Page #1
Pages: #1 #2|
Started by #202700 [Ignore] 10,Nov,11 13:04
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Complimenting women is becoming pointless 2.Native Americans?? 3.New on Netflix: American Circumcision 4.Americans v English 5.Democrats refuse to vote on relief money unless $35 million goes to Kennedy center Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
It looks better, is cleaner, helps prevent the spread of disease and viruses such as aids, hiv, urinary tract infections, penile cancer etc...ALL PROVEN and supported by the medical community.
But mainly it just looks better and is more attractive and desireable to see.
So many uncircumcised guys are upset that they are not circumcised. It frusterates them so much that all they know how to do in return is attack it and be against it. When in reality all they want is to be circumcised.
You can't justify being uncircumcised in a predominantly circumcised society.....It's as simple as that. You will never fit in so to speak and that is just how it is. Nothing you say or do will ever change the fact that the majority of boys and men in our society are Circumcised and that it is HEAVILY favorable by both males and females alike.
If you wish to be circumcised then that is your privalege and pleasure, but DO NOT add to this barbaric procedure which is too often perfromed for ignorance, but sometimes greed and worse, on tiny infants who cannot defend themselves,...it is a grotesque abuse of their human rights perpetrated by those who should be defending them.
Finally, to take you first joke,..er, I mean statement, the "need" for removing most of the tactile nerve ends and pleasure receptors from a tiny baby's penis is because a vicious and deformed society hates the idea that he may grow up to enjoy the sensual pleasure and become a tactile lover of his partner,...rather than be inured with the brutality that is so evident among the mutilated masses.
....When YOU were mutilated why did they not remove your ears too?.....that would have been cleaner and more hygenic for you and you would not have been able to listen to any whispers about anything sexual.
Itīs not a question of what looks better or not. And health? To James Bond: First: AIDS is a consequence of infection with HIV and HIV is mostly transmitted by semen and the virus doesnīt care if it swims in the semen of a cut or uncut cock. Sorry but thinking like this is bullshit. Being cut DOESNīT minimize the risk of any infection!
The main thing for me is - beside of such stupid and also dangerous arguments - that I donīt understand how any parents can take the responsability of letting cut their babys, seeming to have more confidence in any quack doctor than in nature itself??
I admit I have a european understanding of human rights also. The freedom to choose how we want to be or think or look like and also live. Why not taking out the blind gut of any new born, it COULD cause trouble.
Please notice: Iīm NOT against cut men, I am just against the reasons it was done. Hmm, well WHAT reason? I donīt see any than just wanting to socialise and being part of some majority WITHOUT any other reason.
Your are in heavy DENIAL over the medical proof that being circucmised indeed reduces the risks of contracting HIV and other STD's as well as urinary tract infections etc...
This has been Medicaly studied, proven, and documented. Not in America, but in Africa. Where the study took place does not discredit the validity of the study in any way.
The only difference between here and over there is that the medical community actually decided to do studies on it where as our part of the world has not.
So you can ignore the proof that theses studies have delivered and be in denial over it if you want, but it ain't gonna help you by doing so.
The inner lining of the foreskin is what makes uncircumcised males so much more receptive to contracting viruses and bacteria as it contains special cells that absorb these viruses and bacteria into the blood stream.
By removing the foreskin, these special cells are also removed instantly reducing the risk of contraction of these diseases.
In an uncircumcised male,the forskin traps and allows semen,blood,vaginal fluids, feces etc. Until the male fully cleans under it. The time between the sexual act and the cleaning can be quite long. This is is what causes the increase of disease to the uncircumcised male.
But mate, you are so fucking wrong. Donīt believe in any study you have not ordered yourself! You discredited yourself by naming an african research. Sorry for all africans, I donīt mean it this way, but any poor people will tell you whatever you like for small money.
My goodness. If you think being cut will prevent you from getting ANY sexual transmitted diseases - go on and enjoy your life!
If stupity was a gift it would be Christmas every day.
The study is real and it is accurate.
The inner lining of the foreskin is what makes uncircumcised males so much more receptive to contracting viruses and bacteria as it contains special cells that absorb these viruses and bacteria into the blood stream.
This is a MEDICAL FACT.
But no ... we teach our **** about personal and oral hygiene. Male penile hygiene is just as important, but clearly some dopey parents think it's simpler to chop it off than teach a boy how to clean it.
Those cells of which you speak (Lymphatic vessles for the educated) are actually the a vital part of the very defence mechanism that kills invading germs. UTIs etc are quickly eradicated before they enter the bloodstream on an intact penis. Too bad if that safety net is gone tho ... isn't it?
Don't even get me started on the scaring, growth stunting and loss of sexual stimulation routinely caused by circumcision. No you're right, it is much safer to hide a potential problem - even chop it off - than educate our kids on how to deal with them. Better get bubs teeth removed and glue his ears shut whilst we're at it. D'oh!
I guess about 50% look mutilated.
And of course you realise that urine is a natural disinfectant ... you would have heard of the "piss on a sting" remedy? Guys with PA piercings, for instance, don't need a disinfectant such as an ear piercing would require as their urine keeps the new piercing clean until such a time as it heals.
We can't get an infection from our own body waste!
Apart from that, from a personal point of view, whilst there certainly are good-looking circumcised dicks as there are unattractive uncut dicks, overall I would say that an uncut dick is generally far more attractive, much more fun to play with and certainly more sensitive.
It is my view that unless there is a medical reason boys should not be circumcised. It is something they may wish to consider once they are an adult.
This is the most ill-informed, inaccurate and ... well ignorant response to any forum posting I have ever read.
Its quite sad that an adult male would even begin to believe the utter rubbish you have written here ... let alone spruke it as "fact". I won't even attempt to respond to your comments ... except to say that they are basically all categorically wrong.
I suggest you go do some research ... you will discover that you've been grossly misguided in your rather arrogant opinion on this subject.
Circumsision may have made sense long ago when it was harder to maintain personal hygiene, but today it shouldn't be an issue in developed countries. I can understand if people want to have it done for aestetical reasons though, we all prefer different things.
The religious argument that some fictitious God directed men to get circumcised is also false. Man is generally very sensible & he would have observed that those that had little or no natural foreskin had much less or no problems with infection etc., so it's only reasonable to see why it was done. Infection, disease transmission & odour would have been very good reasons for removing the foreskin.
If you really think about most religious rules & traditions you will see that are the result of experience, observation & common sense & certainly not the direction of some non-existent god.
.........So, God is NOT to blame for the routine mutilation of tiny defenceless infants?.....Nice to know HE is after all a loving caring god then.... Perhaps you need to tell this to the religous types as they seem to think it's ONLY for God!
Oh, and could we have a link to the "surveys" that show mutilated men masturbate more please?
If health insurance payouts are higher in uncircumcised men then perhaps any sensible guy would be circumcised.
........Of course, any American insurance 'study' would have been carried out by American doctors and we already know how implicated they are in this horrible and barbaric fraud that is foisted on american manhood.
So to remove some kids foreskin just because we are naturally unhygienic and lazy, circumcision is welcome and encouraged by medical insurance companies because they won't lose as much money. What k-i-d truly washes his hands anyhow, and to get him to wash his hands twice would be next to impossible.
....And, by the way, there are indeed similarities between the two, the main one being that there is no actual reason to practice it by ANY society without due regard to the rights of the infant/young individual.
Male circumcision and FGM (which is incorrectly called female circumcision) have nothing in common and are two completely different procedures.
Female circumcision only removes the clitoral hood (female foreskin) while FGM removes a girls clitoris itself.
If the HEAD of a boys penis was removed durring a circumcsion, then yes by all counts that would be barbaric and mutilation, Just as if the clitoris of a female is removed it is also barbaric and mutilation.
However in both female and male, circumcision only removes the foreskin and nothing more.
Think of the clitoris as the female PENIS HEAD. That is what it is.
It may be what people in some places call it, but this error is due to lack of Medical Education and does not change the fact that Female Circumcision is not the same thing as FGM.
They are two totaly different things and they have always been two totaly different things, and they will continue to be two totaly different things.
People will Combine the terms "female circumcsion" with Female genital mutilation" because it makes a perfectly normal and healthy procedure (female circumcision) look horrible and nasty. Otherwords it is the use of a LIE in order to manipulate how the procedure is viewed.
It's an inner battle between should I get circumcised or should I just keep trying to come up with reasons why not to.
Circumcised people....We are happy being circumcised and have no desire to argue or debate the subject UNTIL we are attacked by an person who tells us we have been Mutilated or that our penis does not function properly. So understand.......It is the anti-circs who fuel this debate and not those of us who support circumcision. We circumcised guys were just sitting here minding our own business when a bunch of anti-circ people with their mentaly ill conceived theories decided to attack our circumcised status. When attacked, one defends themselves, that is the natural reaction.
It seems to me that on this particular thread you are the one getting awfully wound up about the subject. It makes me wonder if your argument should not perhaps be turned on its head and it is you that are feeling anguish and frustration at having been circumcised. After all, those men who are uncut and long to be cut have no need to feel anguish or frustration - all they need do is make arrangements to be cut - simple. Whereas for the circumcised guys they have a long and tedious process to try to rectify their situation, with varying degrees of success.
.......But if people could get over their ignorance and disrespect for other humanbeings then routine mutilation "when you are 5 minutes old and fresh out of the womb" might, thankfully be ended......
New Comment Go to top