user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
My dad passed away several years ago. For all we talked about it, he just said I should be glad I had it done at birth; since I would never remember the pain. Apparently it was fairly painful for him.
I remember my snipping. In no way, shape or form does the word "fun" factor into it.
I was done at 7 days old.
I'm glad it was done, coz I've had a lot more head than guys like herzog...
oh cool picture!
Well, it cuts down on the potential bacterial infestations that can occur.
The foreskin protects the penis from infection. Circumcision is cruel and there is no need for it & in the long run it could effect your/his sex-life.
Not only are male circumcisions cruel they are completely unnecessary.Circumcisionoffers no benefits what so ever;it doesn't keep you cleanier,it doesn't make sex better and it's not healthier.Infact I heard a doctor once say that the foreskin enhances pleasure for women because it forms a rippled ring around the head of the shaft that can reach senstive areas.This is why condoms are rippled,so they can make up for the lost foreskin.
The foreskin protects the penis from infection. Circumcision is cruel and there is no need for it & in the long run it could effect your/his sex-life.
by SmoothDiamond on May 19, 2006 12:54pm
thats actually wrong smooth diamond. men with foreskin are dramatically more likely to get a venerial disease and hiv rates are higher in males who are not circumcized. reason being is that the fluids get caught under the foreskin, therby basically allowing them to soak the head and absorb into the skin. facts. look them up.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Uncircumcised men are eight times as likely to become infected with HIV than circumcised men, according to a study of nearly 2,300 men in India released on Thursday.
A researcher at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine suggested that the inner surface of the foreskin does not have the same protective layer as the outside, and is potentially more vulnerable to HIV.
Male circumcision is common in North America and elsewhere for religious and cultural reasons and to help prevent urinary tract infections and penile cancer.
The procedure involves removal of the foreskin, which covers the tip of the penis, and is typically done shortly after birth
Thanks kev24. There are a number of studies confirming this. Circumcision is being recommended in parts of Africa as it may reduce the possibility of infection with HIV.
Boys were born with foreskins so they are there for a purpose - for one reason - to protect the penis head from the *excessive drilling* later in life. Circumsised men might get a bit sore down in between...
What a bunch of DICKHEADS!
by isay on Fri May 19, 06 3:42pm
[+]
Circumcision takes away the protective foreskin, leaving the penis head vulnerable to increased chaffing against clothes etc. Consequently, circumcision has been shown to decrease penis sensitivity by up to 50%
Which basically translates as, men with un circumcises penis's get more sensation during sex.
I find it really strange that so many people have it done in America, I thought it was mainly a Jewish thing. Ive heard that UN-circumcised men are considered abnormal in America now>?
If you do it when you are born, there is no nerve damage. If you wait until you are 10 and older then you're gonna get screwed. I hear that it's good for health or something like that. It's an ancient practice among Muslims & Jews, but we've come to a time when we have more than perfect means of protecting ourselves from diseases. Just shower regularly, wrap up before sex and there you have it. Personally, I've never been circumcised and I'd perfer not to do it. You're born that way so why change? It has a purpose, like the rest of your skin, your eyelids, the extra skin on jointed areas, etc...
lil_ape, it's a very common practice for people from the middle eastern area. Muslims, Jews, Shiks (I think), all practice it.
^ its a judeo-christian tradition as well. didn't you guys go to sunday school and learn about covenants?
Christians aren't really required to do it - it was one of the things Paul changed to make it easier for people to convert to Christianity. Christians have often done it though. Sometimes for religious reasons or perceived health benefits. It is very common in the US, but the practice of it is declining slightly. Most people in Europe don't get it done, but they are are all a bunch of atheistic heathens. 
Female circumcision IS cruel. However, Male circumcision, is a kindness (it makes sex a lot easier and less harmful to both genders.) So, thanks mom for having me circumcised. The 6 girls I was with last night really appreciate it... :)
Girls PREFER circumcised penises...
It's barbaric.
I dont remember, im sure it sucked at the time though
by ABC on Sat May 20, 06 10:30am
[+]
How could you masterbate without petroleum jelly? Foreskin is important for self-pleasuring, so I don't think removing it is a good idea... Yes, I'm a wancker and I would not like to trim or lose my 4skin just to please control freaks in my religion or culture!
I may have to get it done again, actually, because it's growing back...
Having part of your body hacked off is clearly not natural.
And as a Human Biology graduate, Head of Science Faculty and just generally blessed with common sense I can categorically state that if you keep your penis clean then you are no more likely to get any kind of infection than a circumcised male.
The myth that women "prefer" a circumcised penis is an old one. They prefer a clean one - and mutilated males the world over love to cover up their inadequacies by lying about the cleanliness of uncircumcised men. The crap about HIV and penile cancer is terrible, terrible reporting. IT IS NOT TRUE.
Fact.
Lovely picture.
To "Kev24" and "FiddleFaddleOnLSD":
Yes, there are some scientific papers that suggest circed men are less likely to be sick.
There are also thousands of medical papers that contract your statements and the papers you cite.
There is no unambigous proof that circed men are LESS likely to contract STDs than uncirced men.
Short statements like "facts" and "look them up" don't prove you right.
Jewish culture does recommend circumcision but the Christian culture doesn't, and in fact, the Cathechism of the RCC (clause #2297) BANNED circumcision, calling it immoral). So did the Council of Florence. So don't call us Europeans atheists. And BTW, Poland has a bigger percentage of Catholics than the US has percentage of believers of all religions combined.
I will welcome any scientific evidence that would prove circed men to be better protected than uncirced men. So far, there is no such evidence. No wonder why no American association of doctors recommends circumcision.
Also, Poland has a SMALLER proportion of its population infected with HIV than both Israel AND America. So much for 'circed men less likely to contract HIVs'.
USA has 950 000 HIV-infected people.
Poland has 14000.
Source: CIAWF.
So, out of all Americans, 0.003 of them (0.3%) are HIV-infected because the USA's populace consists 301000000 people.
While out of all Poles, 0.0003 of them (0.03%) are HIV-infected because Poland's populace is 38 million people.
So a Pole is 10 times LESS likely to contract HIV than an American.
Medical researchers can lie. Numbers cannot.
If you need to be circed for esthethic reasons or religious reasons, fair enough. Do so. But don't try to pretend you're less HIV-prone.
|
|
