Still think circumcision is wrong?

Phnom_Penh said:
And what's your scientific basis for that?
Click to expand...


well I only have 1 sexual partner..and have done for 14 years...she is the same and neither of us have managed to catch an STD or aids/HIV..I am still covered down below..so circumcision for me is not necessary or wanted

I suspect sexual promiscuity with people who are already infected has more to do spreading infection than whether you need to be circumcised or not

if neither of you are infected, and you dont have multiple partners it should make no difference if you have the chop or not
 
me thinks El should get a circumcision and sleep around with infected prostitutes. maybe he can tell us how effective it is?

would you do it ElRazur? are you brave enough?
 
you can keep the hell away from my foreskin.....although having said that it seems everyone in America is circumcised, my thang was the first uncircumcised thang my gf saw :confused:
 
Yes if it's performed to a child,
A child who is old enough for sex is old enough to decide if he wants a circumcision, It's still much much much better to wear a condom.
It lowers the risk because it reduces the risk of cuts and rips to the foreskin.
 
Brilliant news, if I ever become single again, i'll get my arse to Amsterdam and take advantage of this 50% i've got to play with.
 
I was circumsised as a kid, for medical reasons.

Im glad to see I now have this extra loving to make use of :p :D
 
sup3rc0w said:
COMPLETE and UTTER BS that is.
The VAST majority of South African black men are circumsized, most of which have HIV/Aids.
Click to expand...
Yeah BBC is full of ****, :rolleyes:

I don't see why people are so protective over their turtle neck, i still have mine but wouldn't be that bothered if it was chopped.
 
I was circumcised when I was too young to remember, but because of a genetic disorder that causes extreme pain unless it was removed.

It doesn't stop me performing, and if it helps reduce HIV then even better :)
 
eriedor said:
Yeah BBC is full of ****, :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Real life statistics do not lie.
Yes maybe foreskin molecules are more susceptible, but what to what extent... surely not so that you are in real life situation, less likely to get infected.

and btw :rolleyes: :rolleyes: to you too
 
Not only is the story credible enough that it's reported by the BBC the report is made by the WHO, you have any idea what they are responsible for? and what type of experts they will have among their ranks?

Why do people think they know more than the experts.....................:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
ElRazur said:
Part of what i am saying and what people dont seem to wanna hear. (remember this aint my first thread on this issue)
Click to expand...

Because you got it wrong right here:

ElRazur said:
So are you saying there isnt a rise in number of HIV and STDs in the UK? Are you saying we dont have a high transmisssion rates between homos and heteros?

If it was done for many advantages...why cant you look at that and see the bigger picture? Or are you saying, let us not take the forskin off and let them have a higher potential of catching HIV? Knowing fully well that condom is not popular over there in some instances...
Click to expand...

You are implying that the guys there who have had their foreskin removed are safe, even without a condom, whereas someone who is uncut will definitely get the virus.

BBC said:
Experts warned that greater use of circumcision would not replace the need for other prevention methods, such as condoms.

Men and their partners must also be given counselling to prevent them developing a false sense of security, they said.

And they stressed there was no evidence yet as to whether circumcision has any impact on the risk of infection for the woman or on the risk among men who have sex with other men.
Click to expand...

This leaves a few men lucky not to get infected, once, twice, in the third time they might well be infected. It doesn't protect the women at all, either. Why not simply educate them, that they shouldn't have unprotected sex under any circumstances? It will be very easy for distorted news to spread, claiming that cut men can not be infected.

ElRazur said:
Think again! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6502855.stm

Let us see those who would say otherwise now. :)
Click to expand...

The reason why the location was brought up is because you tried to support circumcision in the UK based on something that's happening in Africa. This isn't a country where you consider lucky to find a condom, it's a country where you are lucky when you pull. I do not object to anyone getting circumsised over the age of 18, but why make it ok for the parents to choose what they think is best for their kids?

I'll tell you why it's happening, because the father got circumsised when he was a child, he didn't have a choise, and thinks that this is how it's done, that this is normal. Fair enough, if the kid has a problem, go ahead with the procedure, but it shouldn't be allowed based on religous or whatever else reasons.

james.miller said:
me thinks El should get a circumcision and sleep around with infected prostitutes. maybe he can tell us how effective it is?

would you do it ElRazur? are you brave enough?
Click to expand...

Well the circumcision bullcrap is not new to the net, I have seen countless arguments, usualy it all gets down to the people who are cut saying getting circumcised is good, and the uncut claim the opposite.

So without trying to seem interested in El's genitals I would guess he is cut :o
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
me thinks El should get a circumcision and sleep around with infected prostitutes. maybe he can tell us how effective it is?

would you do it ElRazur? are you brave enough?
Click to expand...

I was circumcised few days after birth.... If there is enough money...why not.
 
No.

Do I think circumcision performed on an infant is wrong? Yes.

It's not a vestigial body part, it is there to serve a purpose, and I think that there should be a choice in the matter. Would you remove a childs appendix as there is a slight chance it may become infected?

As far as I can make out from the BBC link, the basic principle they're backing up the story on goes something like this:

Not having a foreskin makes the skin of the glans less susceptible to bleeding due to the fact it hardens, and foreskin cells might be more prone to HIV infection.

Now is it just me that can't remember my chap ever bleeding? And foreskin cells being vulnerable to HIV? Until they prove that they're more vulerable to HIV than any other cell then this story is nothing more than a publicity excercise.
 
In the States you can get special weights so you can stretch yourself a new foreskin.

So the procedure is not permanent if you don't want it to be.
 
Usel said:
you can stretch yourself a new foreskin.
Click to expand...

This is the only time I've said this due to it being such an annoying phrase but on this occaision I just have to say - Only in America.
 
Killa_ken said:
you can keep the hell away from my foreskin.....although having said that it seems everyone in America is circumcised, my thang was the first uncircumcised thang my gf saw :confused:
Click to expand...

I believe in the states it's liek 90% of males have had it done and here in the Uk the complete opposite. Although it strangely came up in coversation amongst a few mates the other week and it turned out two out of five of us had had it done so I don't know how accurate these stats are.

Personally I would'nt let anyone with a knife go anywhere near my tackle. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom