|
|
|
|
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 6:17:57 PM | It's all fine and dandy to say (if you are uncut) that you'd like to try it (cut)... only it's damned difficult to go back to the way you were if you change your mind!!
I say.. if you aren't cut, aren't experiencing any medical issues, then leave well enough alone!! | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 6:55:45 PM | crabstuffing....message 100.....how about not sleeping around. Stick with one person, then you don't have to wear a condom
 | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 7:32:50 PM |
crabstuffing....message 100.....how about not sleeping around. Stick with one person, then you don't have to wear a condom
I don't get it.
Where did I say I sleep around? News to me.
I can't wear a condom anyway, I have no penis. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 9:41:08 PM | Let's address the issues one by one shall we and in order of response:
Pete1978 - you equate circumcision with mutilation, while I equate it with helping prevent the spread of STD's. I think the problem is that you believe a minor operation is abuse - pray that you don't need your tonsils removed....lol.
Secondly, you cite an article which actually refutes what you're standing for!!!! I cannot say this enough, PEOPLE SHOULD READ WHAT THEY PASTE. The author is bemoaning the fact that condoms are not used by American men, and furthermore states that a reliance on circumcision as a means of STD prevention would be less effective than promoting condom use. Considering that the paper was written in 1999 and what doctors now know of the role of the foreskin in HIV infection, the author would actually be supporting my position, not yours.
Blairskimo: you asked me to back up what I say, then I point you to a series of links from newspapers and medical journals (from the Lancet - perhaps the best medical journal around) discussing the results of several series of recent studies, and your response was to prove to you that they are real???? Yes Blairskimo, the well respected and peer reviewed Lancet was trying to fiendishly lie to all of the uncircumcised men to make them feel guilty about them not being cut. And you say I'm not making sense????? LOL.....and yes people are lazy if before firing off a kneejerk response, they don't take the time to become informed. I was able to find those links within 10 seconds thanks to google - and those are just the ones that are online.
Then you say....
"Then you say this , which kinda has me confused after you basically state that those of us whom are uncircumsized are walking bacterial and viral fraps of infections"....
Where you got this from - I have no idea - please read my posts before commenting. You can be the cleanest person around, but if you have unprotected sex with a women who has HIV, having clean nails is not going to protect you.
Lastly, you copied this from my post and were wondering why it was there....
Japan has low rates of aids primarily because of higher condom use. Again, condoms are the primary means of avoiding STD's.....
BUT FORGOT TO READ THE POST THAT WAS ABOVE IT.....WHICH WOULD HAVE ANSWERED WHAT THE RESPONSE WAS ADDRESSING!!!!!
The rest of your post actually proves that you didn't read any of the links....cause if you did it would've answered your question.
"That there is more of a chance un-circumsized men will get girls sick and less of a chance that you wont cause your circumsized. I am not saying you are but that is what its sounding like to me."
ANSWER: the foreskin acts like a sponge - and therefore has a greater CHANCE of becoming infected while having sex with an INFECTED women. Your question has it reversed.
Shyblondee: while condom usage rates are notoriously unreliable - one really has two sources - the manufacturers and governments. Unfortunately, due to social/cultural issues, many countries don't study the issue, which means that the most reliable stats are from the manufacturers themselves. One of the biggest manufactuers is Durex, which releases a global survey every year -
The last year that actually asked the question of condom usage was 2003....
The condom is most popular in Japan (76%), Greece (64%), Spain and Taiwan (both 58%).
This is followed by another posting here from a trade magazine in 2001...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3374/is_11_23/ai_77579221
The condom market is on a positive upswing currently, but its full market potential may yet to be realized. "When you're talking about the condom category there's a perception that it's huge because of HIV/AIDS, the rise of STDs and the rise in teen pregnancy," remarked Carrozza. "The reality is, there's less than 20 percent of the adult [U.S.] population using condoms." Compared with condom usage in Japan or Italy, per capita usage could be much higher in the United States.
SO....unless USA has increased its condom usage 400% since 2003, its fairly safe to say that Japan still leads the US in condom usage.
So - I think that just about settles it....I don't mind answering questions, but please read what is posted and the links as well before asking questions that would be easily answered by doing such things.... | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 10:11:02 PM | | I have been with men of both. I did not see issues either way.As for preferrence I prefer the uncircumcised man. And I do know there is undue pain to your son even a newborn from this unfair surgical procedure.It is completely uncalled for. And extra cost because some insurances will not cover it. But I held my ground with both my boys and they were not circumcised.No problems you just teach them proper hygiene.I think it adds extra excitement.More sensitive. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 10:26:00 PM | There are studies that show that the transmission of HIV is greatly reduced if circumcision is in place.
BUT... these studies are all done in AFRICA where HIV is spreading like crazy.
Some central and southern African countries are experiencing HIV/AIDS prevalence rates for their general populations in the 25% to 35% range while more than 40 other countries of the world report prevalence rates of .2% or less
A recently published article suggest that the countries with the most HIV transmission are also those with the highest amount of prostitution.
This paper provides strong evidence that when conducted properly, cross country regression data does not support the theory that male circumcision is the key to slowing the AIDS epidemic. Rather, it is the number of infected prostitutes in a country that is highly significant and robust in explaining HIV prevalence levels across countries.
If circumcision is the key, why hasn't HIV/AIDS spread faster in those other non-African countries of the world that are predominately uncircumcised? If relatively wealthier developing countries in Africa, such as South Africa and Botswana, seem to experience greater rates of infection, why don't the wealthier developing countries of Latin America like Argentina and Brazil experience similar high prevalence rates?
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000543
You will see references below the article, some are a bit older but some are NEW.
Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. (2005) Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial. PloS Med 2(11): e298.
Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks J, Volmink J, Egger M, Low N, et al. (2005) HIV and male circumcision—a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies. Lancet Infect Dis 5: 165–73.
So! Ok, it's good if circumcising the men in rural Africa helps to limit the cases of HIV.
I'm pretty sure what we are talking about here... in the places where we live.. is that circumcision is NOT going to make any difference at all with the spread of disease.
So circumcising your boys isn't going to really prevent anything at all and it's just a matter of religious or aesthetic choice. Or just doing what everyone else does "just because". | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/31/2007 12:34:47 AM | sexyfunguy ! Judging by the way you act and communicate here there is no more need for me to converse with you. Look at the way you came across and try to empathize on how people will comphrehend what you wrote before launching in to a tirade of calling people lazy and accusing them of being "knee jerk-ish" when they ask you to back what you say . Ille say it again . I asked you for your referances to see where YOU were comming from . I know how to do searches on google as I am a TSR for a large computer manafacturer . Part of how I make my living is answering dumb questions for people trying to navigate the information cesspool you call the internet
Relax man . No one is attacking you | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/31/2007 1:41:04 AM | | Alot of people will defend circumcision for religious reasons, some women will say 'eww' to an uncircumcised penis again because of religious preference. If its not in your religion you don't have to practice it. If someone justifies it, keep in mind they may just be defending their religious practice (which is their legal right) so use your own discretion. But if it is in your religion you should be allowed to revisit what is best for your people. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:31:21 AM | Pete1978 - you equate circumcision with mutilation,
Which it is.
while I equate it with helping prevent the spread of STD's.
A condom is the best way to do that, circumcision might (I stress might) SLIGHTLY reduce the risks but as any doctor will tell you the benefits do not out way the risks, add to that the suffering of the child and associated problems.
I think the problem is that you believe a minor operation is abuse
It is a risky operation and it exposes the child to extreme pain and suffering and future problems, how can you not comprehend that?
pray that you don't need your tonsils removed....lol.
Pray that no-one forcibly mutilates you.
Secondly, you cite an article which actually refutes what you're standing for!!!! I cannot say this enough, PEOPLE SHOULD READ WHAT THEY PASTE. The author is bemoaning the fact that condoms are not used by American men, and furthermore states that a reliance on circumcision as a means of STD prevention would be less effective than promoting condom use. Considering that the paper was written in 1999 and what doctors now know of the role of the foreskin in HIV infection, the author would actually be supporting my position, not yours.
Not at all, it states that the benefits DO NOT outweigh the risks. It also states that it makes the use of condoms less effective, which as you agree is the best way to prevent infection, it blows your argument out of the water. 
Quote from http://www.bellybelly.com.au/articles/baby/circumcision-to-circumcise-or-not-circumcise
“No medical organisation anywhere in the world recommends routine circumcision of boys. Many organisations state that there is no medical indication for routine circumcision, including the RACP, the British Medical Association, and the American Academy of Paediatrics.”
Quote from http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
“This directory contains official policy statements of various medical organizations regarding non-therapeutic male circumcision, along with discussions of these positions. All known statements by national medical organizations are accessible from this page. No statement recommends the practice of non-therapeutic child circumcision.”
Edit:
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ It is an important subject and as such I will respond if I feel it is necessary. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, but I will always question ignorance and try to enlighten.
| |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:41:38 AM | Okay, Pete1978, we understand that you are completely anti-circumcision. Not everyone agrees with you. Repeated posts of cutting/pasting quotes and responding adamantly and rather obnoxiously to them is not going to change other people's opinions.
Can we all just agree to disagree on this one??
Personally, I think the child will be too young to really remember it anyway, and all the guys I do know that are cut, were happy that their parents made that decision when they were young enough to not have to sit through it at an age where they will remember it.
Some people aren't going to agree with me, but I don't really care lol
Cut away people, cut away... | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/31/2007 12:48:19 PM | and i've heard that most Canadians are CUT...
Anyhow, the un-cut vs the cut male organ, is really all about hygience and cleanliness, it doesn't really make a difference, it does look a bit different but i'm sure that those men who are un-cut can do the same job as the cut male organ.. Right...
I as a female, I prefere the male cut organ, but i havent' really been with Un-cut men before so its all about the man ...and if his package is un-cut ill deal with it, ifs its cut, then thats cool too.
and its also a good thing, the lil extra lol
Also, in the now, most doctors in america and canada are refusing to circumsize male babies, they say it isnt a nessessity and it costs a whole lot of money too..Most doc's refuse now..so in 20 yrs it will be the NORM to be UN-CUT, and the Cut males will be *different* | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/31/2007 3:27:47 PM | I'd say it'd take much longer than that.
Don't forget that religion and tradition are very powerful.
I'm cut, I was too young to remember it happening, so its not a painful memory. I don't get any complaints, so apparently other people are happy...just like me.
I don't see what the fuss is about. | |
|
| |
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 12:02:47 PM | ok I have been reading and thought I might toss in something here ,,,,For some the biggest reason to cut is only to prevent the boy from having to deal with the skin reattaching itself ,if it is slid back once and a while this doesn't happen.a hard on also prevents this from happening so once he hits puberty you wont have to worry about pulling the skin back once and a while,it becomes a favorite past time.
as far as sensitivity if un cut ??possibly ,,that might be a yes ,,one will have less if cut.,,.a young man has to much and an older man wants a little more so why not wait and let him decide if he wants to give up any sensitivity .The fact is it looks the same hard ,, I don't think cutting away some skin prevents it from growing any longer . ( dont even think about asking that question ladies ).preventing any infections?well if you wash at least a few times a week you wont face that problem,i have never thought aids could enter a body through the extra skin but ,,put a rubber on anyway ,,we in Canada seem to all shower regularly and have lots of fresh clean water to use.I am not sure about life in Africa?so its a parents choice ,,he wont mind if you don't as long as you keep him clean the first few years .the job is no worse then any other cleaning up of a diaper mess .....so i say let him decide later. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 12:12:10 PM | ok, I have been with only a handful of guys in my entire life and 2 of them were uncut.
I don't like it, I don't like the way it looks and It feels disgusting in the mouth.
If I liked a guy and found out that he was uncircumsized that would be it for me. Been there, done that, no thanks.
Just my opinion. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 1:14:14 PM | | hi jo, i cant talk from from a womans perspective, but i've still got my overcoat and it hasn't given me any probs. i shower twice a day, clean is clean and i dont see any difference when erect. i really dont think about, or have a problem with it. ( except in cold weather maybe. lol ) | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 1:37:13 PM | that's a shame i was gonna ask you out to dinner. women are made slightley different from each other down there, the size of labia wouldn't affect how i felt about someone, but i respect your opinion. anyone up for foreskin ? lol | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 3:07:17 PM | and yes didley 1956 down there, the size of labia wouldn't affect how i felt about someone,,
it would affect how it felt . | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 4:11:25 PM | I did not have my son cut because Mine kept growing back (you cant make this stuff up) and had to have it done three times..............SO I REMEMBER IT
didn't want to take the chance it was hereditary | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 4:32:02 PM |
I am circumcised, though if I had a boy I would have to think about doing it to him or not. I prefer myself not having the skin..because one thing comes to mind when I imagine myself having a foreskin: SMEGMA.
And one word comes to mind when i see comments like that...
SOAP | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 5:06:29 PM | That maybe the case, but to date it's still a Jewsih thing.
There is no medical purpose for doing it. It is done out of tradition.
What pre-dates Juadism? Zorastism? | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 8/1/2007 5:31:11 PM | Actually if you study ancient religons or ancient science
Most hygene methods were built around a scientific principal, wrapped up and packaged in religon. Bucause religon got more play than science in the old days
Circumsision was ALL about hygene. There weren't daily showers then.
Not eating Pork was about tricinosis. Modern day curing and butchering methods had not been invented.
The Gaelic and Celtic Druids used similar methods
As did the early catholic church | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 22
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
|
Home
login 
