Americans have an obsession with circumcision.....So,any excuse they can use to cut men fullfills this sickness.If men are all to be circumcised,then the same should be done to women.I think we would find circumcisions rapidly decrease.Here is another thought....Women have rights as to what is done to there genitals...why is this not true for men?
did anyone else see the NY times circumcision article?.....
- Thread starter justcurious80
- Start date
eurotop40
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Posts
- 4,430
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 978
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Zurich (Switzerland)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
I love the "cleanliness" excuse and the fear of disease, whereas at the same time it is a very promiscuous society (where does the show "Sex and the city come from"?, from London?). Oh, maybe there is really a need to minimize american penises, as much as to clitoridectomize african women (this is the excuse they bring in Africa). Look at the WHO reports on HIV: Denmark, the UK etc. (countries of so-called foreskin fetishists) have far lower HIV rates than the clean circumcising US of A.
oh and by saying that you believe the BS. THAT bush and his stupid administration has done, did, and still causing us problems yet as we speak here, didn't and hasn't affected yours and others personal life in any way i don't suppose.
You don't have any balls at all. No sense, either.
I couldn't agree more. Very well put.
Here's another corroboration, from BBC News:
BBC NEWS | Health | Call for higher circumcision rate
UK scepticism
The reason why a foreskin might increase the risk of infection with various viruses is unclear.
However, research has suggested that a man with a damp penis has a greater risk of being infected by HIV.
Various reasons for this have been put forward, including wetness allowing viruses to stick more easily to the penis, or creating tiny ulcers on the surface of the penis through which a virus might enter.
Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.
He said: "Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually."
Dr O'Mahony also said pushing circumcision as a solution sent the wrong message.
"It suggests that it is women who infect innocent men - let's protect the innocent men.
"And it allows men who don't want to change their irresponsible behaviour to continue to sleep around and not even use a condom."
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 68
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
And the thread instantly turns into the same ad-nauseam talking points of the previous 50 circumcision threads. Are we REALLY going to go through this again?
bigbull29, you may not like your cock but I like it. Actually I'd love to get a chance to "love" it!
I think the article was OK. It listed the fact that circumcision reduces HIV risk for heterosexual men, where AIDS is most prevalent in Africa, but that in USA, it is gays and drug users where circumcision has no difference.
HOWEVER, one aspect that must not be overlooked and which is a current problem in africa.
Say circ rates dropped to 0% in USA today. Say that 20 years from now, you would have an AIDS epidemic that crossed over to heterosexual couples. At that point, the USA would be stuck with a huge population of young uncircumcised adults who would increase the odds of the epidemic spreading faster.
In Africa now, they just don't have the number of clinics/doctors/nurses sufficient to do mass circumcision of the young adult population (where there is the most sex between multiple partners and thus the most spreading of AIDS). If they had had baby (or youhood) circumcisions in all tribes 20 years ago, they would today have a circumcised society and have slower rates of expansion of epidemic.
So, if you look into the future, it might make sense to increase circumcision rates back up to "normal USA levels" now so that 20 years from now you have a circumcised society IF YOU THINK THAT 20 YEARS FROM NOW' YOU WOULD HAVE AN HETEROSEXUAL AIDS EPIDEMIC.
HOWEVER, one aspect that must not be overlooked and which is a current problem in africa.
Say circ rates dropped to 0% in USA today. Say that 20 years from now, you would have an AIDS epidemic that crossed over to heterosexual couples. At that point, the USA would be stuck with a huge population of young uncircumcised adults who would increase the odds of the epidemic spreading faster.
In Africa now, they just don't have the number of clinics/doctors/nurses sufficient to do mass circumcision of the young adult population (where there is the most sex between multiple partners and thus the most spreading of AIDS). If they had had baby (or youhood) circumcisions in all tribes 20 years ago, they would today have a circumcised society and have slower rates of expansion of epidemic.
So, if you look into the future, it might make sense to increase circumcision rates back up to "normal USA levels" now so that 20 years from now you have a circumcised society IF YOU THINK THAT 20 YEARS FROM NOW' YOU WOULD HAVE AN HETEROSEXUAL AIDS EPIDEMIC.
Intact men are not allowed to have or express their opinion on circumcision - that is ridiculous. I guess the intact parent shouldn't make the decision whether or not his newborn son should be circumcised because he is not experienced with circumcision and perhaps leave that up to people that were cut as an adult.
Intact men that know and understand the anatomy of the penis and know how to use their penis fully appreciate benefits their foreskin provides. Intact men have as much right as anyone to provide an opinion and insight on this subject.
I predict that this will increase the rates of HIV/STD transmissions since people will think that if you are cut you shouldn't use condoms at all, or practice safer sex at all, and that somehow being cut will magically make you immune to getting HIV/other STDs or spreading HIV/STDs to others.
In the thread about the gangbang on here that reads like erotic fiction some guy wrote about how men somehow can't get HIV from women at all.
It could also lead to riskier behaviour not only due to the belief that they are safer due to circumcision but do the increased amount of stimulus a circumcised man needs due to the lack of erogenous tissue and decreased sensitivity. Adding a layer of latex exacerbates this affect and there is an increased risk for going sans condom.
eurotop40
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Posts
- 4,430
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 978
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Zurich (Switzerland)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Why do you think there is this all "bareback" thing going on in the US? Exactly for that reason. And exactly for that reason (mostly cut gay people fucking without condoms, which seems to be the standard in southern California) the US HIV prevention is a TOTAL FAILURE!
The battle must go on!!! The troops will march every day on every continent on every highway on every byway until every man and boy on the planet is safe from the knives of the butchers. Until every scalpel is pried from their cold dead hands. This is where we fight! This is where they die!
An uncircumcised penis covered in a condom has the same risk as a circumcised penis in a condom. Using results from third world countries with minimal to no condom use, with poor sexual hygiene and high levels of sexuallt transmitted diseases doesn't not mean anything to developed countries with safe sex practices and healthy genitalia.
These surveys are saying that where you have cultures where you know promoting safe sexs is basically pointless, you go for the lesser evil.
I'm concerned its message is being interpreted as: "Get circumcised and do whatever you want because you won't contract HIV". Sorry, but wearing a condom is the best solution there.
These surveys are saying that where you have cultures where you know promoting safe sexs is basically pointless, you go for the lesser evil.
I'm concerned its message is being interpreted as: "Get circumcised and do whatever you want because you won't contract HIV". Sorry, but wearing a condom is the best solution there.
Your first point is a red herring. Adult intact men have no concept of circumcision. We have already gone through your read opinion on the studies you read for support.
Opinion = something you have
Insight = Opinion + experience
If you have never been circumcised you have NO insight and practically have NO grounds for this discussion. There is NO definitive study, paper, research out there that makes circumcision invalid.
BS. So you are saying cut people are mire inclined to bareback? Are you kidding me???????
Actually he's right. There is research that has been done on this.
Also, go watch the P & T episode on circumcision.
I have watched it. It proves nothing. Research done on what? That men who are circumcised bareback more and use condoms less because they feel less. You people are ridiculous. Youre willing to do anything to convince people that circumcised men are lesser men.
No effing way!
Actually he's right. There is research that has been done on this.
Also, go watch the P & T episode on circumcision.
p & t is BS. its all fabricated toward the anti-circs.
