| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
Per merit of argument in reality - moronic idea and an insult to the concerned religious communities. THEN AGAIN - in the spirit of "every state may have its own law regardless of how retarded it is" (specifically the death penalty) i suppose this isn't any worse! | ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
On November 29 2010 22:45 NorsePower wrote: My foreskin is far too tight so I cannot enjoy regular intercourse because of it, not to mention some girls are just immediately put off by it (not that I can completely blame them). You gatta stretch it ever so gently every time you masturbate. It will loosen up over time. It's ganna hurt a bit a first but it beats spending money on surgery. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On November 29 2010 22:47 Longshank wrote: I think parents should have the right to mutilate their son's penis in order to make it look pretty in all the porn that boy will do before the age of 17. of all of the posts in this thread this one takes the cake of being the most pointless. On November 29 2010 22:54 ktp wrote: You gatta stretch it ever so gently every time you masturbate. It will loosen up over time. It's ganna hurt a bit a first but it beats spending money on surgery. uh, thats not very good advice to solve a problem like that lol... | ||
|
NorsePower
United States4 Posts
On November 29 2010 22:50 Almania wrote: Sorry to hear that Norse. But because of the problems you've experienced you think everyone should be circumcised at birth by default? Or only if they need to - because there'll obviously be provisions for those with medical reasons. No no, just would prefer it stay the way it is now. I just happened to be screwed over by having deficient parents and (even moreso) deficient genetics. On November 29 2010 22:50 Almania wrote:I do have to say that is a sad state of affairs, but I can see it being a valid argument against this law. Except for the fact that if the law were to pass, the whole generation of girls growing up with these boys would find circumcised penises to be the odd ones... so.. not sure I guess. Well for me it's not the way that it looks as much as the fact that I can't really engage in normal sex. : / | ||
|
NorsePower
United States4 Posts
On November 29 2010 22:54 ktp wrote: You gatta stretch it ever so gently every time you masturbate. It will loosen up over time. It's ganna hurt a bit a first but it beats spending money on surgery. Trust me, I've tried every trick in the book since I became... let's say sexually aware. When I was really young I knew it looked different but I was pretty oblivious to the problems that it would pose later in life and my parents, again, weren't really on the ball. Maybe early in life that would have been doable but now it's not. I managed to go see a urologist last year and he said the only option was circumcision. Which I definitely can't afford, at least not now. | ||
|
Almania
145 Posts
On November 29 2010 22:58 NorsePower wrote: Well for me it's not the way that it looks as much as the fact that I can't really engage in normal sex. : / I also realise my stance comes from a country with a health system where if you need to be circumcised for medical reasons it isn't going to cost you thousands.. may be another reason why American's get it done at birth - cheaper to get it done then rather then when/if it's actually required. But health system's are probably a topic best not touched..  | ||
|
NorsePower
United States4 Posts
On November 29 2010 23:01 Almania wrote: I also realise my stance comes from a country with a health system where if you need to be circumcised for medical reasons it isn't going to cost you thousands.. may be another reason why American's get it done at birth - cheaper to get it done then rather then when/if it's actually required. Exactly. : / | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 29 2010 21:16 venomium wrote: Oh, and Blackjack, nice that you could find Google, but you should google your sources a little more. This studie has been considered false by many other studies, because the authors are biased. For example What does that prove? The part you underlined says right after "this factor could result in an underestimation of the efficacy of male circumcision" which means it hurts the pro-circumcision side. The part you bolded doesn't show bias by the authors. That was written by the authors so if they were bias they would have just omitted it from their report instead of being honest about it. Also nice editing there, here's the full paragraph with the part you left out in bold With respect to the use of circumcision to prevent HPV infection, our study was limited, since it was confined to a subgroup of subjects who were observed both at enrollment and at 24 months. In both the intervention and control groups, these subjects may represent a self-selected population of compliant subjects who could be at lower risk for HPV infection than the general population; this factor could result in an underestimation of the efficacy of male circumcision. Also, since samples were evaluated only at 24 months, we were limited in our ability to determine whether the reduced HPV prevalence after circumcision was due to a reduced rate of HPV acquisition, an increased rate of HPV clearance, or both. Nevertheless, these findings, in conjunction with data from observational studies20,21 and one trial in South Africa,31 demonstrate the efficacy of circumcision in decreasing the prevalence of HPV in adolescent boys and men. This isn't the only study btw, there are lots similar to it. Here's a quote from wiki The World Health Organization, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
That said, it's a procedure whose health benefits only slightly outweigh its chances of complications so I wouldn't do it to my kid. | ||
|
Almania
145 Posts
And I have to say I don't think it can be all that or America wouldn't have 2-6 times the HIV rates compared to European countries / Australia / New Zealand where circumcision is less common. I realise there's obviously more factors at play.. just saying there's no correlation showing up in any statistics I can find. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32160 Posts
I fucking associate circumcision with the dick of an internet dude I never met. There's so many levels of wrong with that. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On November 29 2010 23:01 NorsePower wrote: Trust me, I've tried every trick in the book since I became... let's say sexually aware. When I was really young I knew it looked different but I was pretty oblivious to the problems that it would pose later in life and my parents, again, weren't really on the ball. Maybe early in life that would have been doable but now it's not. I managed to go see a urologist last year and he said the only option was circumcision. Which I definitely can't afford, at least not now. its suppose to break and ur suppose to bleed then it becomes "normal". someone said it few pages back. it the so called 'male virginity'. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
i would really want someone to explain me, practically, why "... state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex" is true?. or, better put it: the mechanics of it cuz as far as o know you can contact hiv trough an open wound or getting in contact with sexual fluids. ex: anal sex tends to favor the spreading of HIV but ONLY because anal tears and hemorrhoidic bleeds occur, thus one gets exposed to infected blood more often. | ||
|
johanngrunt
Hong Kong1555 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 29 2010 23:11 BlackJack wrote: What does that prove? The part you underlined says right after "this factor could result in an underestimation of the efficacy of male circumcision" which means it hurts the pro-circumcision side. The part you bolded doesn't show bias by the authors. That was written by the authors so if they were bias they would have just omitted it from their report instead of being honest about it. Also nice editing there, here's the full paragraph with the part you left out in bold This isn't the only study btw, there are lots similar to it. Here's a quote from wiki I don't understand what you are attempting to achieve with these posts. Circumcision reduces the risks of unprotected sex with HIV-positive people so children should all be circumcised? Are we expecting minors in California to be having rampant unprotected sex with infected African villagers here? Or maybe you're saying circumcision is the only way to reduce the risks of already risky sex with people who are diseased. No wait, that's not true either. Please clarify how the point you're attempting to make is relevant to a ban on circumcision of minors. These studies you linked, while they provide some interesting medical data, don't really seem relevant to the discussion to me. | ||
|
Patton1942
United States66 Posts
Nope, too busy getting my name in the paper for when I run for mayor, governator, etc. douchebags. the lot of them. | ||
|
Scorcher2k
United States802 Posts
| ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
The reasons for circumcision are terrible: -You don't have to clean it! That is a valid argument in Africa. I shower everyday and it takes about 5 seconds to clean my penis. I wouldn't want to mutilate my penis and severely reduce the pleasure I get for sex because I'm lazy. You wouldn't cut off your eyelids because you can't be bothered to clean your eyes out in the morning? -It reduces the risk of HIV! Dear God. Use fucking condoms if you're going to have sex with strangers. There's like 15 people in Iceland with AIDS, I don't need to mutilate my penis to lower the chances of catching AIDS. The majority of people with AIDS are prostitutes. Though it is more common for homosexuals and negros. Just use condoms and you'll be safe. Some men are unfortunate enough to have phimosis but that's a relatively small percentage of the whole population. Circumcision on children shouldn't be banned but I don't think that it should be encouraged. It's a Jewish ritual, it has nothing to do with Western culture. I'm not an all-banning-freedom-hating Socialist so I'm going to say no to this one. This is an outright attack on Jewish way of life. If parents want to take uninformed decisions, like mutilating their child's penis, then they should be allowed to do so. It doesn't bother me. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
Some girls might care about how it looks You might have a slightly lower risk of std/infection You might get to go to heaven by accepting a religious pact through slicing your dick No foreskin means you lose sensitivity, less sensitivity means you last longer Non circumcision pros: If a girl cares that much about how it looks shes probably not worth it. Alert to find yourself a better girl. If you use condoms/wash it you're going to be as clean a circumcised dude If you want to get circumcised when you're older you can do it whenever you want No potential for scarring and having a botched penis Foreskin means more sensitivity, means sex feels better. I dunno guys, seems pretty clear cut (lol) to me. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
 The benefits might be small but the drawbacks are ridiculously insignificant. There might not be too many people who would contract diseases because they don't wash up. But they are certainly much more than the amount of people who got their penis accidentally cut off, or the amount of people who feel traumatized today because they got cruelty mutilated when they were 1 minute old. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
FEL
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
