NationStates Jolt Archive

With some new evidence!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable. It was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected.

With some new evidence!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable. It was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected.


Eeek glad I am circumcized

Eeek glad I am circumcized

Agreed.

I wonder what they mean when they say to continue the study would be 'unethical?' I'm missing that point there. To say pointless because the results were overwhelmingly positive in one direction, okay, but what was the 'unethical' part?

Hmmm, another Jewish conspiracy. ;), we conviently have the cure for AIDS. :D

I wonder what they mean when they say to continue the study would be 'unethical?' I'm missing that point there. To say pointless because the results were overwhelmingly positive in one direction, okay, but what was the 'unethical' part?

When you are doing a clinical trial involving humans, and you see that if you continue the study, some people in the study will be at a significant risk of death if you continue, you are ethically obliged to stop the study.

So, if you're testing a drug, and people are dying of the drug, you have to stop.

If the drug works so well that the people on the placebo are at a high risk of death compared to the people on the drug, you have to stop.

In this case, a huge difference was noted - it would be unethical to not tell the uncircumcised men that they were at a high risk of death.

Yes another study which is not made with a scientific method..
1st .. when you study something, you do not announce before which results you hope to obtain, you announce what you search.
2nd... representative group?
3rd why such studies have different results wether they are made in countries where circumcision is or is not part of the culture? (swedish studies have shown the exact opposite result than this one)
4th .. the stats do not show a highest contamination rate in europe where most of the population is not circumcised than in the USA where most of the population is... I'd say : before jump on conclusions, better ask the right questions.
Also a serious study tries several protocols in order to be sure to take in consideration all the parameters to be sure that the results are not induced by something else than what we are effectively searching.

When you are doing a clinical trial involving humans, and you see that if you continue the study, some people in the study will be at a significant risk of death if you continue, you are ethically obliged to stop the study.

So, if you're testing a drug, and people are dying of the drug, you have to stop.

If the drug works so well that the people on the placebo are at a high risk of death compared to the people on the drug, you have to stop.

In this case, a huge difference was noted - it would be unethical to not tell the uncircumcised men that they were at a high risk of death.


Was this a clinical 'test' or 'study?' By testing the general population and different of regions and retrieving data, that's not putting anyone at risk. If this was introducing the virus to people to find out who would catch it first, I'd say it was unethical before they began...

This is just nothing that special. HIV is contracted by mucuous membrane contact, especially when the mucuous membrane has wounds in it. Circumcision prevents the lubrication of the membrane and the irritation hardens it.

People with thick skin in their soles are less likely to get an infectuous wound in their sole. Doesn't mean we should stop wearing shoes.

Another point is that circumcision is an unnatural procedure. It's not like wearing shoes. It's like cutting off your leg to reduce the risk of femur fracture.

The medical community has been going back and forth on the issue of whether circumcision gives health benefits or not. Does it significantly reduce risk of infection, or is it unncessary mutilation?

In most parts of Africa circumcision is a little different than it is here. In the U.S. many males are circumcised as babies, whether they are Jewish or not. In many African cultures males are circumcised as part of a coming-of-age ritual, when they are children or teenagers. I don't know if any of the cultures in South Africa do that. I know this isn't precisely on the subject, but it's a good thing to keep in mind if you're discussing this issue.

We should also keep in mind, of course, that there are only three reliable ways to avoid getting STDs and HIV:

1. Testing for you and your potential partner.
2. Condoms.
3. Abstinence.

Although I am probably preaching to the choir here.

So... do they circumsize a man, then expose him to AIDS to see what happens?

This is just nothing that special. HIV is contracted by mucuous membrane contact, especially when the mucuous membrane has wounds in it. Circumcision prevents the lubrication of the membrane and the irritation hardens it.

People with thick skin in their soles are less likely to get an infectuous wound in their sole. Doesn't mean we should stop wearing shoes.

Another point is that circumcision is an unnatural procedure. It's not like wearing shoes. It's like cutting off your leg to reduce the risk of femur fracture.
And what are the bonuses OF keeping your foreskin?
Im sure we know the benefits of removing it …
General health
Cleanliness
Look
Infection prevention
(now supposedly disease prevention)


All seem to be a decent reason to get circumcised
What are your arguments for keeping your forskin?

I don't see what the big fuss is about uncircumcised people. I'm 21 in america and no one in my whole family is circumcised. None of them (that I am aware of) have ever had any form of STD's let alone any bad infection or other cliche "uncut" disease and or gangrenous sores. I personally think that it's a quasi-conspiratorial issue and that there is no big difference between being cut or uncut. The jews had it done because their holy book said they had to and also because sand would hurt like hell underneath foreskin. They were in fact in the desert for 40 years. Can you imagine the infection of not being able to wash the jewels for 40 years? Anyway, that's my stance on the whole situation. Oh, and by the way, the ladies love uncut guys. I guess it's a blessing and a curse...

Yeah what's the big deal.
Cut guys say it's great, they've never had any problems, the ladies love it and they wouldn't want it any other way.

Un-Cut guys say it's great, they've never had any problems, the ladies love it and they wouldn't want it any other way.

I say, parents choice.

And what are the bonuses OF keeping your foreskin?
Im sure we know the benefits of removing it …
General health
Cleanliness
Look
Infection prevention
(now supposedly disease prevention)

These are excellent reasons for justifying a elective surgery for adults. I do not oppose circumcision, I oppose infant, mandatory or in-practice-mandatory circumcision. Just imagine if your parents forced you to get medically-pointless cosmetic surgery you don't like.

It's not about benefits or not. It's about summarily cutting pieces off babies (for no medical necessity.)

You know, condoms are a much more effective way to prevent AIDS infection.

And it doesn't involve killing nerve endings.

These are excellent reasons for justifying a elective surgery for adults. I do not oppose circumcision, I oppose infant, mandatory or in-practice-mandatory circumcision. Just imagine if your parents forced you to get medically-pointless cosmetic surgery you don't like.

It's not about benefits or not. It's about summarily cutting pieces off babies (for no medical necessity.)
Its their job to weigh the costs and benefits for their children
They are the ones ultimately responsible for their children’s health

Right now there are benefits for and against circumcision, it’s the parents job to decide what is in their kids best interest if there is no clear cut “ best”

These are excellent reasons for justifying a elective surgery for adults. I do not oppose circumcision, I oppose infant, mandatory or in-practice-mandatory circumcision. Just imagine if your parents forced you to get medically-pointless cosmetic surgery you don't like.

It's not about benefits or not. It's about summarily cutting pieces off babies (for no medical necessity.)

Imagine if you had an unsightly but harmless growth on a large portion of your face which could be easily removed. Medically pointless cosmetic surgery? Yes. Would I want my parents to have it done? Indeed. I realise this is an extreme case but in the end attractiveness is subjective. I feel that parents should be given he choice over this type of thing as long as it is not detrimental to the child. [Yes I realise it hurts when it gets done but no-one actually remembers it].

Its their job to weigh the costs and benefits for their children
They are the ones ultimately responsible for their children’s health

With respect to the topic, and other issues, it isn't. The time when a man is old enough to get HIV, his health is no longer of the responsibility of the parents, but of himself. The same applies to the other issues. When he is old enough to shoulder the responsiblity of maintain hygiene, looks, etc., he's also old enough to consent to elective surgery.

Circumcise that shit, boy!

And what are the bonuses OF keeping your foreskin?
Im sure we know the benefits of removing it …
General health
Cleanliness
Look
Infection prevention
(now supposedly disease prevention)


All seem to be a decent reason to get circumcised
What are your arguments for keeping your forskin?
For one thing, what general health benefits are there from removing the foreskin?
For another, if you shower every day, or even once a week, you shouldn't have a problem with clenliness cut or not. I mean, if you think men have trouble with clenliness from one fold of skin, imagine what women have to deal with, ok?
Look: It looks much better without being cut.
Infection prevention: What infection prevention.

The only good reason to get circumcized is if the foreskin doesn't retract.

Yay Judaism scores another health benefit!

Imagine if you had an unsightly but harmless growth on a large portion of your face which could be easily removed. Medically pointless cosmetic surgery? Yes. Would I want my parents to have it done? Indeed. I realise this is an extreme case but in the end attractiveness is subjective. I feel that parents should be given he choice over this type of thing as long as it is not detrimental to the child. [Yes I realise it hurts when it gets done but no-one actually remembers it].
The foreskin is not a hideous growth, the penis looks better with it. It looks more natural (obviously) and really, less freakish.

For one thing, what general health benefits are there from removing the foreskin?
For another, if you shower every day, or even once a week, you shouldn't have a problem with clenliness cut or not. I mean, if you think men have trouble with clenliness from one fold of skin, imagine what women have to deal with, ok?
Look: It looks much better without being cut.
Infection prevention: What infection prevention.

The only good reason to get circumcized is if the foreskin doesn't retract.
General Health: I dunno
Cleanliness: One fold may still make a difference.
Look: Meh, it isn't that big of a deal but I like a cut man out of personal preference.
Infection prevention: I've heard of them.

Imagine if you had an unsightly but harmless growth on a large portion of your face which could be easily removed. Medically pointless cosmetic surgery? Yes.
No, that'd be an abnormal development. Likewise, unelective circumcision is justifiable in the case of infection. But, the foreskin is a normal part of the body. They are not removed unless they are actively infected or cancerous and so detrimental to health.

I feel that parents should be given he choice over this type of thing as long as it is not detrimental to the child.
I don't think parents could be, even in principle, any authority on surgery. Such decisions should be taken by the surgeon based on medical necessity. I absolutely hate the idea that parents are in control over the child's body.

Yay Judaism scores another health benefit!
Count Islam in there too :p

With some new evidence!

Sigh.
So? The last bit of that article can explain the differences in infection rates.

The "frown on promiscuity" explains enough.

Doing the 'nip the tip' thing for males - except as a religious rite, what true purpose does it have? It is removing a healthy part of skin, (ok, I think penii look odd enough anyway) for cosmetic purposes only.

Why can't a normal male who is above the age of 5, not take proper hygenic care of that region of his body? A five year old ought to be able to take a bath all by his lonesome. Heck, a four year old boy ought be able to 'go potty' by himself. So... what is the difference?

The foreskin is not a hideous growth, the penis looks better with it. It looks more natural (obviously) and really, less freakish.

I've heard people say they prefer it cut and others prefer it un-cut in terms of looks. It's just personal preference really. Though being an owner of a penis, even I must admit they are ugly and 'functional' looking anyway. There are no "pretty" penises...penii?

I don't see what the big fuss is about uncircumcised people. I'm 21 in america and no one in my whole family is circumcised. None of them (that I am aware of) have ever had any form of STD's let alone any bad infection or other cliche "uncut" disease and or gangrenous sores. I personally think that it's a quasi-conspiratorial issue and that there is no big difference between being cut or uncut. The jews had it done because their holy book said they had to and also because sand would hurt like hell underneath foreskin. They were in fact in the desert for 40 years. Can you imagine the infection of not being able to wash the jewels for 40 years? Anyway, that's my stance on the whole situation. Oh, and by the way, the ladies love uncut guys. I guess it's a blessing and a curse...

While that is an excellent practical reason for circumcision, it isn't THE reason. Jewish circumcision (or at least Yahwistic circumcision - there weren't Jews yet) dates back to the patriarchs, long before the Exodus. As for the actual reasons behind it...well, a lot of Jewish customs, including many of the dietary ones, seem to be solely for the purpose of distinguishing Jews from non-Jews. I'm not a religious scholar (though I am Jewish), so don't take my word for it, but that's how it looks to me.

My mother, who is a doctor, tells me that many uncircumcised American males these days who are in their teens or 20s come in for adult circumcisions at the request of their girlfriends, so your final remark is quite accurate. ;)

I don't think parents could be, even in principle, any authority on surgery. Such decisions should be taken by the surgeon based on medical necessity. I absolutely hate the idea that parents are in control over the child's body.

Actually, in matters of circumcision, the parents DO have the final say. If they didn't, doctors wouldn't let Jewish parents wait 8 days to circumcise their child in the traditional manner, instead of doing it in the hospital.

This lady loves 'em uncut.

And any guy who is enough of a pussy to get part of his penis cut off for a chick does not deserve anybody's time.

Yes another study which is not made with a scientific method..

The study hasn't actually been released yet. I'm not exactly going to truth what the Wall Street Journal says on methods.

1st .. when you study something, you do not announce before which results you hope to obtain, you announce what you search.

There is nothing unscientific about trying to confirm the results of others studies. The numbers could still go either way.

2nd... representative group?

We'll have to wait for a published study before we know this, won't we?

3rd why such studies have different results wether they are made in countries where circumcision is or is not part of the culture? (swedish studies have shown the exact opposite result than this one)

I haven't seen any studies with the exact opposite results, although I have seen a few suggesting no difference.

Meanwhile, your question is interesting, but doesn't mean that this study didn't follow the scientific method. They are trying to confirm or disprove earlier results found in these areas, not in Sweden.

4th .. the stats do not show a highest contamination rate in europe where most of the population is not circumcised than in the USA where most of the population is... I'd say : before jump on conclusions, better ask the right questions.

...which is, again, irrelevant to this study. There are many differences between European culture and African culture. Thus, it would be foolish to try and compare across them.

Note that no one is saying "OMG! If you aren't circumcized you're automatically going to get AIDS!" No one here is saying that lack of circumcision magically gives you any diseases. They are simply saying the that procedure can help prevent the contraction of certain diseases.

Also a serious study tries several protocols in order to be sure to take in consideration all the parameters to be sure that the results are not induced by something else than what we are effectively searching.

And you don't know that they didn't.

Never take what you read in the general media and assume that they are telling everything done in the study. That would be very foolish indeed.

No, that'd be an abnormal development. Likewise, unelective circumcision is justifiable in the case of infection. But, the foreskin is a normal part of the body. They are not removed unless they are actively infected or cancerous and so detrimental to health. Like I said, it was an extreme example. As for what is 'normal' aesthetically, this is subjective rather than based in fact. It is ofcourse a purely cosmetic procedure in most cases with little practical value.


I don't think parents could be, even in principle, any authority on surgery. Such decisions should be taken by the surgeon based on medical necessity. I absolutely hate the idea that parents are in control over the child's body.
They are not acting as an authority on the viability of the surgery, that decisions always remains the doctor's. I don't think parents should have excessive 'control' over the child's body but they do have a certain level of responsibility to take care of the child's physical state. Examples of this are hair cuts and braces. I don't see why minor cosmetic surgery wouldn't be seen in the same light as wearing braces on your teeth for 2 years.

Honestly though, I do't really care as I don't see it as that much of a big deal. I would probably have my child circumcised as I think it's better than un-cut but I could just as easily not do it and if it's illegal come time I have a child, it wont bother me in the slightest.

This lady loves 'em uncut.

And any guy who is enough of a pussy to get part of his penis cut off for a chick does not deserve anybody's time.
And this man loves em cut …

:p

This lady loves 'em uncut.

And any guy who is enough of a pussy to get part of his penis cut off for a chick does not deserve anybody's time.
Ja, I wouldn't make my bf get cut if I really loved him.

This lady loves 'em uncut.

And any guy who is enough of a pussy to get part of his penis cut off for a chick does not deserve anybody's time.

Wow. I'll be taking your posts with a pinch of salt from now on with an attitude like that.

Wow. I'll be taking your posts with a pinch of salt from now on with an attitude like that.
What?

Oh yes, honey, I will get unnecessary surgery to look more suitable for you.
^That's a good and healthy attitude in a relationship?

I mean, let's take it as a guy saying that he likes girls with a huge rack, so his B cupped girlfriend goes out and gets implants to make him happy. Is this a good, healthy relationship? People need to learn to love themselves as they are and not go about changing themselves to suit the needs of other people.

What?

Oh yes, honey, I will get unnecessary surgery to look more suitable for you.
^That's a good and healthy attitude in a relationship?

I mean, let's take it as a guy saying that he likes girls with a huge rack, so his B cupped girlfriend goes out and gets implants to make him happy. Is this a good, healthy relationship? People need to learn to love themselves as they are and not go about changing themselves to suit the needs of other people.
*eats you*

Do guys like girls even if they're fake?

What?

Oh yes, honey, I will get unnecessary surgery to look more suitable for you.
^That's a good and healthy attitude in a relationship?

I mean, let's take it as a guy saying that he likes girls with a huge rack, so his B cupped girlfriend goes out and gets implants to make him happy. Is this a good, healthy relationship? People need to learn to love themselves as they are and not go about changing themselves to suit the needs of other people.

Sorry but your post was cold and I've been skiing!

Seriously though, something not being healthy to a relationship and something that makes you unworthy of people's attention is something different all together. Maybe it was just the wording of the first post.

Though while I personally wouldn't get cut to imrpove the appearence of my penis, I don't see the problem of other people doing it if it makes them happy. Fat people could learn to be happy with themselves but for some of them, it might just be easier to get skinny.

Sorry but your post was cold and I've been skiing!

Seriously though, something not being healthy to a relationship and something that makes you unworthy of people's attention is something different all together. Maybe it was just the wording of the first post.

Though while I personally wouldn't get cut to imrpove the appearence of my penis, I don't see the problem of other people doing it if it makes them happy. Fat people could learn to be happy with themselves but for some of them, it might just be easier to get skinny.
Perhaps it would have been better to say "People like that shouldn't be in relationships." if you're willing to change yourself so irreparably for somebody else, perhaps you don't have the self-esteem to be in a relationship.

It's the same if a fat person loses an extreme amount of weight for their significant other. It's one thing if they go and lose it for themselves, that's all well and good, but to change yourself to make somebody else happy is just stupid.

Perhaps it would have been better to say "People like that shouldn't be in relationships." if you're willing to change yourself so irreparably for somebody else, perhaps you don't have the self-esteem to be in a relationship.

It's the same if a fat person loses an extreme amount of weight for their significant other. It's one thing if they go and lose it for themselves, that's all well and good, but to change yourself to make somebody else happy is just stupid.
What if making your partner happier also makes you happy?

Perhaps it would have been better to say "People like that shouldn't be in relationships." if you're willing to change yourself so irreparably for somebody else, perhaps you don't have the self-esteem to be in a relationship.

It's the same if a fat person loses an extreme amount of weight for their significant other. It's one thing if they go and lose it for themselves, that's all well and good, but to change yourself to make somebody else happy is just stupid.

Yeah, that sounds a lot nicer that way :)

I don't think it's stupid to want to look good for your significant other but if they pressure you into doing something drastic and for no good reason and you fold, then yes, that is stupid. If you're 500 pounds and they tell you to lose some weight, then that's fair criticism I feel. Sure, if you're with a girl who can't get excited by an un-cut penis then getting it done is a bit extreme and foolish. If it were a long-term marriage and a happy, mutual decision because they'd both prefer it then I don't see that as un-healthy. Bottom line, if you ultimatly make the decision on your own and it is beneficial to your life, I have no problems with cosmetic surgery.

What if making your partner happier also makes you happy?
Making your partner happy about something so shallow? If someone actually loves you they won't be like "By the way, you know this physical flaw, go get surgery to change it for me."

Yeah, that sounds a lot nicer that way :)

I don't think it's stupid to want to look good for your significant other but if they pressure you into doing something drastic and for no good reason and you fold, then yes, that is stupid. If you're 500 pounds and they tell you to lose some weight, then that's fair criticism I feel. Sure, if you're with a girl who can't get excited by an un-cut penis then getting it done is a bit extreme and foolish. If it were a long-term marriage and a happy, mutual decision because they'd both prefer it then I don't see that as un-healthy. Bottom line, if you ultimatly make the decision on your own and it is beneficial to your life, I have no problems with cosmetic surgery.
If you're 500 lbs, then someone telling you to lose weight is more likely worried about the health consequences than the cosmetic aspect of your weight.

Making your partner happy about something so shallow? If someone actually loves you they won't be like "By the way, you know this physical flaw, go get surgery to change it for me."
I never said it was a deciding point but if I have a long term partner (lets say wife) and I know she would be happier with me cut even if she does not force that opinion on me I still might do it if I don’t have a compelling reason not too and it makes me happy
Because making her happy would defiantly make me happy and unless it cost me too much I would be fine with it

I never said it was a deciding point but if I have a long term partner (lets say wife) and I know she would be happier with me cut even if she does not force that opinion on me I still might do it if I don’t have a compelling reason not too and it makes me happy
Because making her happy would defiantly make me happy and unless it cost me too much I would be fine with it
So you would go for less satisfactory sex so your wife could enjoy less satisfactory sex and a change in appearance?

You'd be killing nerve endings on your end, getting rid of some friction (friction = good) for the sake of appearance?

So you would go for less satisfactory sex so your wife could enjoy less satisfactory sex and a change in appearance?

You'd be killing nerve endings on your end, getting rid of some friction (friction = good) for the sake of appearance?
I was not circumcised at birth … and I did do it myself as an adult
Personally I have about the same amount of pleasure even after I desensitized plus things are just easier.

All and all I am happy with the decision (and no it was not FOR anyone but myself)

But if I had a wife and I knew it was going to be like this and I felt it would make her more happy I would defiantly do it

*eats you*

Do guys like girls even if they're fake?
Most guys don't give a damn if they're fake or not.

I, personally, have an almost physical aversion to fake breasts. To me, it's a sign of deeper psychological issues...and I have enough of those that I don't need that one weighing in on a relationship, too. :p

Most guys don't give a damn if they're fake or not.

I, personally, have an almost physical aversion to fake breasts. To me, it's a sign of deeper psychological issues...and I have enough of those that I don't need that one weighing in on a relationship, too. :p
Personally I am attracted to natural c or less

A lot of guys are , I don’t know why woman think its always about the big boobs

Personally I am attracted to natural c or less

A lot of guys are , I don’t know why woman think its always about the big boobs
Same here.

I'm one of those guys that doesn't give a damn if they're melons or mosquito bites...as long as they are real.

When you (women) lie on your back and it looks like you've got two basketballs strapped to your chest...it is NOT attractive. Let 'em fall into your armpits where they're supposed to go. :D

Same here.

I'm one of those guys that doesn't give a damn if they're melons or mosquito bites...as long as they are real.

When you (women) lie on your back and it looks like you've got two basketballs strapped to your chest...it is NOT attractive. Let 'em fall into your armpits where they're supposed to go. :D
Uggg and then there is that big breasted balloon look where they are narrow on the chest and big towards the end

Yuck!

I was not circumcised at birth … and I did do it myself as an adult
Personally I have about the same amount of pleasure even after I desensitized plus things are just easier.

All and all I am happy with the decision (and no it was not FOR anyone but myself)

But if I had a wife and I knew it was going to be like this and I felt it would make her more happy I would defiantly do it

Where were you last time this conversation came up and a bunch of men who were either uncircumcized or circumcized at birth made a bunch of comments about how it felt for the other guys and how any guy who had it done complained that sex wasn't great anymore? LOL

Anyways, good to finally have a first-hand account for the debate.


Personally I am attracted to natural c or less

Ah, so that's the real reason you like me. ;-)

As a European I didn't even know Americans often get circumcised just for appearance until I watched an episode of Sex and the City some weeks ago in which this issue was discussed.

Where were you last time this conversation came up and a bunch of men who were either uncircumcized or circumcized at birth made a bunch of comments about how it felt for the other guys and how any guy who had it done complained that sex wasn't great anymore? LOL

Anyways, good to finally have a first-hand account for the debate.



Ah, so that's the real reason you like me. ;-)
And yeah I noticed last time too but I stayed mostly out of it that time. Like I said it is different
There is a very small bit less sensation but less stuff gets in the way at least to start with. And it was just easier for me all in all I like the change (What is surprising is my parents were RC in an area where EVERYONE is circumcised lol I am surprised I wasn’t at birth lol)


Ohhh :-D maybe … that or the amazing personality that’s the biggy for me :)

Uggg and then there is that big breasted balloon look where they are narrow on the chest and big towards the end

Yuck!
Yep... that's exactly the look I was talking about. *ugh* F'n gross.

I do NOT see how any woman could think that makes them more attractive. *puke smiley*

What a bogus story. Once again there are more rumors being spread in africa about faulty methods of preventing the contraction of HIV. This sounds similar to the cracked out theory that African men can cure their AIDS if they have sex with a virgin. The facts are that HIV can enter into your blood stream through mucous membranes and open wounds (no matter how small) and that sexual intercourse often causes these sort of miniature wounds (especially in women) and that anyone having sex without a condom with a partner who has aids is at a very high risk for contracting the virus.

Personally I am attracted to natural c or less

A lot of guys are , I don’t know why woman think its always about the big boobs

HAHA like a natural c is small. I think if most of the girls who get breast implants had a natural c to begin with there wouldn't be too many breast implants being implanted.

Ohhh :-D maybe … that or the amazing personality that’s the biggy for me :)

:fluffle:

What a bogus story. Once again there are more rumors being spread in africa about faulty methods of preventing the contraction of HIV. This sounds similar to the cracked out theory that African men can cure their AIDS if they have sex with a virgin.

Nobody said that you could cure AIDS by getting circumcized, nor did they say that being circumcized would prevent you from getting AIDS. They simply suggested that an uncircumcized man having sex with someone with HIV is at a higher risk for contracting the disease than one who is circumcized. In truth, this makes sense - there are more mucous membranes exposed during sex on an uncircumcized penis.

The facts are that HIV can enter into your blood stream through mucous membranes and open wounds (no matter how small) and that sexual intercourse often causes these sort of miniature wounds (especially in women) and that anyone having sex without a condom with a partner who has aids is at a very high risk for contracting the virus.

Guess what? No one is disputing this.

I was always against circumcision of children as I thought it was a pretty barbaric thing to do to a child for any reason.

Having been circumcised at the age of 30 for medical reasons changed my mind for a while. Having gone through the agony of it myself I decided it would probably have been better to have had it done as a child, and I would have my sons circumcised. But then a child psychologist friend of mine asked me what it would be like for a child to go through the same sort of pain that I went through, without having the ability to understand why it was happening or the ability to express the pain.

So now I'm not so sure.

Even if circumcision does help prevent the spread of AIDS, it's no match for condoms, fidelity or abstinence.

In many African cultures males are circumcised as part of a coming-of-age ritual, when they are children or teenagers. I don't know if any of the cultures in South Africa do that.

As far as I know, the great majority of South African adult men are circumsised. Certainly the amaXhosa and amaZulu are circumsised between the age of 16 and 22. As far as I know BaSotho are also circumsised. Of course, Jews like me are circumsised at birth.

I was always against circumcision of children as I thought it was a pretty barbaric thing to do to a child for any reason.


Actually, circumcision isn't as painful for an infant as for a child, teen or adult. They tend to recover more quickly and don't remember it. And of course the kid is anesthetized (sp?) first in a hospital circumcision. If it is done at a bris, the baby is given a little wine (it sounds awful, I know, but it actually works just fine).

Even though I am not equipped with the parts in question, I feel sort of sorry for guys in cultures that practice teen or adult circumcision, because there's usually no anaesthetic and it hurts a lot more. But even they wouldn't consider it "barbaric," because to them getting circumcised is part of becoming a man.

But then a child psychologist friend of mine asked me what it would be like for a child to go through the same sort of pain that I went through, without having the ability to understand why it was happening or the ability to express the pain.

Sounds like an emotional plea so that you would agree with the psychologist's idea of circumcision.

It is highly unlikely that infant circumcisions go through the same pain as those who are more developed - especially those post puberty.

There is some pain - which is why it is discouraged for them to be carred out without local anesthetic, but I highly doubt it is as painful as what you went through.

(Not that this is, in and of itself, a reason to do it)

If we outlaw circumcision, then only outlaws will have beautiful penises.

time for a fitting sing-along...

(to the tune of Bring Back My Bonnie)
Oh my one skin lies over my two skin.
My two skin lies over my three.
My three skin lies over my foreskin.
So pull back my foreskin for me.
Pull back, pull back, oh pull back my foreskin for me, for me.
Pull back, pull back, oh pull back my foreskin for me.

And the irony is I'm jewish and still know this song.

And what are the bonuses OF keeping your foreskin?
Im sure we know the benefits of removing it …
General health
Cleanliness
Look
Infection prevention
(now supposedly disease prevention)


All seem to be a decent reason to get circumcised
What are your arguments for keeping your forskin?

Hey, if you cut your dick off completely you won't have to worry about look or cleanliness. No more spraying on the floor or the seat. No more premature ejaculation. No more erectile dysfunction. Let's all cut our dicks off. And it will be almost impossible to catch AIDS from sex.

The advantage to have a foreskin is not having an unnecessary surgery. No callousing on the head of the penis. I don't care how much evidence you show that cutting the protective hood off of the clitoris prevents cancer, I'm not going to advocate. Mastectomies have a greater ability to allow women to recover from breast cancer but we still try to only remove the tumors where possible rather than mutilate a woman's body. Circumcision is mutilation.

Hey, if you cut your dick off completely you won't have to worry about look or cleanliness. No more spraying on the floor or the seat. No more premature ejaculation. No more erectile dysfunction. Let's all cut our dicks off. And it will be almost impossible to catch AIDS from sex.

The advantage to have a foreskin is not having an unnecessary surgery. No callousing on the head of the penis. I don't care how much evidence you show that cutting the protective hood off of the clitoris prevents cancer, I'm not going to advocate. Mastectomies have a greater ability to allow women to recover from breast cancer but we still try to only remove the tumors where possible rather than mutilate a woman's body. Circumcision is mutilation.

Funny. I don't feel mutilated.

How many here would think it was okay for the parents to schedule for their children to have their appendix and tonsels removed shortly after birth as a preventative measure? I personally wouldn't.

I'm circumcized. I think it's barbaric and I would never do it to my children. My parents have said knowing what they know today they would not have done it. I frown upon parents selectively mutilating their children, especially without significant and clear medical benefit, even if it is generally considered acceptable by society.

Funny. I don't feel mutilated.
Neither do many people with tattoos covering their entire face, but few would argue that if a parent did this to their child that it would be barbaric.

Neither do many people with tattoos covering their entire face, but few would argue that if a parent did this to their child that it would be barbaric.
You said it yourself, circumcision is generally considered acceptable by society. Huge face tattoos are not.

Circumcision in most cases is an unnecessary procedure. Even if there are some medical benefits from it, they're not even nearly clear enough to justify it done routinely to infants, not to mention that the potential good is outweighed by at least equal amount of potential bad.

What really bugs me is people saying "oh don't worry about it, they don't feel the pain or at least they don't remember it". Infants most certainly feel the pain, otherwise they wouldn't scream their lungs out during the circumcision, and even if it doesn't register as a conscious memory the trauma's bound to leave some mark.

Call me a big softie, but if I had children I'm pretty sure it would be a pretty big priority for me to protect them from any pain or discomfort, especially when they're far too small to protect themselves. I mean come on, we're talking about one of the most sensitive body parts in the human body, and I don't think any one of us would be willing to have a considerable chunk of it peeled off. To subject infants to this without clear medical reason is barbaric, nothing less.

One last thing to remember is the permanent nature of the procedure. Parents make a choice their child is going to have to live with for the rest of his life. If he want's to have his penis cut he can do it when he's old enough to make the decision himself, but growing back a foreskin takes a bit more effort.

Imagine if you had an unsightly but harmless growth on a large portion of your face which could be easily removed. Medically pointless cosmetic surgery? Yes. Would I want my parents to have it done? Indeed. I realise this is an extreme case but in the end attractiveness is subjective. I feel that parents should be given he choice over this type of thing as long as it is not detrimental to the child. [Yes I realise it hurts when it gets done but no-one actually remembers it].
I love it when people try to pretend like having a foreskin is the abnormality. Having a foreskin is natural and not at all comparable to a genetic or developmental aberration. If everyone stopped getting circumcisions then there wouldn't be cosmetic reason to get the surgery.

Eeek glad I am circumcized



Circumcision is pointless. All it does is make your dick feel worse during sex. And cut down on the smell a little bit. Oh, not to mention making your dick smaller (the extra skin helps).

If we outlaw circumcision, then only outlaws will have beautiful penises.

Flowers are beautiful, newborn babies are beautiful, maybe even circumcised penises are beautiful, but my uncut schlong is simply spectacular. :)

General Health: I dunno
Cleanliness: One fold may still make a difference.
Look: Meh, it isn't that big of a deal but I like a cut man out of personal preference.
Infection prevention: I've heard of them.

I find it sooo amazing that women would make this kind of an argument. I wonder if it would be accepted if I said in a thread that I prefer large breasts so I'm going to get my daughter fake breasts.

I love it when people try to pretend like having a foreskin is the abnormality. Having a foreskin is natural and not at all comparable to a genetic or developmental aberration. If everyone stopped getting circumcisions then there wouldn't be cosmetic reason to get the surgery.
You're right with that last part. Probably part of the reason why I hold my opinion is that I'm from a generation and area where circumcision was so common that it was normal and having a foreskin, while not considered an all out abnormality, wasn't the prefered way and circumcisions were the norm. Anyway I have to go and I honestly don't care that much about it. All I am saying is that using words like mutilation are a little extreme as being circumcised isn't consider abnormal in general society. Adios.

LOL... You people are amazing. o.o I for one cannot post 20 messages just to solely talk about the subject of circumcision. But it's funny to read :P Until you get all scientific on me. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
And how hard can it be to keep it clean? But you know, one shower a week is uh... >.> I do hope guys take more showers than that. :eek: :eek: Seriously, I think parents should just back off and let the kid decide when he grows up. Spend a couple thousand or so (I actually don't know how much it'd cost to get it done as an adult...) to get circumcised if you decide that it's too ugly or bothersome. Not hard...

What good is look if you can't fuck the sweet outside of the vagina, the most sensitive part of a woman's internal anatomy besides the g-spot? It sure does feel the best. But no! You guys think it's great having to be so lubed you can't feel it! What does appearance mean if I can make my girlfriend moan louder than you can make yours? The foreskin is there to help sexually. It's infinitely more convenient to keep it, it never callouses your head, never kills those tasty nerve cells, and acts as a rolling bearing to make sex more easy. All you have to do is keep it clean, and that's as simple as taking a shower every day. It's infinitely more convenient. Maybe african guys aren't good at keeping themselves clean. Maybe smegma is considered sexy.

Same here.

I'm one of those guys that doesn't give a damn if they're melons or mosquito bites...as long as they are real.

When you (women) lie on your back and it looks like you've got two basketballs strapped to your chest...it is NOT attractive. Let 'em fall into your armpits where they're supposed to go. :D

EWW... ROFLMFAO... That's sad... Let em fall, damnit. I know, I'm late posting this but I just read it :P

Crusader Knight, LOL.. <3 That's well said :P
Hear hear

Aw, I wanted to hear the replies about how mutilation should be the choice of the parent.