EPTi really dont give a shit about the condition the foreskin of my penis is
when i'm about to fuck a girl i'm not thinking
"does my dick look like a turtle?"
I really doubt people really argue if circumsicion is unethical or not
Male circumcision: Pro or Con? - Page 3
| Blogs > Mickey |
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
i really dont give a shit about the condition the foreskin of my penis is when i'm about to fuck a girl i'm not thinking "does my dick look like a turtle?" I really doubt people really argue if circumsicion is unethical or not | ||
|
il0seonpurpose
Korea (South)5638 Posts
| ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On April 22 2009 05:35 Frits wrote: I had a circumcision when I was 6 or something, since then I've never given it any thought. I've always thought it was hilarious how some people are completely against or for this procedure. If you seriously want to discuss penis foreskin you are a homo. LOL  100% agree~who gives a shit about the condition about your penis i'm pretty sure 99%+ of the circumsiced men in the world dont GIVE A SHIT | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-web/foreskin-restoration.php | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote: You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o honestly who gives a shit | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 22 2009 03:39 norsK wrote: "Timmy you turned 4 today, and mommy and I have a very important question. Would you like us to remove the flappy end of your wee wee?" "Whats a flappy momma? I WANT ICECREAM!" I would have told you to go fuck yourself if I was asked that at age 4 ; [ Maybe not in so many words, but the gist of it would have been "no way". | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote: You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o What about your umbilical cord? Save that too imo. On a serious note though, could you please answer/acknowledge my question here: On April 22 2009 04:49 JWD wrote: Do you have any evidence that forcibly pulling back the foreskin is what causes problems with uncircumcised penises+disease transmission? | ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
I seriously can't understand why you voluntarily would cut something of that protects the glans and offers natural lubrication, especially when removing it makes you less sensitive during sex. :S Can't say I buy the 'health' argument either, seeing as you're much more likely to suffer small wounds and whatnot with less protection... | ||
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research. | ||
|
Yaqoob
Canada3395 Posts
On April 22 2009 06:15 MeriaDoKk wrote: QUESTION: Is this only done in Jewish culture? It is also done in the Muslim Religion too. | ||
n.DieJokes
United States3443 Posts
On April 22 2009 03:13 micronesia wrote: It's a requirement at many Jewish sororities. Soroities?.... | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote: Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous. It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research. 1) I did do research, and if you'd read the rest of my post you would have come upon it. Here's a summary: There is conflicting data about whether circumcision reduces transmission rates for some STDs, but the majority of evidence indicates that circumcision is effective at combating many STDs (recent randomized study shows decrease in HIV transmission of ~55%). If you want more evidence, here is a great document from the CDC which explains pretty conclusively that circumcision has positive health benefits including limiting STD transmission: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm Here is the gist: Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [41, 42]. 2) So basically what you are saying is that not only do you have no evidence to back your claim, but you shouldn't have to have any? That's a pretty weak position. 3) The reason I smelled "bogus" on your original post is that I just don't see how a doctor prematurely retracting the foreskin could have a lifelong impact on likelihood of STD transmission. What's the mechanism at play there? To argue that the effect of uncircumcision on STD transmission is due to premature foreskin retraction and not (as I hold) due to the presence of the foreskin itself, you must be proposing that, 10, 20, 30 years after you've had your foreskin pulled back too early, you are somehow more prone to giving or getting STDs. I just don't see how this could work. Clearly you must, so can you explain? The mechanism which would explain why circumcision leads to a decrease in STD transmission, however, is pretty simple: no foreskin means fewer warm, damp places for microorganisms or infected cells to incubate (infections can develop independently of sex and then be transmitted during sex) and stay alive/propagate during intercourse. This is put in much more scientific terms in the CDC document linked above. 4) Of course not wearing a condom will help you avoid STDs - that's totally irrelevant to circumcision's relationship with STD transmission: 1: "Hey, on average circumcision reduces odds of contracting and transmitting STDs!" 2: "You're probably going to get STDs if you don't wear a condom." Statement 2 has nothing to do with the veracity of statement 1. | ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
On April 22 2009 03:39 norsK wrote: "Timmy you turned 4 today, and mommy and I have a very important question. Would you like us to remove the flappy end of your wee wee?" + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://images.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/62a.jpg) TIMMY!!!! fixed + Show Spoiler + random lol  | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
] and in three randomized controlled clinical trials [just three?]. It is possible [re: possible], but not yet adequately assessed [exactly], that male circumcision could [more qualifiers] reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV [I don't have HIV], although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission [excellent]. Male circumcision has also been associated [cause and effect issue] with a number of other health benefits [such as?]. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare [but severe]. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions [ie: condoms, dental dams, general cleanliness, and other more important factors], could [again] play an important role [the previously mentioned factors, not circumcision alone] in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [which were?] [41, 42].Reading a sketchy pamphlet isn't really research TBH. | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On April 22 2009 06:39 Chef wrote: Male circumcision has been associated [cause and effect issue] with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies [ie: surveys ] and in three randomized controlled clinical trials [just three?]. It is possible [re: possible], but not yet adequately assessed [exactly], that male circumcision could [more qualifiers] reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV [I don't have HIV], although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission [excellent]. Male circumcision has also been associated [cause and effect issue] with a number of other health benefits [such as?]. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare [but severe]. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions [ie: condoms, dental dams, general cleanliness, and other more important factors], could [again] play an important role [the previously mentioned factors, not circumcision alone] in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [which were?] [41, 42].Reading a sketchy pamphlet isn't really research TBH. If you read the document, you'd find answers to many of your questions. And the fact that you're calling it a "sketchy pamphlet" is just laughable, because the CDC is a widely-respected government organization and one of the world's leading sources for health-related information. Since it seems like you've never heard of it, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention Are you going to address any of the other contents of my post above? I'd particularly like to see you address point 3), just because I'm really curious how you think that premature foreskin retraction can produce permanent effects on STD transmission. Look, I'm trying my best to remain civil here but this is getting ridiculous. To be honest I'm shocked that you're even still posting here, considering you clearly have no logic or data to back up your original claim. | ||
| ||
