[what?]

Still think circumcision is good? Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsYNBY2OTmI

did you know that you can embed videos in your posts now?

[Banana]

"It's cleaner." Well, the parent never has to do more than wipe the outside like a finger if it gets soiled. And even if all the horror stories of parents having to clean under the foreskin were true, why on earth would that justify removing part of an infant's body? It takes a very lazy and egocentric parent to remove part of their son's penis all for the sake of saving a few seconds. All an adult man or older boy has to do is pull back and rinse in the shower. Perhaps most American men are too stupid to know how to move their penis around in the shower? Any of you men on here incapable of cleaning your penis in the shower?

b. "It's healthier". Any body part can fail and the foreskin is no exception. However, if properly cared for throughout life the foreskin is no more likely to need amputative surgery than any other body part. Like with all body parts, amputation should be the very last resort, not a preemptive act chosen by people who don't even own the body part in question. Infections that don't resolve under nonmedical means can be treated with antibiotics. Sometimes I wonder if half the people who have their sons' circumcised to prevent UTIs even know what a UTI is. That the foreskin causes cervical cancer was disproven over 20 years ago, penile cancer is a very rare disease of old men, and in the case of HIV/AIDS, newborns are not having sex, and parents should not assume their son's future sex life will put him at risk for any STD. I've known many men who stayed virgins until marriage. The idea isn't preposterous.

c. "It looks better." A parent changing his or her son's or daughter's perfectly normal genitals to satisfy their own sense of aesthetics is not someone who should have a child.

d. "It has to look like his Dad's." This is to protect the feelings of the father, not spare the child any confusion. As has been pointed out numerous times, the first things a boy will notice is the size and the hair on his dad's penis, not the missing foreskin. The idea that a child could be psychologically damaged by his penis looking different from his dad's has no basis in reality. At least no more than a blonde child being damged by having a dark-haired dad, or a tall, thin child being damaged by having a short, heavyset dad.

[BIRD33]

Still think circumcision is good? Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsYNBY2OTmI

Someone let me know how this turns out cause I aint clicking it.

[what?]

Why would you. You've never had foreskin. You don't know.

Excellent article
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/vince...f_men.html

do guys with their foreskin intact get you off any better than circumsized men?

[Banana]

Someone let me know how this turns out cause I aint clicking it.

It's not a clipping video. But, if you want that, I can post that too.

[Banana]

A few reasons to consider:
*Circumcision isn't recommended by any medical organization in the world.

*Circumcision has known, documented, proven risks-including hemorrhage, infection, and death-but only 'potential' benefits.

*Circumcision gives your son a 71% risk of penile adhesions.

*10% of circumcised boys will suffer from meatal stenosis because of urethral exposure to urine and delayed healing caused by circumcision. This often necessitates further surgery.

*Circumcision in the U.S. became popular in an attempt to prevent boys from masturbating. Ever since it has been a cure in search of a disease.

*Circumcision-even with anesthetic-hurts.

*Circumcision-even when 'properly performed'-causes permanent loss of healthy, functional tissue.

*Genitals are the most intimate part of our bodies, making the decision to alter them extremely personal...which is why the choice should be left to the owner of the penis-the person it's permanently attached to and will one day be using it sexually.

*Circumcision can be done anytime in a man's life, but it cannot be undone; once the foreskin is gone, it's gone forever.

*The foreskin contains 2-3 feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves, and 10,000-20,000 specialized nerve endings.

*Many parents opt for this surgery knowing it's unnecessary/cosmetic, purely for cultural reasons (matching dad) or vague cultural concerns (fear of locker room teasing).

[what?]

do guys with their foreskin intact get you off any better than circumsized men?

also, nanner, do you think a circumsized dinger looks bad? better or worse than a "whole" one?

[Jimmy]

Says a reclusive group of uncircumcised scientists ostracized from regular society. Findings were sent by messenger pigeon from their undisclosed lab. "Please accept us" was scrawled desperately on the bottom.

Ha.

[Banana]

do guys with their foreskin intact get you off any better than circumsized men?

I guess you'll never know. And I can open that can of worms too.

That circumcision decreases sexual pleasure is a charge commonly levelled against it, as sexuality is often an integral part to the human existance should the allegations levelled by the anti-circumcision movement be correct then it is certainly something worthy of taking into consideration.

1. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the ridged band.

2. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the frenulum.

3. Normal sex involves stimulation of the fine touch nerves of the normal amount of mucuosal membrane.

4. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the glans.

5. Normal sex involves FULL functional stimulation of ALL of these nerves because they are not covered over with layers of keratinized tissue.

1. Circumcised sex has no ridged band to be stimulated.

2. Circumcised sex has no little or no frenulum left to be stimulated.

3. Circumcised sex has LESS fine touch nerves to be stimulated.

4. Circumcised sex has the glans to be stimulated.

5. Circumcised sex has PARTIAL functional stimulation of the existing nerves due to being covered with layers of keratinized tissue.



And another from widely respected and revered Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides:

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

In addition I would like to draw attention to the existance of the "Gliding Motion", a mechanism whereby the foreskin glides smoothly along the glans during intercourse, eased by natural male lubricant. Many intact men state this as their principal source of pleasure. This is of course absent in circumcised men who generally have to use artificial lubrication or saliva to supplant evolution's bounty and must stimulate the glans directly.

This considered I would suggest that as an operation of, at very best, negligible benefit circumcision should never be performed upon the unconsenting, such as infants.

[BIRD33]

I don't see anything that you posted that is as important as reduced HIV infections.If you give your kid a 50% less chance of catching a fatal disease by circumcising him doesnt that outweigh any benefits like improved feeling during sex?




Research by the World Health Organization published in the US Public Library of Science Medicine journal in July, 2006, showed that men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections could be avoided.[84]

In March 2005, a Cochrane review of the medical evidence concluded that, “Although the positive results of these observational studies suggest that circumcision is an intervention worth evaluating in randomised controlled trials, the current quality of evidence is insufficient to consider implementation of circumcision as a public-health intervention.”[85] Initial population based studies suggesting that circumcision might play a protective role were criticised because confounding factors such as religion may have skewed the results; the reviewers therefore commented that the results of randomised controlled trials then underway would be critical.[85]

The results of the first randomised controlled trial was published in November 2005. It found a 60% reduction in the rate of new HIV infection (from 2.1 per 100 to 0.85 per 100 in the intervention group and claimed that male circumcision provided a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa.[46]

Two further randomised trials of the effect of circumcision on HIV infections conducted in Uganda and Kenya were originally scheduled to be concluded in 2007. However, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated on December 13, 2006 that they had stopped the trials early citing that circumcision was so effective that it would be unethical to continue the experiment and not offer circumcision in the uncircumcised men who were acting as controls. The results showed that circumcised males in Uganda were 53% less likely to get infected and circumcised males in Kenya were 48% less likely to get infected.[86]

A possible mechanism relates to Langerhans cells, a part of the human immune system. Szabo and Short suggest that Langerhans cells in the foreskin may provide an entry point for viral infection.[87] Three studies identified high concentrations of Langerhans and other HIV target cells in the human prepuce.[88][89][90] Additionally, McCoombe, Cameron, and Short found that the keratin is thinnest on the foreskin and frenulum.[91] Conversely, some authors believe that the prepuce has an important immunological function, and that its removal increases the chances of infections.[92] This hypothesis has been criticised on technical grounds.[93]

[Banana]

also, nanner, do you think a circumsized dinger looks bad? better or worse than a "whole" one?

It looks like a penis with a piece missing. Not bad. But, definitely altered.

[what?]

Says a reclusive group of uncircumcised scientists ostracized from regular society. Findings were sent by messenger pigeon from their undisclosed lab. "Please accept us" was scrawled desperately on the bottom.

Ha.

seriously James, what are you doing wrong that the missus thinks an extra couple of square inches of skin flap would make you better in the sack, eh?

[what?]

It looks like a penis with a piece missing. Not bad. But, definitely altered.

does an uncut pecker get your rocks off harder than a circumsized one?

[Devious]

Pussies are different, that's what makes them cool.

Its kind of like going to a big formal event. All of the women are dressed differently in beautiful gowns of every kind. Each of those women has a differnt looking pussy. All of the men are in black tie, white shirt, black coat and pants. Those are all of the cut guys. The uncut guys are parking the cars outside.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's some funny stuff.

[Banana]

I don't see anything that you posted that is as important as reduced HIV infections.If you give your kid a 50% less chance of catching a fatal disease by circumcising him doesnt that outweigh any benefits like improved feeling during sex?




Research by the World Health Organization published in the US Public Library of Science Medicine journal in July, 2006, showed that men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections could be avoided.[84]

In March 2005, a Cochrane review of the medical evidence concluded that, “Although the positive results of these observational studies suggest that circumcision is an intervention worth evaluating in randomised controlled trials, the current quality of evidence is insufficient to consider implementation of circumcision as a public-health intervention.”[85] Initial population based studies suggesting that circumcision might play a protective role were criticised because confounding factors such as religion may have skewed the results; the reviewers therefore commented that the results of randomised controlled trials then underway would be critical.[85]

The results of the first randomised controlled trial was published in November 2005. It found a 60% reduction in the rate of new HIV infection (from 2.1 per 100 to 0.85 per 100 in the intervention group and claimed that male circumcision provided a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa.[46]

Two further randomised trials of the effect of circumcision on HIV infections conducted in Uganda and Kenya were originally scheduled to be concluded in 2007. However, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated on December 13, 2006 that they had stopped the trials early citing that circumcision was so effective that it would be unethical to continue the experiment and not offer circumcision in the uncircumcised men who were acting as controls. The results showed that circumcised males in Uganda were 53% less likely to get infected and circumcised males in Kenya were 48% less likely to get infected.[86]

A possible mechanism relates to Langerhans cells, a part of the human immune system. Szabo and Short suggest that Langerhans cells in the foreskin may provide an entry point for viral infection.[87] Three studies identified high concentrations of Langerhans and other HIV target cells in the human prepuce.[88][89][90] Additionally, McCoombe, Cameron, and Short found that the keratin is thinnest on the foreskin and frenulum.[91] Conversely, some authors believe that the prepuce has an important immunological function, and that its removal increases the chances of infections.[92] This hypothesis has been criticised on technical grounds.[93]

Are infants at immediate risk of acquiring AIDS through sex? Provide evidence that circumcising African infants would:

1) Prove an effective tactic.
2) Be feasible to carry out safely.
3) Is superior in terms of effectivity to methods which have been tried, tested and proven to work in reducing HIV rates.
4) Is feasible in terms of resources.
5) Is possible without reducing measures which have been proven to work as anti-HIV strategies.


This is not a scientifically proven study. remember when the FDA approves drugs, and they later pull them because of untoward and lethal side effects?

[what?]

I guess you'll never know. And I can open that can of worms too.

That circumcision decreases sexual pleasure is a charge commonly levelled against it, as sexuality is often an integral part to the human existance should the allegations levelled by the anti-circumcision movement be correct then it is certainly something worthy of taking into consideration.

1. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the ridged band.

2. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the frenulum.

3. Normal sex involves stimulation of the fine touch nerves of the normal amount of mucuosal membrane.

4. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the glans.

5. Normal sex involves FULL functional stimulation of ALL of these nerves because they are not covered over with layers of keratinized tissue.

1. Circumcised sex has no ridged band to be stimulated.

2. Circumcised sex has no little or no frenulum left to be stimulated.

3. Circumcised sex has LESS fine touch nerves to be stimulated.

4. Circumcised sex has the glans to be stimulated.

5. Circumcised sex has PARTIAL functional stimulation of the existing nerves due to being covered with layers of keratinized tissue.



And another from widely respected and revered Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides:





In addition I would like to draw attention to the existance of the "Gliding Motion", a mechanism whereby the foreskin glides smoothly along the glans during intercourse, eased by natural male lubricant. Many intact men state this as their principal source of pleasure. This is of course absent in circumcised men who generally have to use artificial lubrication or saliva to supplant evolution's bounty and must stimulate the glans directly.

This considered I would suggest that as an operation of, at very best, negligible benefit circumcision should never be performed upon the unconsenting, such as infants.

I get off just fine. if men don't care if or how well you get off, why are you concerned about us?

[Banana]

does an uncut pecker get your rocks off harder than a circumsized one?

Are you postulating this because when you have a baby boy, you should think of how his future wife will feel when he glides his pecker into her?

[Banana]

I get off just fine. if men don't care if or how well you get off, why are you concerned about us?

I am concerned about baby boys who have no say in the matter.

[Jimmy]

Imma Pierce His Ears Too!!!

[what?]

Are you postulating this because when you have a baby boy, you should think of how his future wife will feel when he glides his pecker into her?

I don't know what postulating means, sicko.

I am concerned about baby boys who have no say in the matter.

when the time comes, they'll be fine

edit: heheh. "comes"