circumcised vs. uncircumcised?
- Thread starter l_g_k_
- Start date
I don't have a preference on other guys (I'll do either). I'm cut and wish I weren't.
cut here and have been with uncut guys. I don't have a preference for either I just like it to be nice looking, clean and attached to a nice guy.
Something else to consider - I remember reading an article somewhere that indicated research had been done and concluded that (for some reason) an uncut cock can be more susceptible to contracting AIDS> (No, I'm not making this up!) Has anybody else read anything like that and, if it's true, I wonder why...
Yes, this has been making the rounds. You can search for other threads on LPSG about this. The best answer is that babies have no HIV risk (unless the mother were infected). The idea that circ has to be done immediately at birth is highly questionable and speaks more about U.S. culture than health, as nearly all of the genitally intact guys from other cultures here will tell you.
Adults can do what they want to, but please show your babies a gentle peaceful welcome.
That's definitely true, bakingfish. In fact, circumcision is being advocated for as a method of curbing the inflation of HIV rates in Africa, where other methods of protection haven't had much success becoming socially accepted. I think it has something to do with the foreskin being pulled and pushed during sex. This can cause microscopic tears or "microtraumas", which make it easier for HIV to be transmitted. Of course, if you use a condom, this effect is basically eliminated. And just for the record, I'm very happy to be uncut!
Well, let's hope the Africans are better at outpatient surgery than they are at wearing condoms. I don't mean to make fun of a desperate situation. I just feel the circ thing is an act of desperation, not a remedy. I mean what a hell of an idea.
If we cut every guy on the planet, HIV would still spread. North America is good evidence of this.
If we cut every guy on the planet, HIV would still spread. North America is good evidence of this.
bravesoldier
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Posts
- 4,815
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 19,562
- Points
- 418
- Location
- southern usa
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Man I despise the day, I just can't tell you, that circumsicion became routine at birth. I think hospitals may ask, I'm sure they do, but why damnit is it so routine to circumsize..?
Would give almost anything if I were uncut and looked like my Dad did..
Envy you natural guys..
Would give almost anything if I were uncut and looked like my Dad did..
Envy you natural guys..
It's so fucking bizarre. "The boy's own desires remain unclear."
Would it matter?
BeliefWatch: First Cut
Would it matter?
BeliefWatch: First Cut
Right on! Whether you're equipped uncut or cut, anyone as generously endowed as we are will have a great time with their cocks. I have the best of "both worlds" because my doctor cut carefully when I was an infant. My frenulum was snipped so the foreskin is released, but only a portion of the foreskin was removed. When I'm flaccid a small roll of foreskin rests behind the corona. When erect, the head of my cock is uncovered, but the remaining foreskin is still flexible enough to slide it back and forth over the head. There's a smooth gliding sensation when I stroke the shaft or pump a pussy. It's a marvelous tool.mikey said:
Like someone already said, if it's jackable, suckable, and fuckable, what more can you ask from your cock?
Yup, those pesky varmints are looking for any excuse to keep 'em snippin'.
Sorry, I got carried away there, chaps. The US circumcision industry makes megabucks, so they have to keep looking for new 'links' between circumcision and... what next?
And will somebody explain why the Aids epidemic apparently started in the mainly-circumcised USA....
It was first recorded in the US, not necessarily of first origin in the US ... there is a difference.
Coming at this as someone who aesthetically appreciates cut: The recent research linking circ status to HIV is correlational in nature. As one learns in first year research methods in college, "correlation does not mean causation." That is to say, just because one thing appears with something else, it does not mean that they are linked. Firefighters are at the scene at most urban fires ... but that doesn't mean firefighters cause urban fires. Or, in the case of the circumcision study, foreskins and HIV appeared on the same person, but that doesn't mean foreskins caused HIV. There is probably some other factor that links the two, such as those who are circumcised may have a greater tie to the medical establishment [hence the surgery] and may, in general, have better health and hygiene practices. Or, it could be that those who are circumcised were cut for religious reasons and their faith prevented them from engaging in risky sex practices. It is hard to tell without further research. Finally, the study had a VERY small participant pool ... under 30 as I recall. Those of us in the research world call that a low-power study ... in other words, the study probably is too small to really give any definitive conclusion, and the conclusions it does make are likely skewed.
So, if you're an adult (or, I'd even say, a rational teenager who has talked it over with parents and doctor), and you want to get cut, go for it. But there is not benefit to RIC, except, perhaps, a benefit for the psyche of the parents falsely believing they are doing something good.
- col,
I remember watching a BBC programme about this HIV and circumcision link and it seems that it is the inner foreskin that is more susceptible because the skin is thinner. But that suggests to me that circumcised guys with a lot of inner foreskin left might still be in trouble - using a condom seems much easier!
I wouldn't worry bravesoldier - cut ones are great too!
I wouldn't worry bravesoldier - cut ones are great too!
