cleanliness, while female circumcision is intended deprive the female of sexual pleasure and subjugate the female sex drive.

If those are in fact the true reasons behind the separate acts, I can easily understand the belief that male circumcision is acceptable and not malicious, while female circumcision is unacceptable and malicious.

[brickbatz]

I like the thick toilet paper.

[8ullfrog]

I thought the thread was about answering questions about cultural context / a place of knowledge.

Such as "Is it true that opossums are an abomination?" to which the answer is "Of course they are, and cars are the cure."

Oh, I've got one! Why the golly do the british call Top Ramen "Pot noodles"?

[6pairsofshoes]

Me too.

But, in the face of received wisdom, Wikipedia (the ultimate expert in all things) says:

(My emphasis)

... and:

Only one of the five appears to sort-of-fit with "subjugation of the female sex drive".

Wikipedia?
Depends on whether you like having sex with a female partner who is capable of achieving orgasm.  If it's not important, then removing the clitoris is not a big deal, at least to the only people who appear to matter, men.  Being sexual seems to be an essential part of a healthy organism.  Removing the capability to experience that fully seems to have only one end:  stunting the organism.  I don't care if you are discussing slime moulds or women.  The end result is the same.  This, to me, is against nature.  Cutting parts of people off is a bad idea, unless you have a ruptured appendix or some kind of malignant tumor.  Those are pathological and should require medical intervention.  Cutting off healthy body parts seems contrary to the Hippocratic Oath.

And while I love thick toilet tissue, it does pose a problem with some septic systems.

[8ullfrog]

Makes more sense than any other definition I've heard.

Always figured Top Ramen was a brand thing, like "Best Noodles" since ramen is a type of noodles.

Prefer Yakisoba anyway.

Thank you for answering my question.

[6pairsofshoes]

They are noodles, and they are in a pot.

What has that to do with "Top", or "Ramen"?

(Is ramen the plural of male sheep?)

That sounds a very male point of view.

I wonder if the biggest problem is when women appear to be complicit in their "subjugation", and that is mildly irritating.

I don't believe that slime molds have sex. Nor do I think that they have orgasms. But I totally agree with the underlying principle.

Even thin toilet tissue can't be flushed in Malta.

If women weren't complicit, I don't think this practice would continue.  That's the most disturbing aspect of it, I think.

I've never been to Malta, but I believe William S. Burroughs liked to hang out there as it figures prominently in some of his novels.  Is it true that Malta and Yalta are in the same area?

[SACPOP]

Kinda like Canada and Granada?

[mishca09]

is it true that ikea furniture  is made in sweden ?

[6pairsofshoes]

It is designed in Sweden, but I don't think it's made there.  It seems too cheap.  Just checked wikipedia and I was right:

Although IKEA household products and furniture are designed in Sweden, they are largely manufactured in developing countries to keep costs down. With suppliers in 50 countries, roughly ⅔ of purchasing is from Europe, with about ⅓ from Asia; a small amount of products are produced in North America. Comparatively little production actually takes place in Sweden, though it still remains the fourth-largest supplier country (behind China, Poland and Italy). China accounts for about 2½ times as much supply as Sweden. For most of its products, the final assembly is performed by the end-user (consumer).

[goldshirt*9]

  

[dweez]

No, it's made in your living room.

[8ullfrog]

Or garage, but damn that wit is quick D.

[6pairsofshoes]

Horse meat is to meatballs what particleboard is to furniture.  I see zero conflict in Ikea's culinary policies or their design execution.

[SACPOP]

Ikea should sell fajitas or any food that requires the customer to put it together themselves.

I have no problem with horse meat. I'd knowingly eat it if given the chance, but I think it's bad form to start serving strange meats without warning a customer first.

That's what you get when you blindly trust a bunch of commie bastards like the Swedes.

[6pairsofshoes]

Fish like milk?

[goldshirt*9]

Fish like milk?

doubt it, I believe when milk is put in water it removes the oxygen and therefore "drowns " the fish.

[6pairsofshoes]

How does that happen?  Does milk contain a substance that binds with the oxygen?  That makes me wonder:  how do fish breathe in water anyway?  Do their gills break the bonds of the hydrogen and oxygen in the water or is there unbonded oxygen in the water?

BTW, I was thinking of the comic, Fun with Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman.

[goldshirt*9]

milk contains no H20

[8ullfrog]

And fat!

[chekovsulu]

That makes me wonder:  how do fish breathe in water anyway?  Do their gills break the bonds of the hydrogen and oxygen in the water or is there unbonded oxygen in the water?

Internet says that, like humans with air, oxygen is extracted from the surrounding water.  Gas exchange happens at the gills, where O₂ is taken in and CO₂ is released.  Like land lubbers. There is no chemical reaction taking place to break up the H₂O because oxygen itself already exists in the water.

They think they're people.

[goldshirt*9]

I don't know anything about fishes and aquaria, but I know that this is not true. Milk is nearly all H20.

my bad

Milk contains large amounts of proteins, sugars and fats, which are a valuable
food source for naturally occurring aquatic organisms including bacteria, fungi
and algae.
Usually the limited food supply in the water reduces or restricts the
population and growth of these naturally occurring organisms. A milk spill
however is an unlimited food source, and this results in a population explosion.
As the organisms break down the milk they use oxygen from the water. As the
population increases, the oxygen level decreases leaving none for the fish that are
present, causing them to suffocate.

tauranga.govt.nz

[6pairsofshoes]

That's all very well and good.  But the question wasn't whether milk or its consequences were good for fish.  It concerned whether or not they liked it.

Plenty of us like stuff that's bad for us.  Why should fish be an exception?

[chekovsulu]

I think we need to run our own experiment.  I couldn't find the answer within the first page of the internet search engine results.

I think Piranhas might like milk.

[8ullfrog]

Dweez is human like the rest of us!

[goldshirt*9]

why should fish like milk. they normally, without human intervention live in water and never see or taste or live in milk.
I suppose if you put fish in milk prior to cooking then i would think again they wouldnt care.

[goldshirt*9]

By this token, why would people like chocolate?

chocolate, whats that.
Succumb to subliminal and not so subliminal advertising .

[6pairsofshoes]

Or pickles?

[smokester]

It seems like we aren't the only folk that have these discussions.

We are just early, is all.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/the-troubled-history-of-the-foreskin/

Four pages of that article? For once I hope it's not mostly pictures.

I have the T-Shirt anyhow.

[6pairsofshoes]

The article was really substantial and interesting.  Thanks.

[dweez]

I'm a strong advocate against circumcision.  When, I got circumcised, I couldn't walk for a year.

[goldshirt*9]

  bragging or complaining

[smokester]

bragging or complaining

That was exactly my thoughts too.

[xtopave]

When, I got circumcised, I couldn't walk for a year.

LOL, good one, dweez!