I'll stick with condoms thanks. And washing your penis isn't exactly challenging, unless you posses no arms.LawJik wrote:
And previous studies linked the world to being flat...Bertster7 wrote:
You should pay attention to the last line of that article.Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.
The World Health Organisation recommended in 2007 that "promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."
US just (May 07) gave Kenya $25 million for a circumcision spree to prevent AIDS..
United Nations recently (Apr 07) endorsed circumcision as a means of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS
Yummy: Jones explained that the skin on the penis isn't very absorbent, except in the lining of the foreskin, where the flesh is warm and moist. Dead skin cells and oils can combine with bacteria under the foreskin and eventually congeal into smegma, a super stinky substance
Smegma = new bf2s vocab, use wisely.
Poll
What do you think of circumscission?
| Total: 0 |
No. I'm using information based on dozens and dozens of studies.Vilham wrote:
Isnt that exactly what you are doing Bert? Using one study to make a claim.
Would you like links?
Would be good. All i know is the ladies DO like it and its cleaner.
There is a thing called a test!PBAsydney wrote:
If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix? The rest of our body is so perfect (given you don't have any physical disorders)
It no cleaner providing that you shower fairly regularly. Perhaps if I stopped showering for a year or so it'd have some effect.Vilham wrote:
Would be good. All i know is the ladies DO like it and its cleaner.
Bertster7 wrote:
No they didn't. Another common misconception.
The Greeks figured out the world was round. Throughout the middle ages most text books spoke of a spherical Earth.
It's a poor example.
Just because one study shows something, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Especially when there have been numerous other studies with contradictory results. I'm not saying the study is incorrect, but it is a little early to be jumping to any conclusions.
Your example doesnt even prove your argument, and I linked to many sources...Vilham wrote:
Isnt that exactly what you are doing Bert? Using one study to make a claim.
Bert is just waaaaay to emtionally involved in this argument he is like 30-50% of the posts...
Last edited by LawJik (2007-05-10 07:59:29)
I was circumcised when I was about 8 due to medical reasons, and I would say it is cleaner.
That's ALWAYS the excuse from religious people, "a test"stef10 wrote:
There is a thing called a test!PBAsydney wrote:
If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix? The rest of our body is so perfect (given you don't have any physical disorders)
I'm circumcised, and I have to say, whoever did mine did an amazing job
If you read the bible god really loves tests.PBAsydney wrote:
That's ALWAYS the excuse from religious people, "a test"stef10 wrote:
There is a thing called a test!PBAsydney wrote:
If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix? The rest of our body is so perfect (given you don't have any physical disorders)
Oh dont start with your hippie shit. Im an atheist and i prefer the look of a cut penis. I think it looks a lot more 'normal' and i think chicks would be more likely to stick it in the mouth if it has a head rather then a hunk of skin. As of now, if i have a son i will probly have him circumsized because[pt] KEIOS wrote:
Yesterday i saw a documentary about the pros and cons of circumscission. I used to believe, that there must be some real pro arguments, but their is no medical need to mutilate young childrens penis. all the arguments were like: if we cut it off, you can´t get cancer there....
the foreskin is there to protect and to lubricate. cutting it off, doesn´t make sense! so is it just a religious/common belief that there must be any sense in it, if your father and grandfather got circumscized, so you and your sons should also be mutilated?
what do you think about it?
A. Whether he believes in god is his own decision
B. Theres absolutely no con to a cir. penis...
If there is please let me know but for all my life ive never regretted it.
15 more years! 15 more years!
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/vi … greg_boyleVilham wrote:
Would be good. All i know is the ladies DO like it and its cleaner.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_ … 80947.htmlA survey of the female and gay sexual partners of circumcised and genitally intact men
revealed that circumcised men experienced significantly reduced sexual sensation along with
associated long-lasting negative emotional consequences.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/f … cision.htmA research study by a team of South Korean professors has found that circumcision could reduce the level of satisfaction in sex.
A survey of 373 men 30 years or older in South Korea was taken by Seoul National University professor Kim Dae-sik and JoongAng University professor Bang Myeong-geol. They found that men who underwent circumcision felt less sensation during orgasm while engaged in masturbation or sex than when they had been uncircumcised.
The BMJ agree, but you need a membership to access the page.Happily, complications of circumcision are relatively rare, although they may be under-reported following religious or cultural circumcision. For this reason, figures on the rate of complications may not be reliable. Complications include:
* reduction in penile sensation (an almost universal experience)
* bleeding
* damage to the urethra (urine tube in the penis)
* amputation of the glans (rare)
* infection in the blood or septicaemia (rare).
Need any more?
This is why I hold the position I do over circumcision. I'm not having anyone decreasing my enjoyment of sex.
tests are the single most used excuse to deny all facts they dont want to hear.stef10 wrote:
If you read the bible god really loves tests.PBAsydney wrote:
That's ALWAYS the excuse from religious people, "a test"stef10 wrote:
There is a thing called a test!
15 more years! 15 more years!
You linked to many sources about the same study. That's not the same as linking to lots of studies, many of which have contradictary findings.LawJik wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
No they didn't. Another common misconception.
The Greeks figured out the world was round. Throughout the middle ages most text books spoke of a spherical Earth.
It's a poor example.
Just because one study shows something, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Especially when there have been numerous other studies with contradictory results. I'm not saying the study is incorrect, but it is a little early to be jumping to any conclusions.Your example doesnt even prove your argument, and I linked to many sources...Vilham wrote:
Isnt that exactly what you are doing Bert? Using one study to make a claim.
Bert is just waaaaay to emtionally involved in this argument he is like 30-50% of the posts...
I'm sorry my life experience don't count then? I'm probably the only one here that has had sex with and without a foreskin but obviously Wikipedia (or other dubious internet sourse) knows more than I do.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
I read about it before I had it done, apparently it's a mixed bag in terms of it's affects. Some men have more sensation, some have less and some don't notice a difference. I fall into the last category.Bertster7 wrote:
It doesn't.
P.S Your foreskin has nothing to do with the sensation of a orgasm it's the glands in your bellend.Bertster7 wrote:
What does the foreskin do?
First, the foreskin covers and protects the glans and urinary opening from abrasion, irritation, and foreign material. Second, the foreskin provides sufficient skin length to accommodate penis growth and allow for comfortable erections. Third, the foreskin is the most sexually sensitive and pleasurable part of the penis. (Because most adult men in America were circumcised at birth, it is a common misconception that the glans is the most pleasurable part of the penis. See this page for a description of why most circumcised men seem satisfied.) A specialized ridged band of tissue encircling the tip of the foreskin contains thousands of erogenous nerve endings which provide intact men with the majority of their sexual sensation, making the foreskin vital to a man's healthy sexual response. Circumcision removes this highly erogenous tissue, resulting in a dramatic reduction in sexual sensation. Fourth, during intercourse, the intact penis glides back and forth inside its skin sheath, greatly reducing the friction between the penis and vaginal walls. Because of this, women report improved sensation and comfort with an intact penis.
Bert's first post:
Last post:Bertster7 wrote:
My issues with circumcision have nothing to do with religion, although could be loosely connected. I disagree with circumcision because it is done to a child who has no say in the matter, it is similar to the disapproval I feel for those who indoctrinate their children with religious dogma from an early age.
I don't think anything should be forced upon children until they are old enough to make proper decisions of their own.
How'd you go from protecting kids, to having better sex?Bertster7 wrote:
This is why I hold the position I do over circumcision. I'm not having anyone decreasing my enjoyment of sex.
Last edited by LawJik (2007-05-10 08:17:18)
Because it serves no purpose.LawJik wrote:
Bert's first post:Last post:Bertster7 wrote:
My issues with circumcision have nothing to do with religion, although could be loosely connected. I disagree with circumcision because it is done to a child who has no say in the matter, it is similar to the disapproval I feel for those who indoctrinate their children with religious dogma from an early age.
I don't think anything should be forced upon children until they are old enough to make proper decisions of their own.How'd you go from protecting kids, to having better sex?Bertster7 wrote:
This is why I hold the position I do over circumcision. I'm not having anyone decreasing my enjoyment of sex.
I'd believe numerous medical studies over your personal experience any day.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
I'm sorry my life experience don't count then? I'm probably the only one here that has had sex with and without a foreskin but obviously Wikipedia (or other dubious internet sourse) knows more than I do.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
I read about it before I had it done, apparently it's a mixed bag in terms of it's affects. Some men have more sensation, some have less and some don't notice a difference. I fall into the last category.
P.S Your foreskin has nothing to do with the sensation of a orgasm it's the glands in your bellend.Bertster7 wrote:
I haven't tried Wikipedia yet, but I'm sure they've got some interesting stuff. I went for the BMJ and AMA sites first and then went from there.
*edit*
I have tried Wikipedia now, they do have some interesting stuff, all of which supports what I've been saying. One thing I did find interesting, although I kind of expected, is the stuff about increased visual arousal of women.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-10 08:26:13)
Ehh... I was gunna watch porn untill i stumbled upon this.
(The interesting thread titles on bf2s are one of the few things that can intercept my travels to porn sites... since i must go through it every time i open my browser (its my homepage))
(The interesting thread titles on bf2s are one of the few things that can intercept my travels to porn sites... since i must go through it every time i open my browser (its my homepage))
Last edited by Dezerteagal5 (2007-05-10 08:18:55)
15 more years! 15 more years!
Because those are my two concerns about circumcision. The medical benefits/risks (and there do seem to be some benefits, though milder than is being suggested here and on many pro-circumcision websites), are secondary to me.LawJik wrote:
Bert's first post:Last post:Bertster7 wrote:
My issues with circumcision have nothing to do with religion, although could be loosely connected. I disagree with circumcision because it is done to a child who has no say in the matter, it is similar to the disapproval I feel for those who indoctrinate their children with religious dogma from an early age.
I don't think anything should be forced upon children until they are old enough to make proper decisions of their own.How'd you go from protecting kids, to having better sex?Bertster7 wrote:
This is why I hold the position I do over circumcision. I'm not having anyone decreasing my enjoyment of sex.
1. It shouldn't be done to anyone who is too young to make their own informed decision.
2. My reasons for not wanting it done as an adult - because it reduces sexual sensation (also I wouldn't want anyone snipping around down there).
How are those two reasons incompatible?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-10 08:26:45)
It doesn't and I am living proof of it. If you want I can go home and dig up the literature from the hospital (if i've still got it) that says it can reduce sensation but it can increase it or it may stay the same. For once, I'm talking about a subject I have first hand experience of but if you don't want to believe me the fine but at least speak truthfully because I cannot beleive any serious medical website would say it defintely reduces sensation.Bertster7 wrote:
2. My reasons for not wanting it done as an adult - because it reduces sexual sensation (also I wouldn't want anyone snipping around down there).
How are those two reasons incompatible?
Have it done, and then you may be able to debate with me but until then you're just a guy scouring the internet for websites that support your argument with no life experience.
P.S Have you ever thought that a reduction in sensation may be a good thing? I'm sure the birds would prefer a longer shag..
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-10 08:36:37)
Then why don't you actually bother to read some of the links I've posted. If you don't think medical universities, the BMJ and the AMA are "serious medical websites", then I don't really know what more I can say.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
It doesn't and I am living proof of it. If you want I can go home and dig up the literature from the hospital (if i've still got it) that says it can reduce sensation but it can increase it or it may stay the same. For once, I'm talking about a subject I have first hand experience of but if you don't want to believe me the fine but at least speak truthfully because I cannot beleive any serious medical website would say it defintely reduces sensation.Bertster7 wrote:
2. My reasons for not wanting it done as an adult - because it reduces sexual sensation (also I wouldn't want anyone snipping around down there).
How are those two reasons incompatible?
Have it done, and then you may be able to debate with me but until then you're just a guy scouring the internet for websites that support your argument with no life experience.
Your experience is especially irrelevant as it does not definitely lessen sensation, but decreased sensation is almost universal. Perhaps you are one of the lucky few.
ewwww
Reading your links would be like going to space and then coming home and looking up what it's like to go to space. And you may have read a few websites but how mucg reading do you think I did before I went in to have it done?Bertster7 wrote:
Then why don't you actually bother to read some of the links I've posted. If you don't think medical universities, the BMJ and the AMA are "serious medical websites", then I don't really know what more I can say.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
It doesn't and I am living proof of it. If you want I can go home and dig up the literature from the hospital (if i've still got it) that says it can reduce sensation but it can increase it or it may stay the same. For once, I'm talking about a subject I have first hand experience of but if you don't want to believe me the fine but at least speak truthfully because I cannot beleive any serious medical website would say it defintely reduces sensation.Bertster7 wrote:
2. My reasons for not wanting it done as an adult - because it reduces sexual sensation (also I wouldn't want anyone snipping around down there).
How are those two reasons incompatible?
Have it done, and then you may be able to debate with me but until then you're just a guy scouring the internet for websites that support your argument with no life experience.
Your experience is especially irrelevant as it does not definitely lessen sensation, but decreased sensation is almost universal. Perhaps you are one of the lucky few.
As I said before, you believe what you want but if some men do suffer less sensation then they'll be a bigger hit with the ladies than you as they'll be able to bang away all night long.
I advise you to send this information to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford because obviously they are lying to all their patients....
P.S Watch any porno and tell me those guys (not that I concentrate that hard on them) have less sensation...
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-10 08:45:55)