Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 143
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Once you get to know how to use you uncut penis in Sex its so easy and enjoyable. Your foreskin is 1 of the most flexible and durable parts of the body. excite the penis pull it back a few times and your ready to go. It wont break or rip the reason people in the odd occasion they do rip there foreskin is by pulling back the foreskin in a non erect way.

    Here in Europe especially Germany Austria Russia ect if you have a cut Penis many women will refuse to sleep with you as your either Jewish or Islamic and the barbaric issues associated with circumcision allot of European women will not wish to know you. In America there’s somewhat discriminate against men with foreskins the reason being due to doctors and insurance and circumcision companies who male billions every year off of Circumcision.

    Restore your foreskin first and then come back and say what you prefer. Remembering that sensation lost from circumcision you cannot full regain but you can regain a degree.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Quote Originally Posted by hayden99 View Post
    I think you're full of shit. I was uncircumcised for over 20 years, and trust me, it smells. Ever heard of smegma?

    Unless you're washing yourself EVERY time you go to the bathroom, it'll smell. And that's near impossible. Reason is, after you pee and your foreskin retracts over the glans, there is residual drops of urine that come out. This accumulates on and around the glans, trapped in the folds of the foreskin, creating an objectionable odor.

    To wash everytime you go to the bathroom is downright near-impossible. If you're at an airport and take a leak, you can't just jack your shit out in the nearest sink and start wiping it down. People would be revolted. It's much easier and cleaner to simply get trimmed. No more mess to worry about.
    Sorry sir you a liar I have a foreskin and it does not smell and yes I shower everyday. Who is frustrated and biased because your circumcised. Once your circumcised you can never go back. The whole hygiene thing is a whole load of crap. Just like they said getting circumcised stops your children becoming retards getting circumcised stops cancer getting circumcised stops your children from potentially becoming rapists and murders.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Quote Originally Posted by monet View Post
    I second Hayden's comment. I was also uncircumcised until age 26 and everything he mentioned is true. It seems there won't be any compromise on this debate because no one really wants to accept the other side's argument.

    There is a major misconception with the idea of not circumcising an infant boy at birth and letting him decide on the procedure himself (although a very respectful and admirable gesture to your son). This puts the boy at a big disadvantage later in life. Here's how it works: If you don't circumcise him at birth, the original foreskin becomes developed and all the nerves grows and becomes sensitive with him as he ages. When he is older and CAN decide to get the procedure done, that foreskin is a major source of sensitivity and so, if he decides to get it done, he loses this part of the sensitive area.

    If you circumcise him at birth, as he grows that area that is attached to the glans develops and becomes sensitive, essentially, his whole shaft becomes sensitive, sort of like a reverse foreskin, if that makes sense. So it is a huge advantage to get the procedure done when the boy is young. That is definitely what I will do for my sons, if I am lucky.

    Just something for you guys to consider. Circumcision is not a barbaric procedure like people make it out to be. There are definitely lots of positives that come with it if you take a different approach to the debate.
    Lies the sensation once gone is gone forever.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Thank you for the post. It is good to hear of other guys that feel the way I do on keeping males natural. I have come across far too many men and womenl that love the procedure and feel that it is the "right" thing to do for men and for the women in their lives.
    I have tried to find local groups of men who are restoring their foreskin like me, but I have not had any success in locating them. Most men and women are either afraid or angry when it comes to this topic.
    Buck

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    First off Hayden, smegma usually indicates an underlying fungal infection. That is similar to when women have the white discharge and the acompaning order. I make this statement from as a pre-med student. Washing the foreskin everyday just like the rest of the body. Also, when a person defecates, toilet paper is used to clean the area, this philosophy can also be followed by cleaning the glans and foreskin when urination is complete. Men in the US are not taught to clean like European men.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Oh, I forgot to mention that one of the reasons that the practice still continues in the US is that the hospitals can sell the skin to drug and cosmetic companies for testing and research. So, this adds a whole new demension to the discussion. Is circumcision still promoted because it provides billions for hospitals in sales of what they call "medical waste". This point however, is not mentioned by most when discussing the topic. I put it out that profit is the real motive behind the promotion of the practice. I was surprised and sickened when I learned that some of the facial products that women use contain ingredients that were derived from foreskins. That is why I inform as many people as I can about these products.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    First off, some American women seem to get some kind of pleasure at the thoughts of the fact that of mutilating a perfectly working organ and also, it is a bit selfish on their part to demand that men be harmed to satisfy them. That is a good example of a shadow Goddess Complex. I would say to those females that if they would get "cut", then the men in their lives would not have to "smell" them.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    wow TheLoser, i never knew all that. after readin your posts, im now glad that im still uncut and i plan on stayin that way. thanks for the info.
    As of June 10, 2008

    Im startin out with a penis that when fully erect 100% is:

    BPEL 8"
    EG 6.5"

    My goal is to be :

    EL 12"
    EG 10"

    Some have told me that my goal cant be achieved...and they might be right....but theres nothin wrong in tryin to grow the G-virus Birkin monster in my pants....


    Siegel's Penis Laboratory

    Erect Penis size in Biohazard/Resident Evil style

    Penis Under 5" = The Zombie

    Penis 5" - 6" = The Licker

    Penis 7" - 8" = The Tyrant

    Penis 9" - 10" = The Nemesis

    Penis 11" and Over = "G" (G-Virus infected William Birkin, Malformation Levels 1-5)


    Enter the Lab, If You Dare...

    The PE Posse & The Girth Gang = The Cock Combination


    The Cock Combination (Founder and Boss)


    Join The Combination, And Work Your Way Up the PE Underworld!

    I'm not homosexual or bisexual (and if you are....good for you) I just wanted to set the record straight....no pun intended.

    "My friends call me Benny, to others I'm Mr. Siegel.... And guys I don't like call me "Bugsy".... But never to my face...."

    They Say The Sky is The Limit, So Lets P.E. Until We Can Touch It with Our Dicks....

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    I have more information if you’d like to read it if anyone would Id be more than pleased to help out.

    I love my Foreskin and thank god I have one. Experience what a foreskin has to offer in sexual satisfaction for your partner and your self and the Health benefits is the greatest thing.

    To be born and something so great to be taken away is an injustice. I don’t blame parents who do this I blame the big Business big companies who extort billions each year from descent hardworking parents and young men. By using scare mongering and promoting false claims.

    The men on the forum who were circumcised at birth I wish to help as best I possibly can so that you may experience somewhat that I have in what a foreskin has to offer. Once you regain your foreskin you’ll never wish to look back

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Quote Originally Posted by Benjamin Siegel View Post
    wow TheLoser, i never knew all that. after readin your posts, im now glad that im still uncut and i plan on stayin that way. thanks for the info.
    Quote Originally Posted by Buck27713 View Post
    First off, some American women seem to get some kind of pleasure at the thoughts of the fact that of mutilating a perfectly working organ and also, it is a bit selfish on their part to demand that men be harmed to satisfy them. That is a good example of a shadow Goddess Complex. I would say to those females that if they would get "cut", then the men in their lives would not have to "smell" them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Buck27713 View Post
    Oh, I forgot to mention that one of the reasons that the practice still continues in the US is that the hospitals can sell the skin to drug and cosmetic companies for testing and research. So, this adds a whole new demension to the discussion. Is circumcision still promoted because it provides billions for hospitals in sales of what they call "medical waste". This point however, is not mentioned by most when discussing the topic. I put it out that profit is the real motive behind the promotion of the practice. I was surprised and sickened when I learned that some of the facial products that women use contain ingredients that were derived from foreskins. That is why I inform as many people as I can about these products.
    100% Buck27713 and thank you for bringing up great points. Benjamin Siegel I am Glad your making the correct choice.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLoser View Post
    I have more information if you’d like to read it if anyone would Id be more than pleased to help out.
    yea could you please, im all ears. also, thank you for your concern about my well being.
    As of June 10, 2008

    Im startin out with a penis that when fully erect 100% is:

    BPEL 8"
    EG 6.5"

    My goal is to be :

    EL 12"
    EG 10"

    Some have told me that my goal cant be achieved...and they might be right....but theres nothin wrong in tryin to grow the G-virus Birkin monster in my pants....


    Siegel's Penis Laboratory

    Erect Penis size in Biohazard/Resident Evil style

    Penis Under 5" = The Zombie

    Penis 5" - 6" = The Licker

    Penis 7" - 8" = The Tyrant

    Penis 9" - 10" = The Nemesis

    Penis 11" and Over = "G" (G-Virus infected William Birkin, Malformation Levels 1-5)


    Enter the Lab, If You Dare...

    The PE Posse & The Girth Gang = The Cock Combination


    The Cock Combination (Founder and Boss)


    Join The Combination, And Work Your Way Up the PE Underworld!

    I'm not homosexual or bisexual (and if you are....good for you) I just wanted to set the record straight....no pun intended.

    "My friends call me Benny, to others I'm Mr. Siegel.... And guys I don't like call me "Bugsy".... But never to my face...."

    They Say The Sky is The Limit, So Lets P.E. Until We Can Touch It with Our Dicks....

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Below is Circumcision rates in America
    Circumcision rates America
    http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
    Circumcision facts
    http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

    Notice the Sharp decline.

    Circumcision became compulsory in the 1960s. People Born in this period of time were subjected to propoganda funded by big time pro circumcision lobies/medical insurance companies. Who a compulsory medical act and then fear to acomplish there multi billion pound empire on parents fears and love for there children which was condoend by the Government.

    Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?:
    A literature review

    R.S. VAN HOWE
    Medical College of Wisconsin, Department of Pediatrics, Marshfield Clinic, Lakeland Center, Minocqua, Wisconsin, USA
    Introduction

    Despite the wide availability of condoms and the fear of HIV infection, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) continue to be a serious public health concern. In the medical literature about preventive measures, circumcision is rarely if ever mentioned as an effective preventive measure: however, articles promoting the routine practice of circumcision invariably mention the surgery's benefit of reducing STDs. One author refers to over 100 medical articles supporting this thesis [1]. In the present review, the medical literature is examined to determine what influence, if any, circumcision has on STDs.
    Methods

    A Medline search was conducted using the keyword 'circumcision' and titles located were examined to determine if they applied to the topic. Other articles were identified through cited studies. Studies with identifiable control groups were included for analysis. Only 31 studies met this criterion [2-32]. Where data were available, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were calculated; an OR of > 1.0 denotes a positive correlation with the presence of a foreskin.
    Methodological differences
    The reliability of the control group is a problematic issue. For example, several studies used men with no STD as controls, without controlling for the number of sexual partners. It is likely that men in the control group had fewer partners and thus less exposure risk, making them inappropriate controls. In Hand's 1949 study [7], Jews made up 17% of the entire study population, but only 2.2% of the general publication [33]. Blacks in Hand's control group were more likely to be circumcised than control white Gentiles (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.87-2.27), which conflicts with reliable published data [31]. Some studies combined men with no particular STD to form control groups. Some studies considered only men with a different STD as the control group. Where the data were available, results are reported in this review using a control group of men with a STD other than the one in question, in an attempt to control for exposure risk.
    Most of the studies before 1994 made no attempt to control for known confounding factors such as race, age, socio-economic status, level of education, number of lifetime sexual partners, frequency of sexual contact, or previous STD. The importance of these factors cannot be understated. For example, Laumann et al. [34] found that as a man increases the number of sexual partners, the risk of contracting STD does not increase linearly, but nearly exponentially. Without controlling for these factors, the results of these studies are of limited value and make it impossible to determine whether circumcision status is a marker for a significant risk factor or whether circumcision status is the risk factor.
    Study type
    Nearly all of the studies published to date used information collected at STD clinics. While an STD clinic will concentrate clinical material at one location, study populations and controls derived from the clientele of STD clinics may not reflect the population as a whole, and may introduce a population bias that could unduly influence the results generated [34]. For example, Wilson compared seasoned soldiers who had STDs with new recruits [6]. To generalize the results of studies conducted in STD clinics, it must be assumed that circumcised men use these health facilities in the same manner. However, this is not the case, as socio-economic and cultural factors often differ between these groups. In the USA, men of higher socio-economic status are more likely to be circumcised and more likely to have an STD treated by a physician in private practice rather than at an STD clinic. Circumcised men may exhibit different health-seeking behaviour than uncircumcised men, being more likely to seek care for minor abrasions, thus being placed in the control group more often than their uncircumcised cohorts [35]. This would cause the association between the foreskin and various STDs, including HIV infection to be overestimated, if not spuriously generated [36]. In one African study, circumcised men had more lifetime partners, were more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, or have contact with prostitutes. They were less likely to be married [30]; none of these factors were controlled for in that study.
    The most reliable type of study is a random population survey; to date only a couple have been published [28,31,32]. The drawbacks of these studies is that more subjects are needed to make a significant difference and circumcision status is determined by history, but the lack of population bias may compensate for these shortcomings.
    Circumcision status
    Cook et al. [26], in their retrospective chart review, found that circumcision status was documented in 86% of clinic notes. Taylor and Rodin recorded circumcision status in 89% of their charts [10]; these percentages are strikingly high. The Mayo clinic could not identify circumcision status in 16% of their cases of penile cancer [37].
    Parker et al. [15] found a high correlation between history and physical examination, with a sensitivity (Sen) of 98%, specificity (Sp) of 99%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 99%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98%, while other studies have found no correlation. In a study in 1960 of men in New York and Los Angeles, only half of circumcised men correctly identified themselves as circumcised (Sen 51%, Sp 96%, PPV 93%, NPV 35% [39], men in Latin America (Sen 89%, Sp 84%, PPV 41%, NPV 98%) [40], and men in Africa (Sen 94%, Sp 72%, PPV 69%, NPV 95%) [32] yielded similar results.
    The history of the role of circumcision in STDs

    Before the development of the germ theory of disease and modern epidemiology, it was noted that Jews had a lower incidence of syphilis [41], but a higher incidence of gonorrhoea, than Gentiles [2]. One rationale that developed to explain this finding was that Jews were protected from syphilis by circumcision. The influence of religion on sexual practices and the ban on Christian prostitutes consorting with Jews [42] were not considered in deriving this theory. Since then, the theory has been perpetuated and embellished.
    Literature review
    Most studies cited as supporting a role of circumcision in the prevention of STDs are not case-controlled. Several studies make unsubstantiated estimates of male circumcision rates in the general population to use for comparative purposes. Other studies use ethnicity and tribal affiliation as an indicator of circumcision status. While these measures are crude and unscientific, the available data have been used to assess risk and statistical significance. The characteristics of the studies using identifiable control groups are listed in Table 1. Most studies that were not random population surveys were conducted at STD clinics.
    Normal microbial flora
    The studies are summarized in (Table 2). Urethral smears of healthy uncircumcised males are less likely to have Gram-positive organisms (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.91) [43], while Staphylococcus aureus is cultured significantly more often from periurethral swabs of circumcised boys 12 months and younger [44]. Not surprisingly, pyoderma is more common after circumcision in male infants than do those not circumcised [45,46]. Facultative Gram-negative rods and Escherichia coli are commonly found in the periurethral flora of uncircumcised males (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.84-16.54 [43]; E. coli OR 5.52, 95% CI 2.95-10.33 [44]). What impact this has on the susceptibility to illness has yet to be determined.
    Acid-fast bacilli
    It was conjectured that Mycobacterium smegmaticus could be a cause of urethritis. A study looking for acid-fast bacilli in urethral smears of men with urethritis failed to detect circumcision status as a significant factor (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.15-2.23) [9].
    Mycoplasma
    Controversy exists over whether Ureaplasma urealyticum and Mycoplasma hominis are normal flora or STDs. While some studies have found these organisms more commonly in men with urethritis, others have found their prevalence to be nearly identical in men with urethritis and asymptomatic controls [8,11]. A few studies have investigated circumcisions impact on the prevalence of mycoplasmas. One of the significant variables is the location of the organisms. Both U. urealyticum and M. Hominis were more likely to be obtained from the coronal sulcus in men with foreskins. When only urethral swabs are considered, U. urealyticum is more common in circumcised men [11]. A change in sub-preputial flora takes place with the onset of sexual activity, making this flora more like that of the adult female vagina. It has not been shown whether organisms cultured from the coronal sulcus affect urethral flora or disease.
    Trichomoniasis
    Krieger et al. [19] found that uncircumcised men were more likely to have Trichomonas vaginalis detected on a urethral swab or first-void urine cultures (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.03-3.67). However, when logistic regression is applied (controlling for age, race, age at sexual debut, exposure to T. vaginalis, number of sexual partners, and previous treatment for T. vaginalis, gonorrhoea, or non-specific urethritis), circumcision status was not a significant factor. (OR 1.1, 95% CI 05--2.3).
    Yeast
    Of studies looking for the presence of yeast, Rodin and Kolator [12] and Davidson [13] detected no difference in carriage of yeast between those with and without a foreskin. However, circumcised carriers were more likely to be asymptomatic, making these men a more serious vector for the spread of yeast infections to women. [13]. It is likely that Parker et al. only cultured swabs from symptomatic men for yeast [15]. This lack of random sampling may explain their findings.
    Genital ulcer disease vs. urethritis
    Instead of comparing individual disease entities, several studies have compared genital ulcer disease (GUD), which includes syphilis, chancroid, herpes simplex, etc., to urethritis, which includes gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and urethritis (Table 3). Instead of using a control group, these studies included those with either GUD or urethritis and compared the two entities. Similarly, the earliest study suggesting a protective role for circumcision found that Jews in London were more likely to get gonorrhoea and Gentiles were more likely to get syphilis (OR 6.59, 95% CI 3.27-13.27) [2]. Wolbarst likewise found that circumcised men were more likely to present with gonorrhoea than with syphilis [3-5]. It can be gathered from these studies that circumcised men presenting with an STD are more likely to have urethritis, while uncircumcised men are more likely to present with GUD. Because there is no true control group, no inference regarding disease prevention can be drawn from this information.

    Urethritis
    In the random population survey addressing urethritis, uncircumcised men were less likely to have it (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.87; Table 3). The authors noted that most cases of urethritis is that region were from gonorrhoea [22]. Two STD clinic studies from Africa failed to document a difference [25, 30].
    Gonorrhoea
    Most of the data for the incidence of gonorrhoea have come from STD clinic studies (Table 3); the results have been inconsistent. When appropriate control groups are applied to the studies from the 1940s [6,7], circumcised white men are at higher risk for gonorrhoea. When the data from Smith et al. were categorized by race, no difference in gonorrhoea rates could be detected between those men with and without a foreskin [16]. In a study of 537 sailors examined for gonorrhoea before and after sexual exposure during shore leave in the Far East, circumcision status did not affect susceptibility in blacks, and although uncircumcised whites had higher rates of gonorrhoea than circumcised whites, the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.10) [14]. In a random population survey, Laumann et al. [31] discovered that the number of lifetime partners dramatically affected the impact of circumcision on gonorrhoea. While circumcised men with 5-20 lifetime partners were at lower risk for gonorrhoea, circumcised men with <20 lifetime partners were at significantly higher risk of gonorrhoea than uncircumcised men with a similar number of lifetime partners. It may be that more partners increases the diversity of the subpreputial flora, thus offering some protection to the uncircumcised male. [47].
    Non-gonococcal urethritis
    Non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) is not prevented by circumcision and may be more common in circumcised men (Table 3). Some of the studies distinguished between chlamydia and NGU [15,26,31]. A significant correlation between the foreskin and NGU has yet to be detected and a negative correlation appears likely. Chlamydia is most commonly the cause of NGU: the data suggest that circumcised men are at greater risk of chlamydial infections.
    Genital ulcer disease
    Several of the HIV studies examining the role of circumcision have also provided data on its role in the incidence of GUD (Table 4). The findings have been inconsistent but suggest that uncircumcised men may be at greater risk for GUD.
    Syphilis
    One of the difficulties in studying syphilis is its low prevalence. Most of the recent studies have been unable to detect a statistically significant difference because there are too few cases. Even the large population survey by Laumann et al. could not detect a difference [31]. The results by Kreiss and Hopkins [21] cannot be generalized to the population at large because both circumcision and syphilis status were obtained by history from a study population that only included men engaging in homosexual activity. When the African data reported in a study by Urassa et al. [32] are controlled for background characteristics, including HIV status, no difference is detectable (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.27).
    Chancroid
    Circumcision was once proposed as a treatment for chancroid [48,49] until antibiotics were shown to be effective [50]. Although it is generally reported that chancroid is more common in uncircumcised males [51-55], a review of the medical literature found no case-controlled study to support this assertion, other than the study by Hand [7]. When the proper control group is applied to Hand's data, an interesting finding emerges. Chancroid is significantly more common in uncircumcised white males, but significantly more common in circumcised black males. In two studies from Singapore STD clinics, Malays, who are predominantly Islamic, were less likely to have chanchroid, but in neither study was the finding statistically significant., as there were too few Malays [56,57]. In one of the studies, Indians were more likely to develop chancroid than Chinese (OR 20.77, 95% CI 8.11-53.17). When Malays were compared with Chinese, Malays had a higher incidence of chancroid (OR 3.12, 95% CI 0.81-12.08) [56]. In both studies, calculations were based on assumptions of ethnic prevalence in the population and ethnic associations with circumcision status. If chancroid is related to circumcision status, Malays, who routinely circumcise, would be expected to have a lower incidence of chancroid than the Chinese who do not.
    In an outbreak of chancroid in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, the community of Native Indians and Métis (mixed Indian and Caucasian) were the focus of the outbreak, rather than Caucasians [52]. The published evidence suggests that race and ethnicity are more likely to be a factor in chancroid infection than circumcision status. This finding is consistent with the recognized tendency of highly contagious STDs to concentrate in 'core' populations [34]
    Herpes simplex
    The results for genital herpes have been inconsistent. Hand, without providing data, reported that circumcision had no impact on the incidence of genital herpes [7]. When Taylor and Rodin's data are analysed by race, the significance of the foreskin for those originally from the UK disappears [10].
    Human papillomavirus and genital warts
    Much attention has been paid to human papillomavirus (HPV) since it was linked with cervical and penile cancers [37,58] (Table 5). The epidemiology of these cancers mimics that of STDs. Genital warts have consistently been a significant risk factor for penile cancer [59,60]. The role of circumcision in the prevention of penile cancer is controversia, especially in light of a recent report from Seattle in which 42% of men with penile cancer were circumcised [60]. In recent studies, HPV-associated lesions are either equally common [15,23,27] or more common in circumcised men. A larger cohort of circumcised men in the USA is reaching the age at which penile cancer occurs. This has resulted in more circumcised men with penile cancers than seen previously [61,62]. How the higher risk of genital warts in circumcised men will affect penile cancer has yet to be determined. The use of condoms and screening men at risk for HPV infection using acetic acid and colposcopy may be the best use of resources for preventing penile and cervical cancers. [63,64].
    Hepatitis
    In an Israeli study of the prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigen in 9182 school children, the investigators speculated as to whether male circumcision could be an important mode of infection, explaining both the male predominance and the striking seasonal trend among boys that their study revealed [65]. An Ethiopian study suggested that circumcision may play a role in HBV transmission [66], but a Gambian study failed to find an association [67]. Likewise, Donovan et al. [27] and Laumann et al. found no difference in hepatitis between men with and without a foreskin.
    STD prevalence
    Until recently, no studies have examined the impact of circumcision on overall STD incidence. The data indicate that circumcised men may be a higher risk for an STD (Table 5). This is consistent with trends seen in the USA. As routine neonatal circumcision has been implemented, the rate of STDs has increased rather fallen. Among first-world nations, the USA has one of the highest rates of STDs. HIV infection and male circumcision. In the report by Cook et al. [26] the average uncircumcised man had 2.16 STDs diagnosed, while in the average circumcised man it was 2.32; in an Australian study, there was no difference (1.48 vs 1.44 STDs diagnosed per patient) [27].
    HIV
    There have been 36 case-controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals addressing the relationship between the foreskin and HIV infection; the results have been inconsistent. Several studies performed in STD clinics have found the foreskin to be a risk factor [17,18,21,25,29,30,68-72], while several random population surveys, which do not have the population bias of an STD clinic study, have found circumcised men to be at higher risk [32,73-75]. Several studies have failed to detect a statistically significant difference between men with and without a foreskin [31,76-87]. In several studies, when the populations are controlled for GUD, number of sexual partners and other factors, the results differ significantly from the raw data. The USA has the highest incidence of HIV infection, as well as the highest incidence of male circumcision amongst developed nations. This speaks against the protective effect of circumcision [89]. The inconsistency of the results and the number of confounding factors make it impossible to link the foreskin to HIV infection [36,90].
    Hill's criteria

    It is impossible to assert a causal relationship based on retrospective data. Hill developed criteria for assessing whether a strong case can be made for causality based on retrospective data [91].
    Strength: If an association has a high OR, it weighs in favour of a causal relationship. Few of the associations have had an OR of > 2.0. Moreover, the studies that randomly accessed portions of the population outside of STD clinics have found circumcised men to be at higher risk for an STD [28,31,32].
    Consistency: Results among studies have been very inconsistent: this speaks against causality.
    Specificity: There are several confounding factors: circumcision is not chose randomly [92]. Significant factors such as race, socio-economic status, education level and number of partners are often not controlled for in the published studies. In most studies where these factors have been controlled for, the foreskin is not a significant factor. For example, a US Army study of soldiers in Japan reported that uncircumcised men were more likely to have a penile lesion than were random controls (OR 22.78, 95% CI 6.00-86.29), but men with penile lesions were more likely to be black (OR 15.00, 95% CI 3.12-72-07) or to have had a previous STD (OR 4.41, 1.71-11.34) [93]. No attempt was made to control for these significant factors.
    Temporality: Most males are circumcised before beginning sexual activity. While some effort has been made to promote circumcision as an HIV preventive in Africa [94], no studies of the effects of later circumcision on disease prevention have been published.
    Biological gradient: One study of HIV found that circumcised men with more residual foreskin were at higher risk of HIV-2 infection [77]. It is difficult to make any conclusion from this one study.
    Biological plausibility: Moses et al. [95] suggested: (a) that minor inflammatory conditions can occur underneath the foreskin, resulting in mucosal discontinuity that may provide a portal of entry for viruses and bacteria: (b) that the foreskin may be more susceptible to minor trauma during intercourse: (c) that the warm, moist environment under the foreskin may provides an environment conducive to prolonged survival of pathogens; and (d) in the case of HIV, that Langerhans cells, plentiful in the foreskin of male macaque monkeys, are highly susceptible to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) [95].
    While the warm moist environment under the prepuce allows for the growth of all bacteria, including pathogens, the immunological protection provided the subpreputial flora [96], secretory immunoglobulins, and lytic secretions from the prostate, urethra, and seminal vesicles [97] have not been adequately investigated. Undisturbed preputial flora and mucosal immunological defences may protect the uncircumcised male for infection [47].
    The role of Langerhans cell in the transmission of HIV is unclear. While they are present in the mucosal prepuce of monkeys [98] and adult males [99], Weiss et al. were not able to detect their presence on the inner surface of prepuces taken from newborns [100]. These cells initiate the immune response to infectious agents. In the primate study referred to by Moses et al. [95] it was Langerhans-like cells in the lamina propria, and not in the epithelium, that appeared to be infected with SIV [101]. It is unclear whether this observation can be extrapolated to the Langerhans cells in the epithelium of the prepuce in humans.
    Beaugé suggests that the loss of penile skin from circumcision frequently results in tightened skin over the erect penis. This increases friction during intercourse and increases the likelihood of abrasions through which a pathogen can be introduced systemically, making the circumcised penis more likely to contract an STD [101]. The increased likelihood of circumcised men engaging in active anal sex [31] may also increase a circumcised man's susceptibility to STDs.
    Coherence: Circumcision as a preventive measure for STDs needs to fit into a coherent explanation that takes other know risk factors into account. To date, the only theory proposed is the 'subpreputial space as a cesspool' explanation provided by Weiss [103]. If the 'cesspool" theory is extended to women, then one would expect that women, who have significantly more genital mucosa, would have markedly more STD's than men, whether circumcised or not; this is not the case [34]. Nearly all of the associations between STDs and the foreskin can be explained on the basis of racial, socio-economic, cultural, ethnic, and healthcare-seeking behavioural differences. Studies controlling for these factors have failed to confirm the efficacy of circumcision in preventing STDs.
    Experimental evidence: There is none.
    Analogy: Is there another illness to which the foreskin makes a man more susceptible? Can it be equated with the acquisition and transmission of STDs? Lower urinary tract infections in infancy may be associated with the foreskin, but showing analogy to STDs would be a formidable task. Upper urinary tract infections in males are most often related to anatomical anomalies in the male rather than the foreskin [104], and unrelated to behaviour patterns. The aetiologies of these maladies are so disparate that forming an analogy is impossible. Based on the above criteria, a causal relationship between the foreskin and STDs cannot be inferred.

    Above is a table of context and documents/studies that were falsified to prove that circumcision cures STDs when the actual real data available shows the complete opposite. Every single claims/ studies since the 1940s about pro circumcision has been shown and proven to be false. Such claims as circumcision stops your children from becoming retarded, circumcision prevents cancer, circumcision stops your children from potentially becoming a rapist, murder. The most absurd and pathetic claims and the most recent 1 being circumcision stops aids.

    Every year thousands of men become impotent from circumcision operations going wrong. Each year several babies die! And others nearly die due to circumcision. If you look at the tables that show infections your twice as likely to catch a serious infection directly after a circumcision procedure that if you had kept your foreskin

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    guys who are glad they are cut are like guys who are glad the got tatoos, peircings, underskin implants, and other body alterations. good for them. I just would not be glad if anyone did any of those things to me.


    People 50 years from now will be laughing at how mutilated genitals used to be popular.
    Today the percentage of boys getting cut is below 50 percent. Even jews are standing up against it. people are slow to understand this thing for good reason

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Think about this Reality::::

    argument:

    cut penises and uncut look very similar when aroused; the head is exposed.

    Girls get mental sexual arousal when they see a head (the are programmed genetically to get the hotts when the see a head)

    Uncut penises have the head exposed at all times

    Therefore, seeing an cut penis in flaccid state would arouse a women upon sight. However seeing a normal penis would have no impact, since back in the cave man days people were most likely less shy about their genitals.

    seeing the Head means GO TIME while seeing the flaccid intact penis does not trigger those feeling.

    Conclusion:

    women claim they are more turned on by cut penises for reasons that the dont understand.

    You have to think in terms of evolution.

    sorry creationist: god did not give you a foreskin just so you could cut it off.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In the Middle of No Where...
    Age
    43
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoky View Post
    I have to say I was not really expecting all that hostility. My advise for your next debate is to remember when you argue a point "Strong a bitter words indicate a weak cause." When you refer to all the parents who have had their children circumsized as "sick fucks" its hard for anyone to take you as someone who has something credible and serious to add. Why you are so passionate about this subject? And where do you get off judging me and the decisions I make about my son? By the way, the Momma wanted it done too.

    I just wanted to offer an alternate perspective, you know, something to think about. I don't look at my dick as being mutilated. I think it looks normal.

    I would be interested to know if there is any "infant trauma" as Supra pointed out. Have there been any clinical studies on this issue? If so what was the result.
    I see that nobody has been in this room for 3 years-but I'm posting anyway. I found it interesting that a doctor was even saying "what's the big deal". Well, it's not his fault, he went to a Western medical school. Most doctors compare circumcision to "getting his ears pierced". This is a complete load of shit. Earlobes have really no function and it's also poking a hole through some extra skin that is not packed with nerves. Whoever said that MOST of those frenulum nerves are cut away in circumcision is correct. The predominant circumcision in western culture is a child of the catholic church trying to curb masturbation. Circumcision goes back to even the Egyptians. But historically, including with Jews, it was not cut off... it was just cut a little. As a result, there was some minimal scarring, but very few nerves were taken off and perhaps a few (1000s?) were damaged. Now they completely remove it... along with half your pleasure perhaps more.

    I don't agree with calling parents or doctors who do it "sick fucks" UNLESS they are educated about it, then fuckin A they are. If they are like most, and completely ignorant about this-they'd realize the analogy of the clitorectomy is quite accurate-this is nothing more than genital mutilation based on a church's idea from the dark ages. They are also against abortion... and stem cell research, and euthenasia. Note that the biggest shareholders of hospitals in the U.S. is the ... catholic church. (Didn't you ever notice that most of them are "St. Peters" or "St. Marks", etc.?) So this is an issue of economics.... all these things, including keeping male infants intact costs them valuable dollars and that is the true reason behind their stances on all these issues, including now circumcision.

    If you have any doubts about the trauma doctor or anyone else who scoffed at smoky, go watch a circumcision.... it's easy to find, maybe even on youtube. You watch that baby scream so hard he runs out of air and just gasps as his whole face turns purple from EXCRUCIATING PAIN.... or ask a man who had it done at an older age. Doctors used to say that babies did not have developed nerve systems, that they "couldn't feel pain" and a dozen other excuses.... but in reality babies certainly feel pain and one video of a circumcision will prove to you not only this fact... but that you wish you had your foreskin back, that you wish you hadn't done it to your son/s and that it's completely fucking barbaric and way beyond unnecessary. Babies have DIED from this, bled to death... some have had the entire penis removed to save their lives.... it's pretty fucked up if you research it. It's an outdated practice that really has no place in modern society. It is as outdated as saying "sunset/sunrise".... (I say this as it was proven the Earth is not the center of the Universe in the 3rd century... course, the catholics didn't admit it until 1991 lol).

    So whatever you do... before you do cut your son, educate yourself, if you do, I cannot imagine you going through with it. I'm proud to be able to tell my son some day "well, daddy was mutilated due to a silly custom, but lucky for you, your parents are smart. Also-be very careful taking him to the pediatrician. They may yank the foreskin back to "clean" the head and rip it, this too is painful, unnecessary and also outdated. No doctor is touching my son's penis in this culture-they just don't know what they're doing.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In the Middle of No Where...
    Age
    43
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikehawk77 View Post
    Think about this Reality::::

    argument:

    cut penises and uncut look very similar when aroused; the head is exposed.

    Girls get mental sexual arousal when they see a head (the are programmed genetically to get the hotts when the see a head)

    Uncut penises have the head exposed at all times

    Therefore, seeing an cut penis in flaccid state would arouse a women upon sight. However seeing a normal penis would have no impact, since back in the cave man days people were most likely less shy about their genitals.

    seeing the Head means GO TIME while seeing the flaccid intact penis does not trigger those feeling.

    Conclusion:

    women claim they are more turned on by cut penises for reasons that the dont understand.

    You have to think in terms of evolution.

    sorry creationist: god did not give you a foreskin just so you could cut it off.
    Ya sorry, this is nonsense too. Girls in OUR culture might see this... just as some men in OUR culture have learned to be ashamed of the "turtle neck"... this is stupid cultural bias and that's all it is. And there is no question that women get MORE pleasure from the original, evolution enhanced penis we have today.... and it DOES have a foreskin. The foreskin is designed to create a rolling motion and surveys have been done and no question it's better for men, better for women... big surprise? Then again, think about a girl who got her clit cut off... and imagine it being the status quo in your society-you'd make all the same bogus arguments "men like vaginas with no clits better" and so forth lol.... Your culture has tricked you into many things, one of which is that circumcision is a-ok. Don't mutilate your children people.... let them do that to themselves when they turn 18.
    Last edited by Crazy Doc; 03-02-11 at 05:35 PM. Reason: adding quote

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    men who are uncircumsized have a greater risk to obtain penile diseases and cancers opposed to circumsized men. its that easy.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    Here in France (Yeah not the best reference i know...) most of people aren't cut. And were doin good ! No hygiene or health problems at all.

    Circumsized penis have their advantages . But the most important thing to me is that YOU make the decision to do it (Or not).

    My 2cent.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    New England
    Age
    50
    Posts
    93,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    176
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    The beautiful thing is even if you are circumcised, as I was, foreskin restoration works. I spent maybe 6 months trying to restore part of my foreskin, as my circumcision was tight, and it really worked. Today I have more room and there is no tightness.
    Matters of Size
    SRT

    Suppressed-Restricted-Transposition

    The World's Best Penis Enlargement Routine
    based on 16 Years of Research
    !

    Four Easy Steps to Starting SRT
    and Making the Fastest Penis Size Gains Possible


    1. Get The Matters of Size Maximum Gains Package
    Learn All Penis Enlargement Exercise through Video!

    2. Get The All New Length Master Penis Stretcher and Hanger
    The Most Advanced Penis Stretcher and Hanger in the World!

    3. Get The SizeGenetics Penis Extender Complete Package
    (61% Off!)
    Learn how Important the SizeGenetics Extender is to growth and healing!
    Take advantage of ALL DAY PENIS STRETCHING

    4. Get a Bathmate HydroMax X20, X30, X40 or X50 Penis Pump! with FREE SHIPPING IN THE US!
    Realize Instant Usable Penis Size! Perfect for Penis Girth and Length Expansion!
    Hydro Penis Pumps have become a Massive Tool in Penis Size Gaining and Healing!

    5. Get the Phallosan The All Day and All Night Stretcher Now $100 in extras!

    6. Follow the SRT Routine: Maximizing Gains and Healing Fastest!
    Watch your Penis gain inches in girth and length in the FASTEST time Possible!
    Over 15 Years of Research, utilizing the most effective Penis Enlargement techniques!
    ONLY AT MOS - ALL PRODUCTS HAVE A 5 YEAR WARRANTY!

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In the Middle of No Where...
    Age
    43
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: What the hell is wrong with our culture

    utter nonsense. Show us a link with some statistically viable data to support that. Ever heard of evolution? Evolution would dictate that foreskins would fall off naturally if what you say is true.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •