Re: Male Virginity EXPLANATION
31 Oct 95 02:16:00 -0400

In article <46ncss$>, (Michael Nakis ) writes:
> The following was originally posted in sci.archaeology, but I am replying
> to it in sci.anthropology so as not to bug the Archaeologists.

You should do the anthropologists a favour, and decide not to bug them either.

> In <46n7a9$> (ESilver291)
> writes:
stuff snipped out
>>Eric "a lurker"
> These are all questionable statements. Even if they are correct, they
> may perhaps be regarded as potential "benefits" of circumcision, but none
> of them could be seriously suggested as a "reason" for the invention of
> the ritual.

You're going to give a lecture on "reasons" for circumcision?
> Whether circumcision has any practical benefits or not as far as
> cleanliness is concerned is highly debatable. But even if we accept it

Well, you know about highly questionable suggestions!
> In fact, genital mutilation is such a drastic and desperate measure, that
> all these attempts to explain it without taking into consideration my
> Male Virginity Hypothesis sound rather whimsical.
Yes, you know about whimsical, too.

> Michael Nakis.

Isn't there an alt.fairytale group that you should be posting to?

Don't I hear your mother calling you?