circumcision

[The Great OV!!!]

And are you ready to give your foreskin up now, OV?

Hell no!............

[Tiay]

Don't any of you guys resent the fact that part of your dick was cut off before you could even sit upright?

with no anaesthetic, too! I certainly would resent that. But I suppose since they do it at birth, guys don't remember it ever being another way, so it doesn't feel like they've lost something.

Mine wasn't

good for you OV! what's your take on it so?

i have a conspiracy theory about aids...

is it a secret theory? ^.^

Well, I didn't have a choice in the matter either, not to forget how much of sex is actually mental, cut or uncut, I think most guys could probably bust within' the first few minutes of sex if they wanted to, hell even within seconds.

I agree, most cut guys don't have any major problems with having sex. Still, since there's no medical reason for routine circumcisions, wouldn't you want the other half of your frenulum back?
I wish I had an uncut penis to play with anyways, it sounds like a lot more fun.

[Tiay]

vash: to be clear, I agree that circumcising men in affected developing countries would make a difference and is a good idea. I agree that the rate of HIV/AIDS in Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe (and probably other similar countries) could be reduced and lives could be saved if all the men in those countries were cut.

However, it's not by chance that, in the list of countries where the majority of men aren't cut, the only countries with significantly higher HIV/AIDS rates were those in the third world; whereas among developed countries in the same list, HIV/AIDs rates were between 0.1 % and 0.4 %, lower than the USA's 0.6 percent.

[misombra]

i think aids is a man made disease, tested in africa and brought to america via travel, not given much thought as it killed africans, gay people, drug users, etc. not until children and rich people started getting it. i also think there's a cure for it and with enough money, you can have it.

anyway most people think i'm crazy when i say all that but hey, i'm crazy.

[vashti]

vash: to be clear, I agree that circumcising men in affected developing countries would make a difference and is a good idea. I agree that the rate of HIV/AIDS in Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe (and probably other similar countries) could be reduced and lives could be saved if all the men in those countries were cut.

However, it's not by chance that, in the list of countries where the majority of men aren't cut, the only countries with significantly higher HIV/AIDS rates were those in the third world; whereas among developed countries in the same list, HIV/AIDs rates were between 0.1 % and 0.4 %, lower than the USA's 0.6 percent.

Of course it isn't by chance they have higher rates in 3rd world countries. They have a lower rate of circumcision AND a lower rate of condom usage. I'm not sure I am getting your point. If they used condoms in Africa, and if more males were circumcised, the rate of HIV transmission would decline. Unfortunately, a large portion of Africans are also Catholic, and the church doesn't allow for condom usage, but it does allow circumcision.

As for all the rest of your statistics, I didn't really read them all, to be honest. I know that the medical community was pretty much evenly divided on the value of circumcision prior to this study, and my own personal opinion was that *in the absence of medical evidence indicating its value* the only real reason to do it was for religious reasons. Now that there is medical evidence proving its value, I am re-thinking my position.

[The Great OV!!!]

i think aids is a man made disease, tested in africa and brought to america via travel, not given much thought as it killed africans, gay people, drug users, etc. not until children and rich people started getting it. i also think there's a cure for it and with enough money, you can have it.

anyway most people think i'm crazy when i say all that but hey, i'm crazy.

I've heard this before. It would take to much effort to create something like this. For what reason? to kill off half the African population? that doesn't make sense. You're crazy misombra! but I like that in my women. lol

[Junket]

Yeah, 'Somrba....no...

[misombra]

i don't know, chemical warfare maybe?

[misombra]

Yeah, 'Somrba....no...

very compelling argument frizz.

[Junket]

i don't know, chemical warfare maybe?

That would be biological if anything. In any case, they wouldn't want to use something they can't keep track of, considering how long AIDS can remain dormant, the possibility of it getting out during warfare (refugees to other countries) is too great. You want a quick fix kind of germ if you wanna use it for war. Anthrax for example is easy to get, and when produced in weaponized form can kill the infected within days. At the same time, it's very rare that anthrax be spread from person to person so an outbreak isn't as likely. That's the shit gov'ts wanna use. They wanna be able to control the damage.

[misombra]

... maybe polio vaccine testing...

[Tiay]

vash;
My point is that in those countries where the majority are uncut, the HIV/AIDS rates are low. lower than in the states. Well, except in Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.. because they're in freakin' Africa!

I'm not debating that circumcision decreases risk of HIV/AIDS in situations where there is no proper health education, condom usage, health care, etc.

But as soon as a country is developed enough to have that (condom usage, health care, etc), the circumcision status of the population stops making any difference whatsoever! You negate the need for circumcision completely.

And because circumcision has so many sexual drawbacks, it should really only be a last resort, ie "hm, we can't make them wear condoms, there's a huge AIDS epidemic, the immunisation isn't as effective.. there's nothing else we can do, we better circumcise them all". Fair enough, I get that. but when it's not a third world country, there's no reason for routine circumcision.

and yes, I used to think it looks neater, but once I listened to that show, I realised it's really quite sad that most american guys are cut, because i'm with one of them ^.^ not that it makes any difference of course, I won't mind if I never get to play with an uncut penis. I don't blame any group in particular (at least not yet : P ), it's just the norm, and it's hard to break norms. The norm in ireland is not to cut. It seems utterly silly from this side of the Atlantic.


Sombra:
scary! well, i've heard a theory about it accidentally developing during research to develop a polio vaccine or something. As for a cure existing.. hm, I don't know, I think that kind of information would leak out. However, I do think that there isn't enough research going on, because there isn't big money in it, because the majority of the affected people are-- guess what?.. in poor third world countries.

[vashti]

But as soon as a country is developed enough to have that (condom usage, health care, etc), the circumcision status of the population stops making any difference whatsoever! You negate the need for circumcision completely..

I see your point, but disagree that there are no other benefits to circumcision, which include reduced numbers of urinary tract infections, penile cancers, and phimosis. True these risks are not great to begin with, but their presence is reduced dramatically amongst circumsized males, and with the reduced risk of STD transmission, I can't see how it could be argued there is no benefit at all. Also, I think many women would consider any decrease in penile sensation to be advantageous, and there is the whole aspect of asthetics, which is of course, individual.

And in defense of research regarding HIV/AIDS transmission, it should be pointed out that by comparison, HIV gets a LOT of money for research because it is so well-publicized. While I don't wish to see a reduction in HIV research dollars, tuberculosis and malaria kill a LOT more people in those regions than AIDS. I favor spending money where the greatest number of people can be helped.

[Tiay]

in the Australian study I quoted, where they looked for a link between circumcision and common STDS (warts, chlamydia, herpes, syphilis, gnorrhoea, non specific urethritis, candida...) they still concluded that, "circumcision had no significant effect on the incidence of common STIs"

yes, I'm sure there's one or two things you're more likely to get when you're uncut. But as you say, the risk for these is tiny, and UTI and phimosis can be dealt with when and if they develop. These risks are imo outweighed by the benefits of not cutting. Since it is a matter of opinion, I think it should be left up to the guy when he's older, not forced on him without consent.
Would you rather have a very slightly increased risk of UTI, or have your hood and half your clit chopped off?       .... yeah, I thought so.
and how would you feel if your mom had made that choice for you?

I dislike them whole 'lasting longer' theory. I disagree with circumcising for that reason... I mean what the ****? That's just so trivial. making him feel less so that women can feel more? not fair, that should be his choice. Cut men often feel they're not getting as much pleasure out of sex or oral as they should. that's 'cos they aren't! some are even doing foreskin reconstruction. Also, I think a foreskin would be hella fun. There'd be more lube. There'd be less soreness caused by the type of stronger stimulation the desensitised guys need. etc, etc.. overall it is just logical that sex with our natural genitals intact is simply better.

as for the aids research.. I haven't really done any research on it, so I was just saying what came to mind.

[The Great OV!!!]

Girls! Girls Girls! come on...you're posting book length posts about AIDS on a love forums...COME ON!