Re: Male Virginity

Michael Bauser (
11 Oct 1995 23:39:45 -0400

In article <458389$>, (Michael Nakis ) wrote:

> In any case, even if the subject is not of interest to anthropologists in
> a direct way, it should at least be of interest in an indirect way, since
> within this subject lies the only explanation to the ritual of
> circumcision that I have ever heard of which actually holds water.

Wait. Do you hear that blaring noise? It's the Klaxons of Science
sounding an alarm about bad methodologies. Come on now -- you're holding
up a phenomena that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF as "the only explanation".
Your enthusiasm is pushing you towards hyperbole, and clouding your

Most scientists habitually ignore anybody who introduces their theory as
"the only explanation", because such people are usually wrong.

> I think I will keep posting my inquiry for a while before I can proclaim
> it to be an original theory of mine and go ahead to entertain you people
> with a full explanation.

I think it's safe to say it's an original theory. (You could always go to
a LIBRARY and look up "circumcision" in _Abstracts in Anthropology_, and/or
some medical indexes. Hint, hint.)

> A hymen (membranous fold of tissue) which constitutes an obstacle to
> copulation and which is inevitably torn at the first (or one of the
> first) occurences of copulation, resulting in a certain amount of
> bleeding.

You know that there are lots of uncircumcised men in the world, right?
Find some. Ask them if having a foreskin ever caused a problem. If
they all say `no', your theory gets a large hole shot in it.

Jeez. Doesn't anybody even fake research anymore? I know Bigfoot-hunters
with better methodology than this. Usenet is not a replacement for doing
your own work.

Michael Bauser <> 42 07 30 N, 83 08 30 W
<URL:> -- Almost presentable!
Finger for PGP public key.
I pronounce HTML as "Netscape-free markup". Live with it.