Uncut Cock - Natural is Best

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And really, guys, I'm not ignorant at all, and after my first two well thought out posts were totally shot down, I just wanted to piss off the trolls even more. ...
Piss off the trolls? Aren't you now acting like one?
... Really, I'm on the fence about circumcision.
:rofl:
There's also the issue of HPV, which thrives under foreskin and has no effect on males, yet causes cervical cancer in females. ...
The HPV connection to foreskin has been disproved. Anyway, there's now a vaccine for HPV. Did you know that? If not, were you ignorant of that?
... Then there's the study about the effect of circumcision on HIV transmission.
Oh that again ... like an infant really would benefit.
... There are benefits to RIC that are not present when getting cut later in life. For example, I'll never know about foreskin sensation loss, since I was cut as an infant. ...
Thank you for conceding that there is a sensation loss. Some folks seem to be in denial about that. But I don't buy into "never knowing" of a loss as being a benefit of R.I.C.
 

Robotronic

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Posts
37
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Dude, SteveHd, you're really trying to say that the HIV protection would be for infants only and would somehow stop being a benefit when a child starts having sex? Most kids have sex in their teens, before their eighteenth birthday, which would mean before they would be allowed to get themselves circumcised. And yeah, I did know about the HPV vaccine, but it's still in the early stages of adoption (and there you go again calling me ignorant).

And I bet you did search for the word ignorant, but note that most of my quotes were talking about my ignorance, which would not come up in your "search". All of the references that I mentioned were referring to my ignorance specifically, not my beliefs.

Also, I find it funny that, in your examples, the people who did most of the name calling were replying to the same anti-cut trolls that are in this thread right now. You poor victims. The cut kids start their own thread, you crash their party and expect to get away unscathed? Give me a break. Also, putting an insult in question form doesn't make it less offensive (though, I must add, the tsk tsk was a nice touch to really pack on the condescending tone).
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Dude, SteveHd, you're really trying to say that the HIV protection would be for infants only and would somehow stop being a benefit when a child starts having sex? ...
No, I implied that infants aren't at risk of sexually transmitted HIV. As has been said many times, a condom is much better protection than circumcision.
.... (and there you go again calling me ignorant).
I alluded to that on or about a single point; an important distinction.
And I bet you did search for the word ignorant, but note that most of my quotes were talking about my ignorance, which would not come up in your "search". All of the references that I mentioned were referring to my ignorance specifically, not my beliefs.
Most of the usages were peripheral. Damn! You've got thin skin!
Also, I find it funny that, in your examples, the people who did most of the name calling were replying to the same anti-cut trolls that are in this thread right now.
Does it matter whom they were replying to? That type of nastiness is uncalled for regardless of whom it's directed at. You agree with that, don't you?

Anti-cut trolls? Am I one of them? Am I the head the of trolls? Damian wrote that I'm the head of the Nazi's so I would infer that I'm the head of the trolls. Right?
 

erratic

Loved Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
4,289
Media
0
Likes
509
Points
333
Sexuality
No Response
FYI:

There are a few studies about circumcision and HIV. A few studies does not equal consensus.

Those few studies are correlational, except one. The correlational studies are completely incapable of proving causality. That is entry-level statistics. They prove nothing of worth to sex educators. Regarding the randomised control trial: The circumcised group had to elect to do so and the study was discontinued prematurely. That means that in an incomplete trial men who actually wanted to be circumcised (not at all representative of most of the population and not accounting for their motives) may have had reduced transmission of HIV. It is not generalizable and therefore not admissable except as conjecture.

The HPV studies are also correlational and therefore cannot prove that condition A causes condition B.

Meanwhile, condoms and lube - even just spit - reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission more than it is conjectured that circumcision may - and, to prevent one case of HIV one would have to circumcise thousands of infants and, if one follows the statistics, damage, burn or destroy outright many penises through accident or malpractice.

Finally, while I acknowledge that people can get unduly harsh when someone says "I don't mind being circumcised," it is also true that medicine considers circumcision a cosmetic procedure and unnecessary. A true analog to having one's son circumcised when he is incapable of granting consent would be more like getting him a nosejob, breast implants or penis enlargement.

It makes sense to me that those who disagree with infant circumcision, among whom I am counted, would be better off not cruelly telling people that their penises are hideous and beyond repair (neither of which is true) and stick to the facts.

P.S. to whoever asked about circumcision in Canada (do I even have the right thread on that one?): Circumcision is no longer common in Canada. It is very uncommon in Quebec, especially Catholic and agnostic francophone Quebec; and people who really want it done are increasingly having to pay doctors (read: cosmetic surgeons, as there are few other types of surgeons you can pay for service up here) because younger surgeons are increasingly opposed to it or afraid they'll get the snot sued out of them for unethical conduct eighteen years later.
 

Robotronic

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Posts
37
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Regarding the randomised control trial: The circumcised group had to elect to do so and the study was discontinued prematurely. That means that in an incomplete trial men who actually wanted to be circumcised (not at all representative of most of the population and not accounting for their motives) may have had reduced transmission of HIV. It is not generalizable and therefore not admissable except as conjecture.

Actually, the study (B Auvert et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Medicine. 2005.) was randomized in terms of who was circumcised and who was not. Also, the study was ended early because the early findings were so supportive that circumcision reduces HIV transmission (53% reduction in HIV contraction) that they found it unethical to continue the experiment. I agree that this taints the findings in a way, but I think they made the right decision that the preliminary results are compelling enough to conclude that, in this case, correlation supports causality.

I've found one study that says the opposite, that statistically a circumcised man is at greater risk of acquiring HIV than an uncircumcised man, but this was published in 1999 and only covered (and refuted) previous studies that were based on statistics and population surveys.

Regardless, I agree that condoms should be used, but extra protection is always beneficial.


Anti-cut trolls? Am I one of them? Am I the head the of trolls? Damian wrote that I'm the head of the Nazi's so I would infer that I'm the head of the trolls. Right?

Yes, yes, and yes. I'm glad you understand.
 

footlonghotdog

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Posts
11
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Location
Canada
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
I would just like to start off by saying i'm cut. I will never know what it is to be uncut. i'm hapy with myslef the way I am (though i could probably stand to lose a few pounds.) This in no way makes me better or worse than anybody.

I am pro choice, i would never force anything like that on my kids. To me, it all comes down to personal prefrence on if you prefer cut r uncut dicks.

One of the only things that irks me is that i wish that people would stop telling me thing such as (not all said on this board)


-i'm damaged
-i'm broken
-i'm mutilated

not everybody says these things. I am quite aware of the difference between saying RIC is ok and saying uncut dicks are better.

The other thing that bugs me is that some uncut people tend to put off the underlying message that they're better than me for being uncut. I'm sure this is not intentional, but that is the feeling that comes off nontheless and i'm sure thats why some cut people feel so offended at topics like this.

I now await the obvious flames that will ensue
 

SyddyKitty

Admired Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
2,432
Media
0
Likes
855
Points
333
Age
37
Location
Washington (United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
i couldnt imagine being cut, id hate it to be honest, main reasons, you cant jerk off as easy without lube, lose most of the sensation in your head from rubbing on clothes
Not all circumsisions are tight. I've always had the ability to masturbate without any sort of lubrication. The head of my penis is so sensitive that I can feel pretty much any physical sensation while using a condom. The only negative point is the visual keratinization, which really isn't much of an inconvenience, as it just looks like normal skin (instead of a shiny, smooth mucosal membrane).

Reading the rest fo the thread now. So far, this is the same as every other "omg you MUST be uncut because it's the ONLY way to live" post out there.

:Edit: Such ignorance and generalization on both sides, this isn't worth finishing. I'm surprised I made it to page 4, really.
 

D_Ivana Dickenside

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Posts
4,780
Media
0
Likes
31
Points
123
i agree with what you're saying and i think more porn should feature uncircumcised men. but i'm not going to turn a penis away just because it's circumcised either. the penis is a wonderful thing. i can't stress that enough.
 

lonamisa

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
178
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
103
Well I've been told I'm girthy but I'm cut.. but yeah it seems like uncuts have a more consistent girth the whole way down.
 

ntstatic

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Posts
44
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Location
India
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
im uncut - find no reason to be otherwise

and consider this - if you are uncut you dont need to lube up for masturbation !!!

this reason alone can be considered one of the best pro arguments for being uncut.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
204
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Any idiot can see why the skin is supposed to slide - except people with 10 years of medical indoctrination apparently. Lonamisa, foreskin is somewhat of a misnomer. When the penis is ready for business, the ridged band and frenular delta are deployed around the middle of the erection. Then there is no "fore" skin.
 

liberia

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Posts
216
Media
33
Likes
29
Points
163
Location
london U.K.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
What a load of nonsense is talked about this subject! I was cut at age 41. It was the best thing I ever did and have never regretted it once. If anything, my dick is more sensitive now -- and less smelly. Just wish I had it done earlier.
 

erratic

Loved Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
4,289
Media
0
Likes
509
Points
333
Sexuality
No Response
Actually, the study (B Auvert et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Medicine. 2005.) was randomized in terms of who was circumcised and who was not...but I think they made the right decision that the preliminary results are compelling enough to conclude that, in this case, correlation supports causality.

The study was randomised, but the fact that those men were willing to be circumcised leads to all kinds of potential bias and z factors among the participants. And though it was ethical to discontinue the study that means it does not adequately control for latency or maturation effects inherent to studying diseases such as HIV. And it's only one study. One cannot form consensus from a sample of one.

Further, correlation can never support causality. Ever.

This is all Stats 101, dude.
 

erratic

Loved Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
4,289
Media
0
Likes
509
Points
333
Sexuality
No Response
i agree with what you're saying and i think more porn should feature uncircumcised men. but i'm not going to turn a penis away just because it's circumcised either. the penis is a wonderful thing. i can't stress that enough.

I second your motion.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
204
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
What a load of nonsense is talked about this subject! I was cut at age 41. It was the best thing I ever did and have never regretted it once. If anything, my dick is more sensitive now -- and less smelly. Just wish I had it done earlier.
I would say you are into body mod, and you are welcome to it. But what does that have to do with infant circ? It looks like you would definitely be for individual choice.