NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

Also note the scientist's name is Dr De Cock :p

and yet if you chop all your penis off that number goes to nearly 100% less chance :eek:

I think I will take my chances with my foreskin/penis

I also hear that condoms are somewhat useful in this endeavor.

I heard sex is better without a foreskin.

Sex is definitely better with a penis, or at least it has been in my experience.

I also hear that condoms are somewhat useful in this endeavor.

Yeah, but...

Well, condoms are kind of awkward, and I don't remember being circumcized.

Yeah, but...

Well, condoms are kind of awkward, and I don't remember being circumcized.

They are kinda awkward, but then there's HPV and other crotch-rot to consider.

I mean my general thinking when about to get it on is: "If she's gonna sleep with me, who else would she sleep with? Who knows where she's been, the dirty skank?"

and then usually I don't get it on after all, because I think aloud.

I heard sex is better without a foreskin.

allot less feeling in the penis means you can bang away for a few seconds longer that’s pretty much it

Sex is definitely better with a penis, or at least it has been in my experience.

You’ve obviously never been fingered in the arsehole....:eek:

Well, condoms are kind of awkward, and I don't remember being circumcized.

have you ever had a woman agree to not use a condom?

and then usually I don't get it on after all, because I think aloud.

or you put in all that effort and it dies on you with all the concentration:mad:

allot less feeling in the penis means you can bang away for a few seconds longer that’s pretty much it



You’ve obviously never been fingered in the arsehole....:eek:

Intriguing. I heard that there was a male equivalent to the g-spot somewhere along the colon, but I don't know where it is. I think I might have hit it with my partner, but I've never experienced it myself.

have you ever had a woman agree to not use a condom?

No, but I lost a chance at sex because of a condom's awkwardness. My then-partner had only slept with one other person, who was also a virgin, so I could've probably done it and had been fine.

or you put in all that effort and it dies on you with all the concentration:mad:

Never had that problem yet, thankfully. But hey I'm almost 30, and there's a first time for everything.

Intriguing. I heard that there was a male equivalent to the g-spot somewhere along the colon, but I don't know where it is. I think I might have hit it with my partner, but I've never experienced it myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_milking

it works well combined with normal penis action though good luck finding someone to do it

No, but I lost a chance at sex because of a condom's awkwardness. My then-partner had only slept with one other person, who was also a virgin, so I could've probably done it and had been fine.

Practice or ask her to put it on (use the line about it being sexy;) )

Never had that problem yet, thankfully. But hey I'm almost 30, and there's a first time for everything.

Pffft I’m 17 (then again looking at the women I sleep with its for the best in most cases :p )

Practice or ask her to put it on (use the line about it being sexy;) )

He was putting it on last time, and he claimed it didn't fit (flattering, but I somehow doubt it).

Old news. the only real benifit is the lack of a foreskin means its harder for bacteria to flourish. As long as you are a sanitary person, the effects are likely negligable. You really dont lose that much feeling with circumcision though.

He was putting it on last time, and he claimed it didn't fit (flattering, but I somehow doubt it).

I think he was putting it on backwards :p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

Also note the scientist's name is Dr De Cock :p

D'oh! (about the doctor's name)

About the story: I wonder if this study, and others like it, will bring about a change in the policy direction taken over the last decade or so by various US State legislatures which have been changing their Medicare programs in regards circumcision coverage for boy births, they have been ending their coverage for circumcision for poor people.

Many state legislatures have been convinced by anti-circumcision groups, that they could save a little money and not cover circumcisions at birth anymore, convinced by the argument that circumcisions had no medical benefits and so why waste the money. Well if this research holds up, as it looks like it will, only the very hard-core anti-circumcision zealot could try to logic an argument out of it’s obvious conclusions, it's a no brainer decision to get your boy circumcised if he was born today.

D'oh! (about the doctor's name)

About the story: I wonder if this study, and others like it, will bring about a change in the policy direction taken over the last decade or so by various US State legislatures which have been changing their Medicare programs in regards circumcision coverage for boy births, they have been ending their coverage for circumcision for poor people.

Many state legislatures have been convinced by anti-circumcision groups, that they could save a little money and not cover circumcisions at birth anymore, convinced by the argument that circumcisions had no medical benefits and so why waste the money. Well if this research holds up, as it looks like it will, only the very hard-core anti-circumcision zealot could try to logic an argument out of it’s obvious conclusions, it's a no brainer decision to get your boy circumcised if he was born today.

Well it's only a health benefit for the sexually active. I.e. if you're old enough to decide to be circumcised then you're old enough to get the health benefits it provides. It's not an argument for the default circumcision of babies. And there's a reason that these studies are carried out in Africa. they say it only gives a 50% reduction in infections. The only way that's a real benefit is when you're playing statistics with the large numbers of infected people in Africa. if you've got millions of infections every year, then the chance of cutting that is a boost. But in most western countries with low infection rates, the 50% reduction on a case by case basis means for most individuals you're better off with just wearing a condom.

All these old-wifes tales and urban myths about the foreskin. Why does every parent in the United States seem to fall for this misunderstood notion of circumcision being more 'sanitary'. It makes almost as much sense as removing healthy tissue (which circumcision does).

I don't believe in cutting off a gawd-given part of your body.
Educate the public about protecting oneself during sexual intercourse,
like with contraceptions and whatever,
but don't tell em to chop off a piece of their wee-wee.

I don't believe in cutting off a gawd-given part of your body.
Educate the public about protecting oneself during sexual intercourse,
like with contraceptions and whatever,
but don't tell em to chop off a piece of their wee-wee.

But ... in the Abrahamic religions, it was Gawd 'Imself who demanded it.

Plenty of studies show that oral sex is less risky for HIV than vaginal sex, and vaginal sex still far less risky than anal sex.

Seems like you could reduce HIV infection rates by avoiding anal sex.

But how are you going to do that? I think that circumcising infants is plausible as a health policy - telling adult men to slice off their foreskin is far less plausible - not much more plausible than telling people to stop taking it up the ass.

Well it's only a health benefit for the sexually active. I.e. if you're old enough to decide to be circumcised then you're old enough to get the health benefits it provides. It's not an argument for the default circumcision of babies. And there's a reason that these studies are carried out in Africa. they say it only gives a 50% reduction in infections. The only way that's a real benefit is when you're playing statistics with the large numbers of infected people in Africa. if you've got millions of infections every year, then the chance of cutting that is a boost. But in most western countries with low infection rates, the 50% reduction on a case by case basis means for most individuals you're better off with just wearing a condom.

I never said anything against wearing a condom. But the study does position an argument for infant circumcision. Health risks for adult circumcision are higher. In fact, infant circumcision allows the boys penis to develop nerve endings during growth that can not be duplicated by adult cells. I.e., the nerve cells in the head of the infants penis are not grown yet and can adjust easier during adolescence than if circumcision occurs in a fully grown adult penis.

I'd like to see these studies replicated in western countries where proper sanitation is the norm and condoms are freely available.

Intriguing. I heard that there was a male equivalent to the g-spot somewhere along the colon, but I don't know where it is. I think I might have hit it with my partner, but I've never experienced it myself.

It's your prostate, women don't have one.

allot less feeling in the penis means you can bang away for a few seconds longer that’s pretty much it


i heard the sex was better for the person on the receiving end if the penis is circumcised. it's to do with the greater friction when there's no skin sliding about.

I don't believe in cutting off a gawd-given part of your body.
Educate the public about protecting oneself during sexual intercourse,
like with contraceptions and whatever,
but don't tell em to chop off a piece of their wee-wee.

Are you anti-wisdom tooth removal as well? How about people putting holes in their babies ears for jewelry, are you against that too?

i heard the sex was better for the person on the receiving end if the penis is circumcised. it's to do with the greater friction when there's no skin sliding about.

Well, if we use those sorts of arguments, let's give every man a subincision against his will - after all, it exposes more nerve endings, and makes sex more pleasureable for the man.

There's another reason for not circumcising infants to protect them against HIV in the future. Who's to say that come 15 or 16 years that it takes for those infants to become sexually active there won't be a cure for HIV. The way medicine is progressing it's not at all beyond the realms of reason. Of course it's unlikely that the drug would be available to the third world which is why these suggestions for circumcision are for Africa and not for the West.

Are you anti-wisdom tooth removal as well? How about people putting holes in their babies ears for jewelry, are you against that too?

No, just the circumcision I'm against. :D

Plenty of studies show that oral sex is less risky for HIV than vaginal sex, and vaginal sex still far less risky than anal sex.

Seems like you could reduce HIV infection rates by avoiding anal sex.

But how are you going to do that? I think that circumcising infants is plausible as a health policy - telling adult men to slice off their foreskin is far less plausible - not much more plausible than telling people to stop taking it up the ass.

I'm not challenging you so much as asking for more information...

Which studies showed oral sex as less risky than vaginal sex? I don't recall those results, what am I forgetting?

Well, if we use those sorts of arguments, let's give every man a subincision against his will - after all, it exposes more nerve endings, and makes sex more pleasureable for the man.

i said nothing of this being an argument for forced circumcision. it's clearly something to do with circumcision as a matter of choice. as should this AIDS prevention reason. it should be a matter of choice for the man once he becomes sexually mature.

There's another reason for not circumcising infants to protect them against HIV in the future. Who's to say that come 15 or 16 years that it takes for those infants to become sexually active there won't be a cure for HIV. The way medicine is progressing it's not at all beyond the realms of reason. Of course it's unlikely that the drug would be available to the third world which is why these suggestions for circumcision are for Africa and not for the West.

Oh nonsense. What is the argument for not getting a boy circumcised in the west? We might find a cure, he might not be sexual active... And if we are wrong, he can't go back and choose infant circumcision then, only adult circumcision then, different risks involved and different results.

I never said anything against wearing a condom.
But the very fact that you're circumcising people to protect them from HIV is going to have that effect. In Africa where HIV is rampant the 50% reduction on it's own is a huge benefit, but in the west where the rates of infection are low IMO you'll find that the relatively few infections that circumcision protects against will be overshadowed by the general increase of a laissez-faire attitude regarding infection in the wider population.

I'm not challenging you so much as asking for more information...

Which studies showed oral sex as less risky than vaginal sex? I don't recall those results, what am I forgetting?


http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5338a1.htm

But the very fact that you're circumcising people to protect them from HIV is going to have that effect. In Africa where HIV is rampant the 50% reduction on it's own is a huge benefit, but in the west where the rates of infection are low IMO you'll find that the relatively few infections that circumcision protects against will be overshadowed by the general increase of a laissez-faire attitude regarding infection in the wider population.

We know people with circumcisions are less likely to get it. You think less people will use condoms if they are circumcised. See the difference?

We can educate them to use the condom AND circumcise them, problem solved.

Oh nonsense. What is the argument for not getting a boy circumcised in the west? We might find a cure, he might not be sexual active... And if we are wrong, he can't go back and choose infant circumcision then, only adult circumcision then, different risks involved and different results.
Well considering that it is a medical procedure with risks attached to it, and by definition is carried out without the consent of the child, I think there needs to be convincing arguments for it rather than looking for arguments against. And certainly the possibility of a reduction of infection in one disease, and only then 16 years into the future is nowhere near enough.

Yeah, but...

Well, condoms are kind of awkward, and I don't remember being circumcized.

I don't mind wearing condoms at all.
1. A little me would be the Apocalypse.
2. I don't like diseases.
3. You get used to them pretty quickly.
4. You get to finish where you started *cough*.
5. I think it's kinda sexy when a girl watches me put it on. I dunno why.
6. I hope that wasn't too graphic.

Not buying it.

Forever, circumcision has always been held up to the light as a cure for a great many things, not real diseases mind you, but sociel ones.

For example. Circumcision was used to cure jerking off. Around the victoria era.

If anything, this seems to be an attempt to revive the concept of 'circumcision cures'

THe worst part of 'studies' is that they really don't tell us anything; a better question would be "why does the removal of the foreskin reduce HIV?" and "why does the female clitiaical hood, when removed, proved the same effect?"

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5338a1.htm

Thats about Male to Male sex, there's no vaginal sex results in their analyses that I found (scanned).

We know people with circumcisions are less likely to get it. You think less people will use condoms if they are circumcised. See the difference?

We can educate them to use the condom AND circumcise them, problem solved.
But if people are wearing condoms then the circumcision is only going to have a miniscule increase in protection and only then against mishaps such as burst condoms. The very fact that you're treating it as a defence, as part of the solution, means that you're asking people to rely on it. And if people are putting reliance on it then some of them are going to rely on it when they're too lazy to get a condom.

I'd like to see these studies replicated in western countries where proper sanitation is the norm and condoms are freely available.

Indeed. From what I've seen, if condom use and proper hygeine are observed, circumcision really doesn't make much of a difference in STD transfer or bacterial infection.

How about people putting holes in their babies ears for jewelry, are you against that too?

I, for one, am absolutely against this. It is a completely unnecessary change made to a child's body that they could just as easily decide for themselves later. At least circumcision may have some medical benefits (although all too many people do it because of their own religion or out of sheer habit).

When the baby gets older, if he/she wants piercings, fine. But there is no more reason to do them at infancy than there is to give them tatoos or have purely aesthetic plastic surgery, or any number of completely unnecessary procedures.

We know people with circumcisions are less likely to get it.

But we don't know if this difference would be obvious in a society in which safe sexual practices and good hygeine were prevalent. I, for one, would like to see studies in a Western country verify the trend before I decided to have a piece of my son's body removed.

We can educate them to use the condom AND circumcise them, problem solved.

If they're using condoms, the circumcision might not have a significant effect.


THe worst part of 'studies' is that they really don't tell us anything; a better question would be "why does the removal of the foreskin reduce HIV?"

I have seen this one fairly well answered and, in the end, it's just basic biology. A man who has been circumcized has very little mucous membrane exposed during sex. Most of the area that would have been mucous membrane if he were not circumcized is keratinized, making it much more difficult for the virus to pass through. An uncircumcized man, on the other hand, has much more mucous membrane area over which the virus could fairly easily pass.

and "why does the female clitiaical hood, when removed, proved the same effect?"

I've seen no studies that suggest this. Of course, the clitoral hood is (a) smaller and (b) not located within the vagina. It is going to get a lot less exposure to man's bodily fluids (generally) than the penis is to the woman's.

I don't mind wearing condoms at all.
1. A little me would be the Apocalypse.
2. I don't like diseases.
3. You get used to them pretty quickly.
4. You get to finish where you started *cough*.
5. I think it's kinda sexy when a girl watches me put it on. I dunno why.
6. I hope that wasn't too graphic.

I'm also against infections and all the like, but a condom prevented me from having sex once (see previous posts).

Always sexier to have your partner put it on for you, methinks, but that was the source of the problem.

I'm also against infections and all the like, but a condom prevented me from having sex once (see previous posts).

Always sexier to have your partner put it on for you, methinks, but that was the source of the problem.

Hmm...I've only ever been in monogamous relationships, but I never had my partner put it on me. I'll have to try that...should it ever happen again.

(I recently realized I'm completely socially inept and it's probably a miracle I've ever dated or had sex)

"Its OK baby I'm circumsized"
Dumb Bimbo: "Oh. OK then!"

Um... ahem. Sorry, I just had to post this for the puerility factor.

But anyway, the study in Uganda ended prematurely when researchers decided it would be unethical to continue the trial and not offer the controls a circumcision. Who cares that the research showed that circumcision reduced HIV infection by 50%? I think this study is just a dastardly attempt by the americans to make the practice more widespread (the research was carried out by the US National Institute of Health).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm

edit Dr Kevin De Cock is mentioned halfway down the article. He works for the WHO.

been posted

And guess what - using condomns reduces it even more. Duh!

Nice try, though. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510786) :D

I suck at searching the forums. You think I would have got better in the 3 odd years I've perused this site.

Nice try, though. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510786) :DWell I think I have the better thread name :p

Which is weird, because your actual cock is probably pissed.

Also, how do we know that men who have been circumcised don't just have less sex? After all, circumsision cuts (no pun intended) the pleasure of sex.

Awesome.

Now, what about the report on how female genital mutilation affects STD transmission?

After all, circumsision cuts (no pun intended) the pleasure of sex.

That has been shown to lack consistency as well. In some cases, circumcison has been shown to increase sexual pleasure. Thats likely just because it can prolong the sensation though.

That has been shown to lack consistency as well. In some cases, circumcison has been shown to increase sexual pleasure. Thats likely just because it can prolong the sensation though.

I think its time for wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects

No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.

and seeing what a skin bridge is I can assure you I won't be having one nor will any of my kids

Plus unnecessary surgery is savage and weird especially since I’m from the part of the world (aka not America) that doesn’t do it as standard (and lo and behold Europe does very much the same as the U.S in sexual health if not better!)

I think its time for wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects



and seeing what a skin bridge is I can assure you I won't be having one nor will any of my kids

Plus unnecessary surgery is savage and weird especially since I’m from the part of the world (aka not America) that doesn’t do it as standard (and lo and behold Europe does very much the same as the U.S in sexual health if not better!)

I was circumcised, and let me say a few things:

If this makes sex less fun, then OMG how do you survive through an orgasm? It's barely tolerable in the amounts of pleasure I receive as it is.

Secondly, if I do have a son, I will elect to not give him a circumcision. My reasoning is this: it was designed that way, who am I to tell Nature/God to bite me? It doesn't matter if it looks different than mine, when he asks, I'll tell him why.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

Also note the scientist's name is Dr De Cock :p

LOLZ. But I prefer keeping my foreskin. We've grown attached to eachother...

There's another reason for not circumcising infants to protect them against HIV in the future. Who's to say that come 15 or 16 years that it takes for those infants to become sexually active there won't be a cure for HIV. The way medicine is progressing it's not at all beyond the realms of reason. Of course it's unlikely that the drug would be available to the third world which is why these suggestions for circumcision are for Africa and not for the West.

Anyone who did even the slightest bit of research on HIV will know that there will never be a cure or a vaccine. It is physically impossible.

Anyone who did even the slightest bit of research on HIV will know that there will never be a cure or a vaccine. It is physically impossible.

Not true at all.

There are actually populations of people who are immune to HIV. They are also, coincidentally, immune to the bubonic plague.

A little gene therapy might be just the answer. Given an immune system with the pertinent genes, HIV could be a thing of the past.



The bubonic plague however, that’s going to be around for a while. We will never be rid of it until people recognize the appalling danger the bubon poses and eradicates these seemingly harmless creatures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

Also note the scientist's name is Dr De Cock :p

Mohels worldwide report a huge increase in business :D

Not one of these again!

People, DO A SEARCH before posting!

Circumcision (on kids) physically harms kids at the time of it happening - that goes without saying. So whatever your view on "oh it doesn't cause psychological problems even though evidence shows it does" or "it's O.K. to chop off part of a boy because he MIGHT get some infection if I don't have it chopped off BUT it's not O.K. to chop off part of a girl for exactly the same reason, despite the fact that suggests male kids are less important than female kids" or any other crap, it hurts at the time of it happening and hurting kids is wrong. No two-ways about it. No hypocritical "but a boy this... and a girl this..." arguments. End of story. Period.

Anyone who did even the slightest bit of research on HIV will know that there will never be a cure or a vaccine. It is physically impossible.

Is that why researchers around the globe are working on it??!!

HIV is a hard virus to try and create a vaccine for, and there are numerous reasons for that fact, but that doesn't mean there will never be one.

No hypocritical "but a boy this... and a girl this..." arguments. End of story. Period.

It can protect boys in the long run and it can kill girls during child birth. Different effects so no, not hypocritical.

It can protect boys in the long run and it can kill girls during child birth. Different effects so no, not hypocritical.

Chopping off a girl's leg can protect her leg from getting an infection. So it IS hypocritical - if you're gonna chop off part of a boy that God made, just because not doing so means they MIGHT get some kind of infection (which is a dumb argument anyway as their are billions of sexually healthy uncircumcised men in the world) then it's hypocritical to say the same should not be done to girls.

Hah. I don't understand this kind of propaganda.

Historically, it was supposed to prevent masturbation, cancer, various STDs, and now AIDS.

Bullshit. :)

It's male genital mutilation, and in areas where you have access to SOAP, has little to no benefits of any kind. Certainly not that would warrant me doing a thing to my sons.