bravo1102
American men being "cut" increases their attraction to women whenever Americans show up in a foreign country. What was said in Britain when the USA invaded 1941-1944?

Over-paid, over-sexed and over-here. British guys just couldn't get anywhere because of all the Yanks and their circumcised penises.

It's the same in any country Americans are stationed. lol! Women just love the novelty. lol!

Incidentally, I am not so sure what courtship rituals are like in your corner of the woods, but where I come from, by the time you know what a man's knob looks like you have already decided whether you are attracted to them or not.

How about to prevent AIDS, guys just stop sleeping around? Problem solved.

I think that people shouldn't remove natural body parts unless there's actually something wrong with them. Or we'd all be having our appendixes out at birth. Sure, if someone has a tight foreskin, have that operated on. But most boys are fine. And it's there for a reason, and it has all sorts of nerves which couldn't be bad. Aesthetic reasons are *no* excuse, nor is tradition or 'it helps with health' because that's what people say about female circumcision when they're having it done to their daughters.
Here and in England almost no one has it done.


The 'oversexed' of that WW2 quote was to do with their culture and attitude, not their penises. Trust me.

Is circumcision right or wrong? As far as I'm concerned (my legs firmly crossed in empathy at this point) any sort of sharp object coming within a few inches of a dudes wedding tackle should be banned forthright my the UN security council.

I find Skullbie's posts in this thread extremely annoying.

We should start circumcising girls. The labia majora is really ugly, actually. It looks like a loose piece of pigskin dangling from a hole. Eew. If we trim them off from birth, I'm sure girls have an easier time cleaning too.

The paragraph above is basically said in the same tone of your posts.

Is this still going on?

OK, facetious or not Mlai, labia are great. Inner and outer. Love em' :)

------
Regarding the AIDS issue: don't be fricken idiots. Attitudes based on aesthetics and silly squeamishness are like those moronic statements by the Pope about not using condoms. AIDS is a colossal problem in Africa and people must use scientifically proven tools against it, not superstition or embarrassingly childish timidity. >.<

That is a very real consideration in a continent that has diverse cultural issues and problems with infrastructure, general education and medical care!

------
For the rest of the world where such things aren't such a problem, it's a matter of cultural practice, aesthetics, personal decisions, and various other factors. But most importantly: with or without a foreskin the body doesn't really have any problem. It's much more like getting a tattoo or pierced ears, in terms of physical injury to the body.

Female circumcision is an entirely different matter, more akin to cutting the penis in HALF.

I also find the reaction of some female posters here quite odd. The ones that say "Uncircumcised penises look weird/creepy/unappealing."

Frankly, if a woman has seen so many penises in her lifetime, that seeing an uncircumcised one shocks her due to her having so many mental comparisons to choose from... I think about the worth of having intercourse with such a woman. The man might as well go to a brothel. Probably cheaper too (no dating expenses).

If that sounds arrogantly sexist, then it's what I think of those aforementioned posts. We're all indignant over "barbaric female circumcision" in Africa, and here some female posters make ignorant fun of men without circumcisions. I don't care about the issue that much either way, but that reverse-sexism attitude ticked me off while reading this thread.

ozoneocean
Is this still going on?

Of course it is. Men love to talk about their johnsons. :)

And you know, I'm inclined to agree that if circumcision helps dull the spread of HIV infections, pursuing it may be a prudent course of action. But that's all it does, dull the spread. As long as there's still a chance to get infected, even if that chance has drastically decreased (at least on the male side of the equation) I'd certainly hope that the men who are undergoing the procedures over there are not gonna start thinking "Oh great. I'm all protected now, so whatever".

And it still doesn't chance my stand of whether or not infants should be circumcised. At least over there the choice is given to grown men.

I agree with Mali--double standards suck. and you know, ozone ocean, there are DIFFERENT types of female circumcision. and I know of one type that would be comparable to a penis's foreskin getting removed. in that type of female circumcision, the female suffers very little to almost no problems at all. in fact, similarly they even said that it was benfitful for the women, and not only that, but that it had an certain aesthetic appeal for the men/women of Africa. sound familiar?

the only thing, the supposed benefits were all in the heads of the people... and while there might had been some evidence that in some women it did have the intended effects all it really did was dull down things.

just like P.P says... while the male circumcision it does dull down the spread, I have concerns that the people over there would be stupid enough to think this gives them FULL immunity from the disease.
After all, those are the same people who thinks that having sex with virgins will help cure aids... leading to the rape of infants. THIS IS NOT A MYTH ABOUT AFRICAN PEOPLE, THIS IS A FACT. just a note though, I'm talking about south Africans here regarding infant rape, not all of the African people living on the continent.

Those are the same people who purposely have their women make their vagina dry as possible with drying powders, etc because they think this will make sex pleasurable. When in reality THAT actually helps worsen the spread of aids! because when an vagina's so dry, perpetration tends to damage the vagina so much and becomes extremely bloody to the point where circumcision would have NO effect in dulling the spread of disease at all. it's just like stabbing an knife into the lady bits there.

After all, wounds and blood like that becomes very good carriers for diseases. and in fact many scientists strongly suspect THAT is the reason why the people of Africa had so much problems with AIDS while the other nations of the world didn't have it as bad. and there's been public attempts to get the African men and women to stop having "dry sex", as they call this practice of drying the vaginas in Africa, for this reason.

I am 100% super opposed to the practice. The so-called "benefits" are totally not worth the risk of damage on so many levels! Skin bridges, abrasions, super tight skin to the point of painful erections, uneven or abnormal scarring, whole chunks of the glans missing. The list goes on!

I am one of the lucky ones to not have any of these things. But I do want back what was taken from me! I didn't see any posts on this thread about Foreskin Restoration. Thanks to my parents letting this happen to me I now have to go through a process that can take anywhere from a few months to a few years in order to grow enough skin to cover my glans once again.

Way too many people think restoration is a complete waste of time and they think it's nothing but a bunch of crackpot ideas but it works! Just go to foreskin-restoration.net [foreskin-restoration.net] and read about all the success that guys have had in getting back what the doctor stole from them.

I am glad circumcision is becoming less and less popular and many parents are educating themselves on what all this is about. I still have to yet to find out the reason my parents may have to having me cut but I think it was because they just didn't think about my future. It's common for parents to want their sons to get cut so he "looks like his father." I find that to be complete bull crap. They are saying that just because the father was cut that means that's the way you are supposed to look!

I think I've ranted enough. Don't try to hate on me for any of my opinions. I just came here to express. Not to find trouble. Thanks.

mattboy15
I didn't see any posts on this thread about Foreskin Restoration.

I didn't see any foreskins about Thread Restoration, but you managed that!

Seriously though - Foreskin Restoration? I can understand wanting to restore a beautiful building to it's former glory, but a foreskin?

Ironscarf
Seriously though - Foreskin Restoration? I can understand wanting to restore a beautiful building to it's former glory, but a foreskin?

Well, not to it's former glory by any means but you can certainly come as close as you can to the real thing. Real foreskin has 20,000 special nerve endings that the rest of the skin in your body doesn't have. Also if you don't have an intact frenulum you may not be able to get that back to the way it was. But you can however ,however, grow a layer of synthetic foreskin from the remainder of your shaft skin. It all comes from the biological phenomenon known as Mitosis [en.wikipedia.org]. It is the regeneration of skin cells by way of applying tension to the skin. This process can take anywhere from a few months to many years depending on your age, diet, general health, how much tension is used, for how long is tension applied, how much skin you have to start with, how much more coverage you want. Things like that.

That link I mentioned in my last post is a storehouse of knowledge on the subject.

mattboy, this threat was nearly a year old and dead. Surely your thoughts on circumcision weren't so pressing that you needed to bring this back.

And Ironscarf, you got a good laugh out of me.

Perhaps. Besides I introduced some new info that was never mentioned in this thread yet. Reviving a dead thread isn't a bad thing if you have something valid to add to it right? It's better than starting a whole new thread just to add a bit of info that could easily go on an existing thread.

mattboy115
I introduced some new info that was never mentioned in this thread yet. Reviving a dead thread isn't a bad thing if you have something valid to add to it right? It's better than starting a whole new thread just to add a bit of info that could easily go on an existing thread.

I for one would have appreciated an entirely new thread on Foreskin Restoration, a subject about which I previously knew nothing. Instead I was getting ready to jump to Skullbie's defence, not realising that Mlai's irritation was a year old and directed at the previous, evil Skullbie, not the new, good Skullbie.

(If you're reading this good Skullbie, I'm sure evil Skullbie wasn't really as bad as they made out).

And thanks Hawk!

If you want to circumsize yourself, why not.

But IMO its WRONG to force-circumcize people because there is no element of free choice involved.

Lot of old threads making a comeback, nowadays.

I don't have anything new to comment. I said everything that I needed to be say ages ago and don't feel like starting that up again but for the necropost haters, I'd like to point this out.

Product Placement

ozoneocean
Is this still going on?

Of course it is. Men love to talk about their johnsons. :)

Product Placement
Of course it is. Men love to talk about their johnsons. :)

Excellent point! lol!

Skipping a bunch of comments so dunno if I'll just be rehashing or not (probably am but oh well).

I don't think it should be forced upon anyone. When you merely look at the medical facts concerning it there isn't a single reason to do it in our day and age. Yes there are medical beneficial reasons to cut off that extra skin such as decreasing likely hood of infection and decreasing the possibility of contracting STD's. Sure sounds lovely and was immensely nice back in the day before modern medicine, but we have antibiotics in addition to hygiene and the knowledge of how to prevent disease, so infection is a non-issue here. And as far as STD's we also have condoms as well as the knowledge to test and know if our partners are infected. Again it's another non-issue.

So medically there isn't a single reason to do it thanks to advances in modern medicine. So it comes down to the question of why do it at all? Some people spout religious dogma as reason to allow it, but that is a rather weak argument to mutilating sensitive areas on babies. If the child grows up and latter in life decides they want to do it then they can as means for strengthening their faith or whatever, but before deciding that for themselves it's forcing a painful operation that removes about 30% of the nerves around the genitals based on your own religious ideas, something the child is unable to decide if they want to follow or not.

Now if someone of age (like say 16+) decides they want it done, than all the power to them, that's their choice, but forcing it upon others when there is not a single benefit, merely for religious or personal aesthetic reasons is purely wrong.

And this isn't even getting into detail about female circumcision.

Holy crap! This thread just won't die. Why is everyone obsessed with penises?

Bahamut2000X
And as far as STD's we also have condoms as well as the knowledge to test and know if our partners are infected. Again it's another non-issue.

That's amazingly naive. Do you think you'd even know if you got an STD until it was too late? Less people use condoms now than they did in the 1990s, especially for more dangerous practices like anal sex. Antibiotics and treatment can only help in a small number of classes of infection anyway, and AIDS is a life sentence.

I doubt circumcision can do much to lower the transmission rates of other STDs but the science proves that the reduction for AIDS is very significant, which makes it a valuable tool in reducing the rate of infection throughout Africa where condom usage and education on safe sex practises has traditionally been very low.

BffSatan
Holy crap! This thread just won't die. Why is everyone obsessed with penises?

There does seem to be a bit of dick-worship going on here =_=

8===D . . . . . o_|-|_





























(that's a dude kneeling down worshipping a dick)


---
And on the matter at hand I am against circumsion but I have no points to add to the subject except that you don't need surgery to loosen up some tight foreskin. So that shouldn't be a deciding factor in circumsizing someone or not.

ozoneocean
I doubt circumcision can do much to lower the transmission rates of other STDs but the science proves that the reduction for AIDS is very significant, which makes it a valuable tool in reducing the rate of infection throughout Africa where condom usage and education on safe sex practises has traditionally been very low.

It's 60% according to the newest studies. However, we have to take into consideration that the people who underwent the circumcision might be living a safer lifestyle then the ones who aren't undergoing the procedure . And again, the African case features grown men, who are making their own decision about it. Another thing that I'm concerned about (which arguably contradicts my earlier point about safe lifestyles) is that some people will start thinking this:
Experts are also concerned men who get circumcised will mistakenly think they are immune to HIV. That was the case for Samson Agalo, a bicycle taxi operator from Kisumu, Kenya, who recently had a circumcision — and has been having sex with multiple partners ever since. "After going for the cut, you don't need condoms," he said.Full article here.

And let's not forget that this has nothing to do with female transfer rates. Sure, fewer infected men = lesser risk to women but an infected, circumcised male is probably just as infectious as an uncircumcised one. The study only took into consideration whether or not the uninfected, circumcised men became infected, after their procedure.

I'm still against infant circumcision. If studies showed that loosing your pinky finger would reduce chances of cancer, should we start chopping them off all our infants? Sure, we could be without it, but shouldn't the choice be ours to make?

BffSatan
Holy crap! This thread just won't die. Why is everyone obsessed with penises?

Do I have to quote myself again? lol!

Well in my defense of posting I ignored the rest of the comments and posted my piece on it without seeing it was dying. XD

Ozoneocean
That's amazingly naive. Do you think you'd even know if you got an STD until it was too late? Less people use condoms now than they did in the 1990s, especially for more dangerous practices like anal sex. Antibiotics and treatment can only help in a small number of classes of infection anyway, and AIDS is a life sentence.

I doubt circumcision can do much to lower the transmission rates of other STDs but the science proves that the reduction for AIDS is very significant, which makes it a valuable tool in reducing the rate of infection throughout Africa where condom usage and education on safe sex practises has traditionally been very low.

The point I am making is that the benefit of preventing STD's by a percent by chopping off that excess skin is null and void in our society with modern medicine. If people are not checking for STD's or using condoms that's their deal, but forcing their children to undergo bodily mutilation under a false pretense that it's medically better, when the medical benefits are mere shadows compared to what modern medicine can do for the same effect, is purely nonsense.

Africa would have less of a problem if scientific illiterate holymen didn't go there and tell them using condoms will send them to hell when they very well know people will have sex regardless.

But that debate is something else altogether. I suppose you could make a good argument that third world nations like those in many parts of Africa who can't afford the same medical preventative measures as many other countries. So in that case I could see circumcision actually being somewhat alright till they obtain the medical resources that render the small benefits of circumcision obsolete.

Product Placement
circumcised male is probably just as infectious as a circumcised one.

Not quite. Just as circumcision makes it harder for a man to get the infection, it makes it harder to transmit. HIV is transmitted through bodily fluids such as blood, seamen and vaginal secretions- to the blood of the other individual- which is why transmission rates are higher for anal sex because of the lack of internal lubrications and greater risk of small skin rupture to both parties. The risk of transmission through vaginal intercourse is inherently lower, and even if a Circumcised male is infected the risk is still marginally decreased because there's less risk of injury and release of blood on the penis.

As to the argument of "people thinking they're immune and sleeping around like mad", I'm sorry but that's idiotic. Silly people will behave in foolish ways all the time, indeed the same argument has been used by the catholic church to get people to STOP using condoms because some people get pregnant anyway and the only safe way to do things is abstinence.

ANY tools to fight that scourge in Africa are valuable and shouldn't be stymied because a few people are foolishly squeamish about penises and foreskins.

This isn't about killing kittens to stop people going blind. It's nothing like female circumcision. This is like getting ears pierced.

Why are you arguing with me about this? I JUST SAID that I agreed with you about the African case. I CLEARLY stated that my beef is about forced circumcision on infants where it was not needed.

And this...

Product Placement
circumcised male is probably just as infectious as a circumcised one.

I was just about to start an angry rant about how you just quote mined me but then I noticed my typo there. :nervous:

Here's the entire paragraph again, with the fix:

I
And let's not forget that this has nothing to do with female transfer rates. Sure, fewer infected men = lesser risk to women but an infected, circumcised male is probably just as infectious as an uncircumcised one. The study only took into consideration whether or not the uninfected, circumcised men became infected, after their procedure.

I hope you see now what I was trying to say. While you're making the point that it's harder for a circumcised male to get infected, I was trying to say that the a circumcised man who HAS been infected is probably just as infectious as his untrimmed peers. And remember that I said that I understood the "fewer infected men = lesser risk to women" principle.

I believe I'm allowed to be concerned about idiots like that. There seem to be plenty of them around, after all.

And you know what? The catholic case is stupid no matter how you look at it. Their argument isn't even about the fact that condoms don't protect 100% and thus abstinence is the better alternative. Their case is that it's written in a very old book that if you spill your protein slurpee on the ground, God will be peeved at you. Therefore you better unload into a uterus, if you know what's good for you. Oh and btw. You have to be married to that uterus as well. God is specific like that.

Product Placement
an infected, circumcised male is probably just as infectious as an uncircumcised one.

And I explained that that isn't quite the case PP :)
-Since one of the key vectors for infection (both ways) has been removed. The infected male can transmit through seamen and blood (blood is more infectious) but being circumcised reduces the chance of male to female blood-borne transmission.

ozoneocean
-Since one of the key vectors for infection (both ways) has been removed. The infected male can transmit through seamen and blood (blood is more infectious) but being circumcised reduces the chance of male to female blood-borne transmission.

seamen? I didn't think sailors would be any different than other men.

If I knew 23 years ago what I know now about circumcision, I'd (try vainly to) punch the doctor in the throat for even attempting to get close to me with a knife. Enough said.

Surely the whole std thing is down to hygiene, anything serious is not going to be any more or less of an issue over the presence of a foreskin.

To cut or not to cut? That is the question.