circumcised? Your risk of hetrosexually transmitted HIV just went down by 70%

[imported_Reck]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
wow your description are really diverse - even after everyone explained to you that it's a simple cosmetic operation on the skin, you still use infantile exagerations like "slice up", "amputate", "cut off", "violating the body", "acting like a butcher", "mutilating". Sounds like you're describing a scene from a horror film

Ever seen a circumcision? It IS like a scene from a horror movie, especially if they don't use anesthetic.

I'm glad you've acknowleged that circumcision has no medical benefit. But explain to me this: What gives a parent the moral right to have unnecessary surgery performed on their newborn infant, and risk what you saw in that "Botched Circumcision" link a few posts back? Why shouldn't a child be able to make that choice for themselves when they are older and can communicate their wishes?

Here's another link for you: Infant boy bleeds to death after circumcision, 8-29-2002

yes I was present at many jewish "brith" (newborn circumcision ceremony) and while the baby usually does cry, the event's atmosphere is very joyful and happy.

And I still think it has health benefits, just read the thread title.

Accidents happen, you have a chance of getting killed every time you get into a car, and probably much more than the chance for a botched circumcision.

abusurd. social benefits? maybe as people are very shallow. religious benefits? don't make me laugh. jewish circumcision is a branding, similar to what farmers do to livestock. so much for giving the right to choose religion. of course jews at a bris milah are happy, it's not their genitals being cut up.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

since you and diddly can't be bothered to read links it seems.

The foreskin has twelve known functions.
They are:

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner

so how is it a good thing to destroy these functions?

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/

The "triple whammy"
The circumcised penis loses sensitivity in three ways:

1. Loss of the foreskin nerves themselves. As has been demonstrated by studies such as the one by Dr. Taylor and by the testimonials of the majority of intact men, the inner foreskin possesses a greater density of nerve endings. It is thought to be more erogenous than even the glans. The is no question that the foreskin is a highly erogenous tissue. This tremendous amount of sensitivity is lost completely when the forefold of the skin system is amputated. In addition to this, the most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum of the foreskin, is either partially or totally removed in most infant circumcisions. The frenulum is the continuation of the inner foreskin which attaches to the underside (ventral part) of the glans. Thus, a significant percentage, if not the majority, of erogenous nerve supply to the penis is removed in circumcision at birth.

2. Damage to the glans. The erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. This is further reduced by removal of the protective foreskin which leaves the glans permanently exposed. Unlike the shaft of the penis, and most of the rest of the body, the head of the penis, does not posses its own attached skin. This structure, like the eye ball and the gums of the mouth, is a somewhat naked structure. Its surface is non-keratinized, like that of the gums, the eye ball, and the clitoris in women. That means that it does not posses a protective thick layer like the keratinized skin of the outer penile skin system. Like the gums and the eye ball, the glans of the intact penis has a retractible skin covering. The skin covering of the glans is the foreskin. The eyelid is very similar in architecture to the foreskin. If the eyelid were removed and the eyeball were to become keratinized, you'd have a much harder time seeing. The same is true of the glans. It becomes artificially keratinized (dry, ha rdened, discolored, and wrinkled) as a result of permanent exposure, and thus less sensitive. Because most American men are circumcised and have a glans of this nature, it is harder to notice the abnormality. But just compare the glans of an intact man with that of a circumcised man next to each other and you'll notice a big difference. Thus, in addition to removing lots of erogenous nerve endings in the inner foreskin and frenulum, circumcision further desensitizes the remaining sensitivity of the glans by leaving it exposed.

3. Loss of skin mobility. The nerve endings in the glans are predominantly complex touch receptors also known as mechanoreceptors. This is different from the light touch receptors of the skin which detect surface friction. The mechanorecptors are best stimulated by massage action rather than surface friction. Thus, the glans is best stimulated to feel pleasure by a rolling massage action. With an ample and highly mobile skin system that rolls over the glans with pressure from the opposing surface, this optimal stimulation of the glans is achieved while avoiding direct friction of the delicate glans surface. Direct friction tends to fire off pain receptors causing irritation and also causes further keratinization of the glans. With the skin system of the penis significantly reduced by circumcision, the mobility is essentially gone and now the penis is a static mass with no dynamic self stimulation mechanism. Now, it must be rubbed. Direct friction is now the primary form of stimulation. So then circumcision further reduces erogenous sensitivity in the penis by reducing skin mobility and thus the ability to use the foreskin to massage the glans. The combination of foreskin and glans in concert results in an even higher level of stimulation which is unknown to the circumcised male.


Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.

From the original article. Hardly a study to be trusted now is it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For every article on the net like you've found there is another one proclaiming the benefits of circumcision:

Are there benefits from circumcision?
There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

you can do better than linking to a circumcision fetish site. :disgust:

those stats are absolute bs.

penile cancer affects about 1 in 100,000 men
cervix cancer rare as well, circumcision has nothing at all to do with women developing it
utis? gimme a break. i think having a open wound assaulted by urine and feces constantly is far more dangerous that a uti. utis are also perfectly treatable with cheap antibiotics.
hiv? i don't know there are a bunch of conflicting studies. if you have unprotected sex with unknown partners you deserve to get stds.

let's say you can save one in a hundred people from getting a uti or hiv. is it worth reducing the sex lives of ninety nine men? pro circ logic = gross failure

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Reck

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
wow your description are really diverse - even after everyone explained to you that it's a simple cosmetic operation on the skin, you still use infantile exagerations like "slice up", "amputate", "cut off", "violating the body", "acting like a butcher", "mutilating". Sounds like you're describing a scene from a horror film

Ever seen a circumcision? It IS like a scene from a horror movie, especially if they don't use anesthetic.

I'm glad you've acknowleged that circumcision has no medical benefit. But explain to me this: What gives a parent the moral right to have unnecessary surgery performed on their newborn infant, and risk what you saw in that "Botched Circumcision" link a few posts back? Why shouldn't a child be able to make that choice for themselves when they are older and can communicate their wishes?

Here's another link for you: Infant boy bleeds to death after circumcision, 8-29-2002

yes I was present at many jewish "brith" (newborn circumcision ceremony) and while the baby usually does cry, the event's atmosphere is very joyful and happy.

And I still think it has health benefits, just read the thread title.

Accidents happen, you have a chance of getting killed every time you get into a car, and probably much more than the chance for a botched circumcision.

abusurd. social benefits? maybe as people are very shallow. religious benefits? don't make me laugh. jewish circumcision is a branding, similar to what farmers do to livestock. so much for giving the right to choose religion. of course jews at a bris milah are happy, it's not their genitals being cut up.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

since you and diddly can't be bothered to read links it seems.

The foreskin has twelve known functions.
They are:

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner

so how is it a good thing to destroy these functions?

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/

The "triple whammy"
The circumcised penis loses sensitivity in three ways:

1. Loss of the foreskin nerves themselves. As has been demonstrated by studies such as the one by Dr. Taylor and by the testimonials of the majority of intact men, the inner foreskin possesses a greater density of nerve endings. It is thought to be more erogenous than even the glans. The is no question that the foreskin is a highly erogenous tissue. This tremendous amount of sensitivity is lost completely when the forefold of the skin system is amputated. In addition to this, the most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum of the foreskin, is either partially or totally removed in most infant circumcisions. The frenulum is the continuation of the inner foreskin which attaches to the underside (ventral part) of the glans. Thus, a significant percentage, if not the majority, of erogenous nerve supply to the penis is removed in circumcision at birth.

2. Damage to the glans. The erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. This is further reduced by removal of the protective foreskin which leaves the glans permanently exposed. Unlike the shaft of the penis, and most of the rest of the body, the head of the penis, does not posses its own attached skin. This structure, like the eye ball and the gums of the mouth, is a somewhat naked structure. Its surface is non-keratinized, like that of the gums, the eye ball, and the clitoris in women. That means that it does not posses a protective thick layer like the keratinized skin of the outer penile skin system. Like the gums and the eye ball, the glans of the intact penis has a retractible skin covering. The skin covering of the glans is the foreskin. The eyelid is very similar in architecture to the foreskin. If the eyelid were removed and the eyeball were to become keratinized, you'd have a much harder time seeing. The same is true of the glans. It becomes artificially keratinized (dry, ha rdened, discolored, and wrinkled) as a result of permanent exposure, and thus less sensitive. Because most American men are circumcised and have a glans of this nature, it is harder to notice the abnormality. But just compare the glans of an intact man with that of a circumcised man next to each other and you'll notice a big difference. Thus, in addition to removing lots of erogenous nerve endings in the inner foreskin and frenulum, circumcision further desensitizes the remaining sensitivity of the glans by leaving it exposed.

3. Loss of skin mobility. The nerve endings in the glans are predominantly complex touch receptors also known as mechanoreceptors. This is different from the light touch receptors of the skin which detect surface friction. The mechanorecptors are best stimulated by massage action rather than surface friction. Thus, the glans is best stimulated to feel pleasure by a rolling massage action. With an ample and highly mobile skin system that rolls over the glans with pressure from the opposing surface, this optimal stimulation of the glans is achieved while avoiding direct friction of the delicate glans surface. Direct friction tends to fire off pain receptors causing irritation and also causes further keratinization of the glans. With the skin system of the penis significantly reduced by circumcision, the mobility is essentially gone and now the penis is a static mass with no dynamic self stimulation mechanism. Now, it must be rubbed. Direct friction is now the primary form of stimulation. So then circumcision further reduces erogenous sensitivity in the penis by reducing skin mobility and thus the ability to use the foreskin to massage the glans. The combination of foreskin and glans in concert results in an even higher level of stimulation which is unknown to the circumcised male.


Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.

From the original article. Hardly a study to be trusted now is it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For every article on the net like you've found there is another one proclaiming the benefits of circumcision:

Are there benefits from circumcision?
There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

you can do better than linking to a circumcision fetish site. :disgust:

those stats are absolute bs.

penile cancer affects about 1 in 100,000 men
cervix cancer rare as well, circumcision has nothing at all to do with women developing it
utis? gimme a break. i think having a open wound assaulted by urine and feces constantly is far more dangerous that a uti. utis are also perfectly treatable with cheap antibiotics.
hiv? i don't know there are a bunch of conflicting studies. if you have unprotected sex with unknown partners you deserve to get stds.

let's say you can save one in a hundred people from getting a uti or hiv. is it worth reducing the sex lives of ninety nine men? pro circ logic = gross failure

basically you are only going to believe what you want to hear.

and how do you rate calling that a "circumcision fetish site"?
you are wrong.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html

 

[moshquerade]

also, please read this:

http://www.circinfo.com/myths/myths_and_lies1.html

and this

http://www.circinfo.com/myths/myths_and_lies2.html

these links may be eye openers to some.

 

[imported_Reck]

yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

i repeat, it is not a fetish site. it is an information site.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html
show me proof to the contrary.

i am not for or against circumcision, but i am for squelching bulls!it.

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

but girls get to see it from extremely close proximity, not to mention checking its cleanliness with their tongue.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

i repeat, it is not a fetish site. it is an information site.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html
show me proof to the contrary.

i am not for or against circumcision, but i am for squelching bulls!it.

Then read these articles by another doctor. (Reposting for the sake of reiteration.)

Protect Your Uncircumcised Son A modern article with sources that takes each of the myths from the your site and discusses them.

The Case Against Circumcision The American history of this practice - Oh noes, the masturbation!

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

but girls get to see it from extremely close proximity, not to mention checking its cleanliness with their tongue.

There have been some gay men posting in this thread too.

Odor is something that can be fixed with soap and water - if its a problem. But personally, I don't like it if my wife smells too clean. I find her natural odors arousing. I'm sure there are women who feel that way about their men.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

i repeat, it is not a fetish site. it is an information site.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html
show me proof to the contrary.

i am not for or against circumcision, but i am for squelching bulls!it.

Then read these articles by another doctor. (Reposting for the sake of reiteration.)

Protect Your Uncircumcised Son A modern article with sources that takes each of the myths from the your site and discusses them.

The Case Against Circumcision The American history of this practice - Oh noes, the masturbation!

Both of your links come from a site for the magazine, "Mothering - the magazine of natural family planning."
sounds to me like they are against any artificial birth control, along with not changing anything you were naturally born with. of course, they are going to speak out against circumcision. :roll:

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

but girls get to see it from extremely close proximity, not to mention checking its cleanliness with their tongue.

There have been some gay men posting in this thread too.

Odor is something that can be fixed with soap and water - if its a problem. But personally, I don't like it if my wife smells too clean. I find her natural odors arousing. I'm sure there are women who feel that way about their men.

True but I doubt odor has anything to do with getting circumsized...it's mainly sweat around the under area.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

but girls get to see it from extremely close proximity, not to mention checking its cleanliness with their tongue.

There have been some gay men posting in this thread too.

Odor is something that can be fixed with soap and water - if its a problem. But personally, I don't like it if my wife smells too clean. I find her natural odors arousing. I'm sure there are women who feel that way about their men.

back to the original topic, i do agree that the foreskin harbors bacteria, like any fold of skin would so it is likely it would habor a virus just the same. the study cited is most likely valid.

 

[meltdown75]

sing to the tune of the Who's "Teenage Wasteland"

:music: penis posters... they're only penis posters... THEY'RE ALL POSTERS! :music:

 

[feelingshorter]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
please close this thread before it turns into a 40 page debate, there are about 10 others of that length.

that said, fvck mutilated cox.

you are uncut?

who wants to be

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

i repeat, it is not a fetish site. it is an information site.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html
show me proof to the contrary.

i am not for or against circumcision, but i am for squelching bulls!it.

Then read these articles by another doctor. (Reposting for the sake of reiteration.)

Protect Your Uncircumcised Son A modern article with sources that takes each of the myths from the your site and discusses them.

The Case Against Circumcision The American history of this practice - Oh noes, the masturbation!

Both of your links come from a site for the magazine, "Mothering - the magazine of natural family planning."
sounds to me like they are against any artificial birth control, along with not changing anything you were naturally born with. of course, they are going to speak out against circumcision. :roll:

When they say "natural", they're referring to non-medicated childbirth, breastfeeding, gentle discipline, etc, not NFP or Christian family planning. They're rather enlightened - they have sections of their forum for gay parents, single moms, etc. I haven't read anything about their stance on birth control, but judging by the rest of the site, I'd guess they're pro-BC. (What does BC have to do with circumcision? I'm pro-BC and anti-circ.)

What do you think of the articles? Sounds like you're attacking the messenger, not the message.

 

[HumblePie]

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: HumblePie

 

[HumblePie]

I'm a snipped guy from birth but my brother was not. My parents said they were NOT given a choice with me since I was first born. The moment I was born, they had look at me then the nurse grabbed me for what they thought was to "clean me off." As being born tends to leave some icky goo all over babies in terms of dried blood and other stuff.

When they saw me again, I had been cut without their consent and back in the 70's there wasn't a thing they could do to complain about it. I also WAS botched, done without anathesia, and I DO suffer a severe lack of sensitivity. Not that I can't get a hard on, but when it takes me hours of rubbing to cum... yah it's annoying. I have yet to cum with a parntner without forcibly jacking off at the end. I'm serious. They also did a bad job and I got a few "scars" from it. Although the scars have shrunk over the years.

bleh, I wish I had ben left uncut for THAT reason alone.

However, my brother doesn't have these problems as my parents forcibly told the hospital NO circ when he was born before they took him away.

On the other hand, my brother HAS complained of some girls "freaking out" when they see him uncut and limp. He tells me when he's erect, it makes no difference as it's not really covered, just when they see him limp. He's complained he's lost girlfriends here in the states over this.

THAT is the issue. He's had no medical problems or benefits one way or the other being uncut that I know of. I DO have problems but I've learned to deal with them. His problems have strictly been social where as I haven't experienced those social problems as I am the "normal male" in America.

This is the difference and WHY the majority of males get cut here. Female influence. Girls in the states like it so it gets done. There are also a few religous nuts out there that force their views of crap like this out too. I won't go into that can of worms beyond that line tho. I think every guy should be given the choice if they want it done instead of having it done automatically as a baby without consent. Cause once it's gone, there ain't no putting it back. It's not like a haircut and it'll grow back out in a month.

For those saying it's a parents RIGHT ad responsibilit to make decisions for children, Uhh yes and no. Deciding if a child has a candy bar or not after dinner is a decision a parent should make for a child, deciding to permanetly change their body unless it's LIFE THREATENING is not.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

i repeat, it is not a fetish site. it is an information site.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html
show me proof to the contrary.

i am not for or against circumcision, but i am for squelching bulls!it.

Then read these articles by another doctor. (Reposting for the sake of reiteration.)

Protect Your Uncircumcised Son A modern article with sources that takes each of the myths from the your site and discusses them.

The Case Against Circumcision The American history of this practice - Oh noes, the masturbation!

Both of your links come from a site for the magazine, "Mothering - the magazine of natural family planning."
sounds to me like they are against any artificial birth control, along with not changing anything you were naturally born with. of course, they are going to speak out against circumcision. :roll:

When they say "natural", they're referring to non-medicated childbirth, breastfeeding, gentle discipline, etc, not NFP or Christian family planning. They're rather enlightened - they have sections of their forum for gay parents, single moms, etc. I haven't read anything about their stance on birth control, but judging by the rest of the site, I'd guess they're pro-BC. (What does BC have to do with circumcision? I'm pro-BC and anti-circ.)

What do you think of the articles? Sounds like you're attacking the messenger, not the message.

here is what "natural family planning" means:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&...fmore&q=define:Natural+family+planning
you are interpreting it the way you want to interpret it.

and of course this Mothering magazine advocates natural (non-medicated) childbirth, breastfeeding, and "everyone is a winner" child disipline.

i have already said what i think of the articles. they are printing their views based on the fact they are against circumcision because they don't believe in anything "unnatural". they are trying to paint as non-rosey of a picture as possible.

i am not attacking the messenger, only countering the attack that said i posted from a "circumcision fetish" site for my information, which i did not, but then you've sited articles from a natural family planning site. their bias is not a surprise.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DidlySquat

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

but girls get to see it from extremely close proximity, not to mention checking its cleanliness with their tongue.

There have been some gay men posting in this thread too.

Odor is something that can be fixed with soap and water - if its a problem. But personally, I don't like it if my wife smells too clean. I find her natural odors arousing. I'm sure there are women who feel that way about their men.

back to the original topic, i do agree that the foreskin harbors bacteria, like any fold of skin would so it is likely it would habor a virus just the same. the study cited is most likely valid.

Hard to say if the study truly is valid. Some questions I have:
1) Do the men who were studied have similar habits? i.e. are they all married or in monogamus relationships?
2) Are all of the men free from IV drug use?
3) Are any of the men involved in work or cultural ritual were blood or other bodily fluids are shared?

Comparing men with significantly different lifestyles doesn't tell you anything and might be an indication of bias in the survey.

 

[Amused]

I have no preference either way, but...

I've read both the anti-circumcision websites and the ones that support it.

Of all that I've read the anti websites seem far more fanatical and less fact based than the ones that support it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: HumblePie
I'm a snipped guy from birth but my brother was not. My parents said they were NOT given a choice with me since I was first born. The moment I was born, they had look at me then the nurse grabbed me for what they thought was to "clean me off." As being born tends to leave some icky goo all over babies in terms of dried blood and other stuff.

When they saw me again, I had been cut without their consent and back in the 70's there wasn't a thing they could do to complain about it. I also WAS botched, done without anathesia, and I DO suffer a severe lack of sensitivity. Not that I can't get a hard on, but when it takes me hours of rubbing to cum... yah it's annoying. I have yet to cum with a parntner without forcibly jacking off at the end. I'm serious. They also did a bad job and I got a few "scars" from it. Although the scars have shrunk over the years.

bleh, I wish I had ben left uncut for THAT reason alone.

However, my brother doesn't have these problems as my parents forcibly told the hospital NO circ when he was born before they took him away.

On the other hand, my brother HAS complained of some girls "freaking out" when they see him uncut and limp. He tells me when he's erect, it makes no difference as it's not really covered, just when they see him limp. He's complained he's lost girlfriends here in the states over this.

THAT is the issue. He's had no medical problems or benefits one way or the other being uncut that I know of. I DO have problems but I've learned to deal with them. His problems have strictly been social where as I haven't experienced those social problems as I am the "normal male" in America.

This is the difference and WHY the majority of males get cut here. Female influence. Girls in the states like it so it gets done. There are also a few religous nuts out there that force their views of crap like this out too. I won't go into that can of worms beyond that line tho. I think every guy should be given the choice if they want it done instead of having it done automatically as a baby without consent. Cause once it's gone, there ain't no putting it back. It's not like a haircut and it'll grow back out in a month.

For those saying it's a parents RIGHT ad responsibilit to make decisions for children, Uhh yes and no. Deciding if a child has a candy bar or not after dinner is a decision a parent should make for a child, deciding to permanetly change their body unless it's LIFE THREATENING is not.

it's too bad you were "botched". did you ever think of sueing the doc that performed the circ? sounds like he totally ruined your sex life.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

i repeat, it is not a fetish site. it is an information site.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html
show me proof to the contrary.

i am not for or against circumcision, but i am for squelching bulls!it.

Then read these articles by another doctor. (Reposting for the sake of reiteration.)

Protect Your Uncircumcised Son A modern article with sources that takes each of the myths from the your site and discusses them.

The Case Against Circumcision The American history of this practice - Oh noes, the masturbation!

Both of your links come from a site for the magazine, "Mothering - the magazine of natural family planning."
sounds to me like they are against any artificial birth control, along with not changing anything you were naturally born with. of course, they are going to speak out against circumcision. :roll:

When they say "natural", they're referring to non-medicated childbirth, breastfeeding, gentle discipline, etc, not NFP or Christian family planning. They're rather enlightened - they have sections of their forum for gay parents, single moms, etc. I haven't read anything about their stance on birth control, but judging by the rest of the site, I'd guess they're pro-BC. (What does BC have to do with circumcision? I'm pro-BC and anti-circ.)

What do you think of the articles? Sounds like you're attacking the messenger, not the message.

here is what "natural family planning" means:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&...fmore&q=define:Natural+family+planning
you are interpreting it the way you want to interpret it.

and of course this Mothering magazine advocates natural (non-medicated) childbirth, breastfeeding, and "everyone is a winner" child disipline.

i have already said what i think of the articles. they are printing their views based on the fact they are against circumcision because they don't believe in anything "unnatural". they are trying to paint as non-rosey of a picture as possible.

i am not attacking the messenger, only countering the attack that said i posted from a "circumcision fetish" site for my information, which i did not, but then you've sited articles from a natural family planning site. their bias is not a surprise.

Actually, you are attacking the messenger. Did you even read the articles? Even better, do you know what the AAP says about circumcision?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Did you even read the articles? Even better, do you know what the AAP says about circumcision?

I do.

They aren't for it, or against it. They say it's a personal choice and stop short of recommending it. BUT, they do not recommend against it, either.

If you're trying to use the AAP as a source against it, you lose.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Reck
yes that is a circumcision festish site. uh god alot of the stuff that site claims is flat out wrong and deceptive. um btw you are a girl i am a guy i think i know a bit more about my anatomy that you do.

i repeat, it is not a fetish site. it is an information site.
http://www.circinfo.com/index.html
show me proof to the contrary.

i am not for or against circumcision, but i am for squelching bulls!it.

Then read these articles by another doctor. (Reposting for the sake of reiteration.)

Protect Your Uncircumcised Son A modern article with sources that takes each of the myths from the your site and discusses them.

The Case Against Circumcision The American history of this practice - Oh noes, the masturbation!

Both of your links come from a site for the magazine, "Mothering - the magazine of natural family planning."
sounds to me like they are against any artificial birth control, along with not changing anything you were naturally born with. of course, they are going to speak out against circumcision. :roll:

When they say "natural", they're referring to non-medicated childbirth, breastfeeding, gentle discipline, etc, not NFP or Christian family planning. They're rather enlightened - they have sections of their forum for gay parents, single moms, etc. I haven't read anything about their stance on birth control, but judging by the rest of the site, I'd guess they're pro-BC. (What does BC have to do with circumcision? I'm pro-BC and anti-circ.)

What do you think of the articles? Sounds like you're attacking the messenger, not the message.

here is what "natural family planning" means:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&...fmore&q=define:Natural+family+planning
you are interpreting it the way you want to interpret it.

and of course this Mothering magazine advocates natural (non-medicated) childbirth, breastfeeding, and "everyone is a winner" child disipline.

i have already said what i think of the articles. they are printing their views based on the fact they are against circumcision because they don't believe in anything "unnatural". they are trying to paint as non-rosey of a picture as possible.

i am not attacking the messenger, only countering the attack that said i posted from a "circumcision fetish" site for my information, which i did not, but then you've sited articles from a natural family planning site. their bias is not a surprise.

Actually, you are attacking the messenger. Did you even read the articles? Even better, do you know what the AAP says about circumcision?

yes, i did read the articles. did you read the ones i've linked?

it's still a case of the anti-circs saying one thing and the pro-circs saying another.
i tend to agree with Amused on those sitings.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

:thumbsup: for being a logical/good father! Your son will thank you when he grows up.

If the son decides that he wants the procedure done, he's going to hate his dad for not taking care of it when it was a baby.

At least he'll have a choice...

:thumbsup: