FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Cut or uncut...
Cut or uncut...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I might just be very unobservant but I don't think I've ever had a cut one. Does it actually make that much difference to the experience? " You had better ask somebody else....I've only ever known mine cut, so can't possibly comment. The husband in question mentioned that she liked the skin of an uncut cock... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes no difference to me at all - other than that I'd imagine a cut cock is easier to keep clean! Xx" Not really. I clean under my foreskin twice a year whether it needs it or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes no difference to me at all - other than that I'd imagine a cut cock is easier to keep clean! Xx Not really. I clean under my foreskin twice a year whether it needs it or not. " lmfao...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Makes no difference to me at all - other than that I'd imagine a cut cock is easier to keep clean! Xx" Well that's all good then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A cock is a cock in my book "and not just in your book either I'd imagine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A cock is a cock in my book
and not just in your book either I'd imagine "For some of us with a foreskin it can be one of the biggest drawbacks in life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A cock is a cock in my book "Surely not? if you read some verifications there are various opinions gawjus suckable thick cocks that keep coming and cumming | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel. Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?" I quite like cut cocks. Ex husband had his done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one. " Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean??  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I guess some people come on here to act out a particular fantasy and they're looking for the right role? Who knows - you might be the perfect fit in someone elses story..." Or you might not make the cut.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one. Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean?? "Magic wand held under the tip of the cock creates magic. Sexy did it to a guy at a party and I could hear him yelling in a good way from another room. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one. Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean??
Magic wand held under the tip of the cock creates magic. Sexy did it to a guy at a party and I could hear him yelling in a good way from another room. "lol...well, I'll have to try and find someone to try that trick on me!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw, what do you call that useless piece of skin on the end of a man's penis?" ....its called a man! Boom boom | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No preference either way. Easier to wand a cut one. Nope, that's a new one by me as well...what the hell does 'to wand a cut one' mean??
Magic wand held under the tip of the cock creates magic. Sexy did it to a guy at a party and I could hear him yelling in a good way from another room.
lol...well, I'll have to try and find someone to try that trick on me!! "Done with competence it's very very good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut. Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits. All my boys are circumcised too." Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way. Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut. Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits. All my boys are circumcised too. Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way. Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really? A" its a myth that its cleaner..and there are no other proven health benefits..its a justification excuse...shame parents dont think their boys are perfect when they come out of the womb and have to start cutting bits off of them...my opinion. no difference op.. a clean one is great | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I honestly don't care if people have a preference for male genital mutilation or not. Seems a bit silly to me. " Yep!
I'm always curious how many circumcised guys (that didn't have it done for medical reasons) made the choice themselves?
Gotta love parents eh!
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut. Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits. All my boys are circumcised too. Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way. Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really? A its a myth that its cleaner..and there are no other proven health benefits..its a justification excuse...shame parents dont think their boys are perfect when they come out of the womb and have to start cutting bits off of them...my opinion. no difference op.. a clean one is great " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI. "How on Earth have you worked that out?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The husband in question mentioned that she liked the skin of an uncut cock..." Ewwww lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out? "Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples. "Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel. Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?" we are not bothered either way but accept that people have the right to say yes or no to anything on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
http://madsciencewriter.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-foreskin-why-is-it-such-secret-in.html?m=1 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok guys and gals. Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits. 1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision. 2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough. 3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%. So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits" if you dont believe that the pharmaceuticals dont run and make money by keeping people sick via the NHS..then i feel very sorry for you.. i guess you are one of these people that agree in sewing up little girls to stop them losing their virginity too early, that vaccinations dont cause autism and that you still give to the mighty charity of cancer research when the cure is already present and known but 'illegal'. and no one would get breast cancer if we removed them at birth..maybe you'd support this practice as a preventative also..don't answer that..its a rhetoric question. don't believe everything you have been told is true..do your own research, preferably not by google and mass media publications. however, mutilating people is not my thing..and cutting bits off of little boys isn't going to be, one of the things im going to give permission for, this lifetime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ramblings, pure ramblings" mutterings, pure mutterings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok guys and gals. Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits. 1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision. 2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough. 3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%. So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits" Vastly reduced??? And whats the incidence rate before and after? Three parts of fuck all before, slightly less after. Boys get infections from not washing? Then parent them properly! Many little boys get horrifically mutilated and scarred from circumcision, even when performed by a doctor. The WHO might promote it. In the 3rd world where access to clean water for bathing is scarce! A drop off in HIV pick-up rates of 30% is pretty much useless, as it still won't stop the circumcised men from spreading it to others. And it just gives the uneducated more ammo to say they don't have to use condoms. Oh yes, that 30% figure is highly suspect as there isn't a reliable control group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ramblings, pure ramblings" Would you cut off your daughters labia just to make it easier for her to keep herself "clean"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?" I've never had that be the reason I was shut down anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ramblings, pure ramblings Would you cut off your daughters labia just to make it easier for her to keep herself "clean"?" An unwarranted extrapolation. Im told that the guillotine cures 100% of sore throats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so. Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong. "What they say!!! FGM has no medical basis and is an attempt to prolong witchcraft of sorts and those who subject children to this archaic practice should serve 25 years in prison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok guys and gals. Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits. 1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision. 2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough. 3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%. So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits Vastly reduced??? And whats the incidence rate before and after? Three parts of fuck all before, slightly less after. Boys get infections from not washing? Then parent them properly! Many little boys get horrifically mutilated and scarred from circumcision, even when performed by a doctor. The WHO might promote it. In the 3rd world where access to clean water for bathing is scarce! A drop off in HIV pick-up rates of 30% is pretty much useless, as it still won't stop the circumcised men from spreading it to others. And it just gives the uneducated more ammo to say they don't have to use condoms. Oh yes, that 30% figure is highly suspect as there isn't a reliable control group." Then give WHO a call and ask them to stop promoting male circumcision as you dont like the idea of a reduction in HIV transmission. Rightly or wrongly, it helps. Yes there are better ways but that isnt the reality and the reality is real deaths of real people. It is so easy to pontificate over the rights and wrongs of the third world whilst sitting in a developed first world sofa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites."The WHO advice is based on Africa. The study most supporters of circumcision quote was performed by U.S. Scientists in Uganda. The NHS actually isn't supportive of this study. To quote their own website: "This study has important implications for the control of sexually transmitted infections in Africa, but researchers and commentators seem to disagree about the implications closer to home and in other population groups not tested in the study. The differences between the US and UK interpretations of this study may be more cultural than scientific, and circumcision has historically been much more common in the US. More research in areas with a lower prevalence of HIV will be needed in order to test the relevance of this study outside of Uganda." Not quite as positive as maybe you implied? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ramblings, pure ramblings Would you cut off your daughters labia just to make it easier for her to keep herself "clean"? An unwarranted extrapolation. Im told that the guillotine cures 100% of sore throats" Hardly unwarranted. You talk of circumcision as being a preventative health measure against something that is highly unlikely anyway. So the point of my labiaplasty question is pertinent, inasmuch as your point is. Ie. It isn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so. Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong. "If it isn't for medical reasons, and its done to a child who cannot give personal consent, that's pretty much mutilation to me, whether that's circumcision, ear piercing, tattooing or neck rings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok guys and gals. Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits. 1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision. 2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough. 3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%. So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits Vastly reduced??? And whats the incidence rate before and after? Three parts of fuck all before, slightly less after. Boys get infections from not washing? Then parent them properly! Many little boys get horrifically mutilated and scarred from circumcision, even when performed by a doctor. The WHO might promote it. In the 3rd world where access to clean water for bathing is scarce! A drop off in HIV pick-up rates of 30% is pretty much useless, as it still won't stop the circumcised men from spreading it to others. And it just gives the uneducated more ammo to say they don't have to use condoms. Oh yes, that 30% figure is highly suspect as there isn't a reliable control group. Then give WHO a call and ask them to stop promoting male circumcision as you dont like the idea of a reduction in HIV transmission. Rightly or wrongly, it helps. Yes there are better ways but that isnt the reality and the reality is real deaths of real people. It is so easy to pontificate over the rights and wrongs of the third world whilst sitting in a developed first world sofa." You said it! There are better ways. So why promote something which gives a false sense of security? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes i said it. There are better ways but i am a pragmatist. To take your comments and twist them a little is to follow the Catholic church teachings and say that the best way of avoiding STIs and unwanted pregnancy / murder of an unborn child is abstinence. With regards to NHS and circumcision i specifically referred the NHS to penile cancer and not HIV. The WHO i linked with HIV. I would not expect the NHS in the first world to usefully comment on the third world situation" The best (realisticaly) way of avoiding HIV sti's and pregnancy in the 3rd world is condoms. NOT allowing men to think they are immune to HIV because they are circumcised, is what should happen but it doesnt as they will find any excuse not to wear one. Even to the point if targeting virgins as they think this will also protect them! Penile cancer rates do NOT warrant circumcision. Why dont we take out everones appendix whilst were at it, "just in case"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Should happen but doesnt happen. Theory or practice. Death or possible life for some. Let the third world decide, not the first world holier than thou pontification" So you suggest we ship out all the red cross, WHO and medicine frontiers, so we don't pontificate ? Leave them uneducated and dieing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to have mine cut for medical reasons (very tight foreskin) It was certainly easier to clean after but if the skins normal it shouldn't be a problem. Sex wise I think about sex just as much, masturbate just as much and do last a little longer but that might be my age "No mate. Same here. I am cut since I was a baby. And I do last longer. Its not that sensitive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had to have mine cut for medical reasons (very tight foreskin) It was certainly easier to clean after but if the skins normal it shouldn't be a problem. Sex wise I think about sex just as much, masturbate just as much and do last a little longer but that might be my age
No mate. Same here. I am cut since I was a baby. And I do last longer. Its not that sensitive."How long did you last when you were a baby then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites."I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour. From the NHS website: "There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication". Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves. Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that. I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin."There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes. There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't know we had so many doctors on fab! Can someone help me with my allergies? Or does Google only hand out degrees for circumcision and fgm? -Courtney" There are experts on everything on Fab. I've never seen any of their credentials though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
xxx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't know we had so many doctors on fab! Can someone help me with my allergies? Or does Google only hand out degrees for circumcision and fgm? -Courtney" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. "When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing. There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc. The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.
There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.
The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things."I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.
There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.
The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.
I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. "Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. "I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant."I think it'd be ignorant to dismiss the primary link between all cases in the study. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.
There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.
The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.
I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. "But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.
There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.
The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.
I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.
But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were."Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.
There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.
The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.
I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.
Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV. "I'm not saying they're not exposed. I'm just saying nothing can be "proved" until the research is based purely on sexual contact with a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised non-HIV+ men. Some different tribes have completely different lifestyles and attitudes altogether and a lot of tribes "stick to their own" so to speak, so there is no guarantee that there is less exposure in one tribe than there is in another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. " So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.
There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.
The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.
I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.
Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV.
I'm not saying they're not exposed.
I'm just saying nothing can be "proved" until the research is based purely on sexual contact with a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised non-HIV+ men.
Some different tribes have completely different lifestyles and attitudes altogether and a lot of tribes "stick to their own" so to speak, so there is no guarantee that there is less exposure in one tribe than there is in another."Yes, perhaps, however the overlaying link between all is whether or not they were circumcised. It has been shown that those circumcised are up to 50% less likely to contract HIV, so it seems wise to advocate it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? " No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant.
I think it'd be ignorant to dismiss the primary link between all cases in the study. "I'm not sure that circumcision actually is the primary link. The variables are too great. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
When you look at how HIV can be contracted though that means nothing.
There could've been more HIV positive parents in one tribe who over time have passed it on to their children through vaginal birth/breastmilk, etc.
The only way you can really test that theory is to get a group of circumcised and uncircumcised men to fuck people who are HIV+ and test who has contracted it afterwards, but obviously that's not a feasible way of doing things.
I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases.
Having said that, I'm not suggesting circumcision as some kind of vaccine - just that there have been multiple studies which show those who are circumcised are statistically less likely to contract HIV.
I'm not saying they're not exposed.
I'm just saying nothing can be "proved" until the research is based purely on sexual contact with a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised non-HIV+ men.
Some different tribes have completely different lifestyles and attitudes altogether and a lot of tribes "stick to their own" so to speak, so there is no guarantee that there is less exposure in one tribe than there is in another.
Yes, perhaps, however the overlaying link between all is whether or not they were circumcised. It has been shown that those circumcised are up to 50% less likely to contract HIV, so it seems wise to advocate it. "Hmm, I think I'll wait for defining evidence. To me it's a bit like the vaxers vs anti-vaxers argument at the moment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion "So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cut cocks are less likely to contract or transmit a STI.
How on Earth have you worked that out?
Have a look in the old Interweb. Simples.
Yes, do that. Esprcially the NHS and World Health Organisation sites.
I did, and I'm seeimg conflicting information. The NHS don't exactly seem to be supporting the rumour.
From the NHS website:
"There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk and spread of STIs. However, this study was carried out in Uganda, and its findings are not directly comparable to the UK. The main reason for this is the large difference in rates of STIs between the two countries. Further research in countries with a more comparable rate of STIs would give a better indication".
Other organisations supporting the rumour seem to be either massively influenced by religion, seem to have different versions of said "evidence" or contradict themselves.
Most STI's are caused by any sort of contact so I don't see how removing the foreskin would decrease your chances of that.
I still maintain that someone who doesn't know how to wash themselves will still be a manky fucker with or without their foreskin.
There's evidence from Africa which suggests circumcision is helpful for lessening HIV transmission. It is from comparing tribes where circumcision is practised and those where it is not. It is lesser in the circumcised tribes.
There may be other factors but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV.
I think those other factors are probably a sight more relevant.
I think it'd be ignorant to dismiss the primary link between all cases in the study.
I'm not sure that circumcision actually is the primary link. The variables are too great."If you read any of the studies, you'll see it's the clear dominant factor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut. Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits. All my boys are circumcised too." Stop perpetuating myths. If you think that a circumcised penis is cleaner, you're utterly wrong. The reason you are desensitised is because you don't have a foreskin to protect your glans and without it, you don't have thousands of nerve endings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion
So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?"It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion
So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?
It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells. "I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud. You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer" So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion
So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?
It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.
I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.
You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it."If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not. You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? " No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel. Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?" Just revisited the original post. Oops. Sorry for hijacking it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer" Tend???? I'm one of four boys, none of us ever had infections. But then, we kept clean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion
So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?
It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.
I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.
You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it.
If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not.
You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at. "The body being compromised by bacteria? Thats just nonsense, as we stand more chance of serious bacterial infection from other means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion
So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?
It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.
I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.
You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it.
If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not.
You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at.
The body being compromised by bacteria? Thats just nonsense, as we stand more chance of serious bacterial infection from other means. "No, it's not nonsense. For example, look at immuno compromised people. They have more chance of contracting an infection due to their cells already fighting bacteria - they do not the capacity to cope. This is similar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer Tend???? I'm one of four boys, none of us ever had infections. But then, we kept clean." Agreed. It would be good if all boys were clean there but they arent. Thats life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect" The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... I'm not sure the studies should be dismissed so easily. You can actually trace the transmissions via a heatmap of Africa and there is a clear display of higher rates in areas where circumcisions are not practised. To say they're just not exposed to the infection would be wrong when you see the proximity of the cases. But behaviour plays a much bigger part in transmission. Different cultures have different behaviours. You can't hang it all on an inch of skin. As it were. Yes, but it's a strong enough correlation to suggest that circumcision helps lower transmission. For example, smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer but not all lung cancer patients smoked. It doesn't mean you dismiss the smoking as a factor due to there being other environmental/social factors. So HIV is now also transmitted by the foreskin? No, that having a foreskin has been shown to increase the risk of contracting HIV when exposed. Not sure how you came to that conclusion
So how does the absence of one, reduce the risk?
It hasn't been fully understood yet. It is suggested that with the foreskin, the penis harbours more bacteria (up to around 80% more) which makes it harder for the penis to fight off the HIV infection due to disrupting the activity of the immune cells.
I'm at work so I'm trying very hard not to laugh out loud.
You do understand how HIV is transmitted? HIV is transmitted through the blood/bodily fluids. An uncut penis is no different from a cut one when it comes down to spreading or catching HIV. If you catch it you catch it, not having a foreskin won't magically give you the ability to get rid of it.
If a patient is exposed to the infection, their body can fight it off if they have the capacity. Not all exposures lead to contracting HIV. I'm not sure you understood the previous point so I'll say it again - having a foreskin reduces the body's chance of fighting the infection due to the body already being compromised with existing bacteria. This is the difference between circumcised and not.
You're right though, I have already said it's not to been as a vaccine and it's certainly not magic, it's just how the body works. It's definitely worth advocating in high risk situations and it's not something you should laugh at.
The body being compromised by bacteria? Thats just nonsense, as we stand more chance of serious bacterial infection from other means.
No, it's not nonsense. For example, look at immuno compromised people. They have more chance of contracting an infection due to their cells already fighting bacteria - they do not the capacity to cope. This is similar. "But someone with a smelly bell end isn't seriously compromised, unless they already have a problem fighting off normal bacterial infections. Someone with aids for example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate "I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." " "Or teach you to use a condom" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom"" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa 
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't lecture on how dreadful it is to remove the body parts you were born with unless you are squeaky clean. I have broad enough shoulders to take the insults to my religion and, as i interpret it, to my family but dont expect me not to respond" The difference being that what I have had removed was done while I was an adult with a choice, not a great one but still a choice. I wasn't a screaming baby or young child with no choice but to go through with what was being forced on me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children. "If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.
If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them."Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children. "I have researched into the foreskin as it is something I would love to have but unfortunately it is not possible. Ok so they aren't available everywhere but they are in other countries where people still insist on circumcising their children. I don't think having the opinion to not do it and leave it up to the child when they are old enough to choose what to do to their own body is silly and childish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.
I have researched into the foreskin as it is something I would love to have but unfortunately it is not possible.
Ok so they aren't available everywhere but they are in other countries where people still insist on circumcising their children.
I don't think having the opinion to not do it and leave it up to the child when they are old enough to choose what to do to their own body is silly and childish."No but how you came to that opinion is silly and childish. You've ignored several studies just because of personal belief which is as bad as condemning doing it for religious beliefs (they're both unfounded). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate
I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them. "Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.
If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.
Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds? "Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate
I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.
Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective."I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.
If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.
Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds?
Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well?"To say it's not a suitable measure to take in places where HIV is rife just because the west isn't as affected is wrong. Appendicitis can be treated and cured anyway, HIV can be terminal in areas where medication is not widely available so I'm not sure that's comparable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate
I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.
Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.
I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure. "But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only. If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection. Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate
I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.
Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.
I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure.
But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only.
If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection.
Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms."It's been said that 95% of HIV infections come from sexual acts. Yes, condoms would be suitable in an idealistic world, as well as educating those at risk, however it hasn't been successful so far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate
I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.
Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.
I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure.
But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only.
If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection.
Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms.
It's been said that 95% of HIV infections come from sexual acts.
Yes, condoms would be suitable in an idealistic world, as well as educating those at risk, however it hasn't been successful so far. "But then could the same people who won't use condoms be trusted to advocate something if it CAN be proved? Me thinks it's fighting a losing battle either way but I still wouldn't advocate circumcision to reduce the risk of contracting HIV through sexual contact here unless there was definitive proof that it does, as opposed to people who already have the infection with no proof as to how they caught it. It could just as easily have been through saliva/blood transmitions or passed on by the Mother. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect The benefits being that you don't have to worry about washing so much and that the minute risk of cancer is no longer there? Oh and the invisible being in the sky will be happy for you to remove what you were born with. Ok, I'm sure all the children who are going through it/can still remember going through it think that they are good enough reasons to be mutilate
I think you're missing the point again. 69% of all HIV patients are in Africa. Post exposure prophylaxis isn't widely available. It makes sense to be proactive and suggest young men be circumcised due to the large risk. Of course, it shouldn't be forced but it definitely should be advised. Prevention of something as terrible as HIV can be worth it in those cases. You're confusing it as being something cosmetic when it could potentially help them.
Again though, I don't think it should be "advised" unless there's definite proof that it's effective.
I think that's fair as long as the risks have been considered. It should always be a choice, however I believe that the evidence is proof enough to support it being advised as a preventative measure.
But again, it can't be classed as real evidence unless the research is confined to sexual contact only.
If a lot of members of a tribe have the same mother or father who is HIV+, all of their children and their children's children and their children's children's children will have it, and the opposite for a tribe with "elders" who don't have the infection.
Also, surely providing medical training, surgeons, anasthetic and antibiotics would be more costly than providing condoms.
It's been said that 95% of HIV infections come from sexual acts.
Yes, condoms would be suitable in an idealistic world, as well as educating those at risk, however it hasn't been successful so far.
But then could the same people who won't use condoms be trusted to advocate something if it CAN be proved?
Me thinks it's fighting a losing battle either way but I still wouldn't advocate circumcision to reduce the risk of contracting HIV through sexual contact here unless there was definitive proof that it does, as opposed to people who already have the infection with no proof as to how they caught it.
It could just as easily have been through saliva/blood transmitions or passed on by the Mother."To be clear, I meant the WHO advocating circumcision. I'm not sure as it's definitely a big statement for anyone to make, but for me the evidence is adequate. I think it'll prevent future cases presenting. It won't prevent in those situations however contracting through sexual means is still the highest risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.
If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.
Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds?
Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well?
To say it's not a suitable measure to take in places where HIV is rife just because the west isn't as affected is wrong. Appendicitis can be treated and cured anyway, HIV can be terminal in areas where medication is not widely available so I'm not sure that's comparable. "I'm talking ABOUT the west! Yes appedecitis can be cured without surgery (sometimes), and a dirty penis can be made clean without recourse to surgery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
You're incredibly silly and have childish opinions. Hopefully you'll take the time to research the benefits before accusing people of mutilating children.
If it has no medical grounds (as in infant circumcision), its mutilation. Too many circumcisions get fucked up, and I've seen the consequences of them.
Do you not think prevention counts as medical grounds?
Not in the west. Should we have appendices removed just in case as well?
To say it's not a suitable measure to take in places where HIV is rife just because the west isn't as affected is wrong. Appendicitis can be treated and cured anyway, HIV can be terminal in areas where medication is not widely available so I'm not sure that's comparable.
I'm talking ABOUT the west!
Yes appedecitis can be cured without surgery (sometimes), and a dirty penis can be made clean without recourse to surgery."Ah right, I'm talking about areas in Africa. We in the West have the luxury of education and improved medical care, and they don't. It could be a simple solution to helping reduce transmission rates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect" There are absolutely NO health benefits to circumcision. If you want to mutilate your children in that belief, go ahead but please, educate yourself and stop spouting the crap that pro-circumcision folk use to justify their decisions. An uncut penis needs no special treatment at all until it NATURALLY retracts which occurs anywhere between ages 5-25. Then and only then, does attention to cleaning under the foreskin need to happen. Forced retraction causes a huge amount of pain and scar tissue which can then result in adhesions and problems into adulthood. If you come from a religion that circumcises all your male children, you will have little idea about a penis in its natural state. I won't be long, I'm just going to cut off the labia of one of the girls in my family, she doesn't need it so off they come! If any of you are brave enough, YouTube circumcision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body... I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't... " We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them. Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies. If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice. A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body... I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't... We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them. Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies. If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice. A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored." Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ? If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so. Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body... I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't... We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them. Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies. If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice. A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored. Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ? If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think... " Not every circumcision is performed in a sterile hospital room with anesthetic or even by a Dr. I am thankful that I can only go by what I have read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...although I like to circle the tip of my tongue under the foreskin mmm" or another knob under it lol (hmmmmmm..) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Haha!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body... I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't... We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them. Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies. If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice. A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored. Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ? If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think... " Really, I encourage you to Google 'circumcision board' and YouTube circumcision. In the USA, it is done in hospitals, by doctors, on babies with NO anaesthetic. The babies start by screaming in sheer tortuous agony and then go deathly silent when they go into shock to protect themselves. You would have had it done either under a GA or local and given analgesia and aftercare. Unlike the babies who have their open wound in a nappy covered in urine and excrement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body... I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't... We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them. Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies. If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice. A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored. Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ? If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think... Really, I encourage you to Google 'circumcision board' and YouTube circumcision. In the USA, it is done in hospitals, by doctors, on babies with NO anaesthetic. The babies start by screaming in sheer tortuous agony and then go deathly silent when they go into shock to protect themselves. You would have had it done either under a GA or local and given analgesia and aftercare. Unlike the babies who have their open wound in a nappy covered in urine and excrement." Well in that case, that is totally wrong and I guess we should do the same to the parent who accept to have their children done in such condition... Funny that in such "so called" advance country as USA (as they call it) , they still practice such operation without GA or local... and after the same people dare criticised people in Africa who do the same...without the mean | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I met a guy once who had a really tight foreskin it just didn't pull back at all, even when he was erect it was tightly closed over the end of his cock I know this sounds weird but I couldn't suck it I just kept thinking if it's that tight it don't pull back at all how is he cleaning behind it "Normally it would be able to pull back when soft for cleaning. If not he really should see a doctor | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it highly amusing that most of people talking about mutilation when it comes to circumcision, well yes we can see it that way as it is an alteration of your body, but the same people have tattoo and piercing... from my point of view it is also an alteration of your body... I am cut, and I have choose to be, love it that way, if I can change it I wouldn't... We have tattoos and piercings on our own bodies because we have chosen to have them. Young boys don't get a choice of what is done to their bodies. If you choose as an adult to have your penis circumcised then that is your own choice. A baby can't tell his parents to stop the "Dr" from putting him through absolute agony, well he tries but his screams are ignored. Absolute agony ? are you talking because you have been there or it is your own conclusion ? If it is done by a doctor, the zone or the entire body don't feel any pain through medications, and even after the operation, the pain isn't as high as most people think... Really, I encourage you to Google 'circumcision board' and YouTube circumcision. In the USA, it is done in hospitals, by doctors, on babies with NO anaesthetic. The babies start by screaming in sheer tortuous agony and then go deathly silent when they go into shock to protect themselves. You would have had it done either under a GA or local and given analgesia and aftercare. Unlike the babies who have their open wound in a nappy covered in urine and excrement. Well in that case, that is totally wrong and I guess we should do the same to the parent who accept to have their children done in such condition... Funny that in such "so called" advance country as USA (as they call it) , they still practice such operation without GA or local... and after the same people dare criticised people in Africa who do the same...without the mean " You should see the little baby sized board with arm and leg restraints that's used.... GA is way to risky to use in on babies though for something non life threatening | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Why did you have me circumcised?" "Because boys are dirty and I couldn't be bothered to teach you to wash yourself." "Or teach you to use a condom" Yes because condoms are widely available in all of Africa
"Yes they are, there are even any organisations giving them away for free over there. The issue has never been lack of supply but that they've all had Catholic missionaries telling them they don't work and they'll go to hell if they use them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so. Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong.
If it isn't for medical reasons, and its done to a child who cannot give personal consent, that's pretty much mutilation to me, whether that's circumcision, ear piercing, tattooing or neck rings."I was circumcised as a child because of a tight foreskin. I am very pleased that was done. I now have total control over my cock and it has a nice shape. Recently we had a met with a guy who could not withdraw his foreskin. It was painful for him and it spoilt his enjoyment of sex; let alone any thoughts of what was hidden under his cover. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a matter of taste i guess. I am cut and i like it. I have been in mmf where the other guy is uncut but from the chats i have had i would come down on the side of cut. Cut cocks tend to be cleaner and less sensitive so they last longer. There are also other health benefits. All my boys are circumcised too. Tend to be cleaner? Why? It's not hard to wash your knob either way. Curious as to what these 'other health benefits are' ? And is less sensitive a bonus? Really? A its a myth that its cleaner..and there are no other proven health benefits..its a justification excuse...shame parents dont think their boys are perfect when they come out of the womb and have to start cutting bits off of them...my opinion. no difference op.. a clean one is great "mine was cut not out of choice the skin split when I was having sex and it split pretty bad blood everywhere when it healed the scar made it go so tight id of struggled to squeeze a pea through it so had to have it removed not through choice  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cut cocks are a ball ache to wank without having extra lube. Wouldn't stop me meeting someone though." there is a phobia that it is going to hurt him if you pull too hard its a myth you can tug on mine like a bastard and it does not hurt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just had a couple approach me via a wink which led me to chatting with the husband. I hope they won't mind me posting this on here but I'm interested in how other people feel. Basically, when they found out that I'm cut, they decided not to proceed any further as the wife has a preference for uncut cocks. I don't have a problem with this at all, however, I'm interested in whether other people will only meet guys specifically who are either one or the other?" Under a condom, I wouldn't know if it was cut, chopped or minced | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am constantly amazed at the hyperbole that starts when some subjects are addressed in the Forum. There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM and it debases the horrendous disfigurement of girls to say so. Circumcision of children should be for medical reasons. For adults it can be a personal choice. Anyones preference for cut or uncut is just that and does not make one right and one wrong.
If it isn't for medical reasons, and its done to a child who cannot give personal consent, that's pretty much mutilation to me, whether that's circumcision, ear piercing, tattooing or neck rings.
I was circumcised as a child because of a tight foreskin. I am very pleased that was done. I now have total control over my cock and it has a nice shape.
Recently we had a met with a guy who could not withdraw his foreskin. It was painful for him and it spoilt his enjoyment of sex; let alone any thoughts of what was hidden under his cover. "Then he needs to see a GP urgently. Did you suggest that to him? I'd of thought any guy with common sense would know when something was wrong. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect There are absolutely NO health benefits to circumcision. If you want to mutilate your children in that belief, go ahead but please, educate yourself and stop spouting the crap that pro-circumcision folk use to justify their decisions. An uncut penis needs no special treatment at all until it NATURALLY retracts which occurs anywhere between ages 5-25. Then and only then, does attention to cleaning under the foreskin need to happen. Forced retraction causes a huge amount of pain and scar tissue which can then result in adhesions and problems into adulthood. If you come from a religion that circumcises all your male children, you will have little idea about a penis in its natural state. I won't be long, I'm just going to cut off the labia of one of the girls in my family, she doesn't need it so off they come! If any of you are brave enough, YouTube circumcision." No health benefits? I have made references to circumcision and penile cancer (see NHS web site) and HIV transmission (see WHO web site). I assume that the National Health Service and the World Health Organisation know a little about the subject, probably a little bit more than either of us. So I wouldn't be quite so adamant that there are no health benefits. As for the operation itself. I'm told that I was circumcised in an NHS hospital and my boys certainly were. I can't speak for me, I was too young, but none of my sons were screaming in agony. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similarly why young boys tend to get infections there. I once had the uncomfortable task of explaining to a young mum how to clean a penis. As an only child she had no experience of it. This is also the suggested link to pwnile cancer So we must mutilate young boys instead of educating parents? No, we don't have to. I was circumcised for religious reasons, likewise my sons. The health benefits, whether you choose to believe them or not, is simply a welcome side effect There are absolutely NO health benefits to circumcision. If you want to mutilate your children in that belief, go ahead but please, educate yourself and stop spouting the crap that pro-circumcision folk use to justify their decisions. An uncut penis needs no special treatment at all until it NATURALLY retracts which occurs anywhere between ages 5-25. Then and only then, does attention to cleaning under the foreskin need to happen. Forced retraction causes a huge amount of pain and scar tissue which can then result in adhesions and problems into adulthood. If you come from a religion that circumcises all your male children, you will have little idea about a penis in its natural state. I won't be long, I'm just going to cut off the labia of one of the girls in my family, she doesn't need it so off they come! If any of you are brave enough, YouTube circumcision. No health benefits? I have made references to circumcision and penile cancer (see NHS web site) and HIV transmission (see WHO web site). I assume that the National Health Service and the World Health Organisation know a little about the subject, probably a little bit more than either of us. So I wouldn't be quite so adamant that there are no health benefits. As for the operation itself. I'm told that I was circumcised in an NHS hospital and my boys certainly were. I can't speak for me, I was too young, but none of my sons were screaming in agony." Did you choose to have it done for the 'health benefits'? Or for other reasons? Sorry - I'll rephrase that. Did the person making the choice do it for 'health benefits' or for other reasons? As I'm guessing g at the age it was done you wouldn't have had any choice? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flipping heck, I've not been on here since shortly after starting this thread and had no idea it had got so 'lively'...nor did I realize that it had diverged so radically from the original question I raised.... "Aw come on - you know the most innocuous questions often turn into cat-fights!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flipping heck, I've not been on here since shortly after starting this thread and had no idea it had got so 'lively'...nor did I realize that it had diverged so radically from the original question I raised.... "Sorry. I did apologise about 50 posts back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did you choose to have it done for the 'health benefits'? Or for other reasons? Sorry - I'll rephrase that. Did the person making the choice do it for 'health benefits' or for other reasons? As I'm guessing g at the age it was done you wouldn't have had any choice? A" I and my sons were circumcised for religious reasons. The health benefits, if you believe the NHS, WHO and others, are a welcome side effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did you choose to have it done for the 'health benefits'? Or for other reasons? Sorry - I'll rephrase that. Did the person making the choice do it for 'health benefits' or for other reasons? As I'm guessing g at the age it was done you wouldn't have had any choice? A I and my sons were circumcised for religious reasons. The health benefits, if you believe the NHS, WHO and others, are a welcome side effect." But who made the choice? I'm guessing not the person being circumcised? Basing decisions on purely religious reasons removes free will from the person affected. A similar situation with those religions that deter condom use. Which of course does far more to help the spread of STI's. Making a judgement because an archaic piece of writing says so seems a little....what's the word? Archaic?
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok guys and gals. Myths about circumcised cocks and health benefits. 1. Google "penile cancer" and NHS, among others, state that the incidence of penile cancer is vastly reduced as a result of circumcision. 2. Little boys often get infections as a result of not cleaning foreskins enough. 3. WHO promote circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV transmission. They say, from memory, the risk is reduced by some 30%. So feel free to reject the health benefits of circumcision, after all its only cranky cults like NHS and WHO who say there are health benefits if you dont believe that the pharmaceuticals dont run and make money by keeping people sick via the NHS..then i feel very sorry for you.. i guess you are one of these people that agree in sewing up little girls to stop them losing their virginity too early, that vaccinations dont cause autism and that you still give to the mighty charity of cancer research when the cure is already present and known but 'illegal'. and no one would get breast cancer if we removed them at birth..maybe you'd support this practice as a preventative also..don't answer that..its a rhetoric question. don't believe everything you have been told is true..do your own research, preferably not by google and mass media publications. however, mutilating people is not my thing..and cutting bits off of little boys isn't going to be, one of the things im going to give permission for, this lifetime." Shhhs.. dont let them know you're on to them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
