Page #1
Pages: #1 #2|
Started by #10886 [Ignore] 29,Sep,13 14:14
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.The law is a ass! 2.GENTIAL WARTS 3.mutilation, genital mutilation, circumcision all the same? 4.STOP POSTNATAL VOCABULARY MUTILATION 5.Genital beading Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Like that creepy seanconnery guy...
"SOME OF THEM WOULD BE SCREAMING THEIR HEADS OFF TILL THEY ****" ~A surgical technologist, interviewed at the Denver protest last month. James Loewen filmed this woman's reaction when Dolores RN told her that American doctors began circumcision in the United States as a punishment for masturbation, unarguably the most bestial thing we've ever done to our babies. Why have our doctors inflicted this horror on our people, and why are they silent about the world medical community's condemnation? Are we a nation of savage **** or human beings?
only registered users can see external links
Otherwise, you ruin the most choice cuts of meat...
Obviously, THAT guy knew an excellent "baby butcher".
--------------------------------------- added after 10 hours
Does it really matter if it is murder/cannibalism if the k*d still has his foreskin?
Who made up your comment for you?
(Go ahead, search the internet for a response. I am sure that someone else has thought up something clever for you to use. We'll wait...)
I honestly don't care about the cut vs. uncut debate *at all* anymore. You can do/think whatever the hell you want about dicks. All I care about is that people (ALL people, women included, for parts of the world where FGM is the norm as well) get the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.
But I agree with you. You should decide for yourself if you want it done (male or female)!
Wow!
I'm not tell you that....
when you posted that, you said enough about how you think.
I'm just posting wow - this person can use a keyboard?
you do not have the right to cut, or have cut, another person!
I thank that should be very easy to understand for anyone.
I believe I would have had more sensual sexual feelings during my lifetime, and I have always said a foreskin looks just great.
This circumcision practice should be stopped...
A few things bugs me here:
- no one is talking that when they cut foreskin off the anesthesia is not used since is to high risk of infection. Just think about the pain ... but seems to me it doesn't matter, a little boy will not remember anyway.
- at list 80 baby boys dies each year in US only because of that procedure. Can those deaths can be prevented?
- some obscure religious cult even these days here in US still do that as .... WTF I know what ... and the torturer suck the blo-od with his mouth. Just recently one baby-boy dies because of hepatitis. Can that be prevented?
Before the conclusion about "not again" or cut dick looks better just stop for the moment and think about that.
My opinion which dick looks better? I truly don't care when the owner is happy what he have.
It seems that a good proportion of parents elect to circumcise without any thought and perhaps under the thought that it's a risk-free surgery.
besides look at it this way.... the USA has one of the highest rates of infant circumcision... almost ALL males are circumcised but yet we also have one of the highest rates of HIV transmission. if circumcision truly reduced the transmission rates wouldn't the USA be the model with the LOWEST number of HIV cases?
The 2013 data I have regarding male circumcision in the US indicates it's currently running at around 55% circumcised at birth and so that's quite a stretch to suggest almost all males in the US are circumcised! Secondly the US is well down the league of infection based on the latest published 2011 figures and not a patch on the infection rates in the southern African states.
The latest study concentrates on two tribes in Africa that are geographically only a few kilometers apart. In one village infection is rife with almost all the adult population being infected. The neighboring village shares similar customs, etc but here infection rates are significantly lower (by approx 40%) and the only reason is that in this village all boys are circumcised. The theory is that HIV virus thrives under the foreskin. As I say it's still being examined but may aid the fight against HIV/AIDS in rural Africa.
The highest rate of circumcision in the US in the 80's was 79%. This is the highest and so your 80% - 90% is somewhat exaggerated. The 90's show a downward trend with a peak of 63% circumcised again a significant difference to the figure you suggest. I do agree that the main socio-econmic group that continues the practice in the US are C & D categories and predominantly white. The figures are somewhat skewed by the increase in Hispanic bo ys/men who are not routinely cut. However if you follow the trend it seems to suggest that infant circumcision is very slowly dying out in America.
If you're looking for anecdotal evidence... I've only played around with about ten guys, all but one of whom were cut. However, two of those nine cut guys weren't cut at birth but rather as kids. Surprising!
Oh my god! This infamous study showing up again! And it is NOT the latest study, it's a 10 year old urban myth or hoax!
Question: When was the last time you made a serious decision about what to do and how to live your life, based on some trivial study on two tribes in Africa?
And what IF this stupid study was right? Get cut so you youngsters can fuck without a condom? HIV would NOT knock on your door if you are cut?
The message should be: have protected sex, use a condom! talk and think about how and when safe sex is in your interest!
HIV does NOT live under the foreskin, it's in the b l o o d and semen!
Protect yourself and be informed!
It's the latest study that I've read, I know the terms subjective but it is correct.
I never said I was considering circumcision based on the African study, merely stating that if correct it would be a valuable tool in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa and may make me reconsider the validity of circumcision. Of course you're right that safe sex is the answer but the reality is that in the African states condoms are still not widely used and so we need to offer alternative measures to reduce infection rates. I would add that the same statement applies to most third world countries.
I was being simplistic with my statement about HIV living under the foreskin but this forum isn't the place to give a full account of the the hows and whys, especially as we are not 100% sure of the answer. In very simple terms it's the safe and normal bacteria living beneath the foreskin that seem to encourage/incubate/assist the viral growth/reproduction and without this assistance the virus is much less active and hence you get lower infection rates.
I have never advocated circumcision in the western world and so I'm not sure quite where your safe sex rant came from?
I would suggest that prior to posting on these sort of topics that you a, read the thread properly and b, do a little research.
I'm not uninformed. I just don't believe every outcome of every study. I'm sceptical if I read stuff that I don't believe.
And thank god, there are more critical minds!
Have a look at circumcisionDOTorg/hiv.htm
Some points you can read there are:
"Even if the claim were true, based on the rate of infection in the studies, about 60 men had be circumcised to prevent one HIV infection. The other 59 men did not receive any benefit."
"Most HIV infections in Africa are transmitted by contaminated injections and surgical procedures."
"Among developed countries, the United States has the highest circumcision rate and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV. Other countries have lower rates of HIV infection than the United States and do not practice circumcision."
"Other studies show that condoms are better than 99% effective. That's why the American Medical Association states that "behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status."
"The cost of one circumcision in Africa can pay for 3000 condoms. Unlike circumcision, condoms also have the advantage of also protecting women, and there are no surgical risks and complications."
For you to read it properly, do a little research, and do some thinking!
And for as far as my supposed "rant" (your words) about safe-sex: If you think circumcision on every male in the third world is an intelligent way to diminsh the spread of HIV, I think condoms are a much more (cost-)effective method.
The example I gave is fact, the only difference between the two villages is circumcision and so there are definite grounds for further study. I would dispute the figures you seem to be quoting as it is significantly different from my understanding.
Most HIV infections are spread by contaminated injections and surgery, highly doubtful and I would question how this conclusion is drawn? I think it illogical to think that far more people are shooting up or undergoing surgery than having sex by any measure.
No conclusion can be accurately drawn between the higher rate of circumcision in the US and the higher incidence of HIV, i.e. that circumcision has no affect on infection rates.(I haven't verified this information and so I'll work under the premise that's it's accurate.) Even if this were so it has no bearing on the African example / study. There are many factors both culturally and socially, including wealth etc. that skew the outcome.
I agree that condoms are life savers but it is only one strand to the prevention of HIV transmission. I'm suggesting that consensual circumcision MAY offer another. I think you must remember that there's still a lot of ambivalence to condom use in much of Africa and condoms are not always available. Condoms are also often misused and it's not uncommon for them to be re-used all of which negate their protection.
I am not and never have advocated using circumcision as a universal cure for the spread of HIV in Africa or anywhere else and you will not receive any argument from me regarding the necessity for condoms and safe-sexual practice. I fear we have moved too far off topic and so perhaps this agreement should be a suitable end.
Just saying: "The example I gave is fact" is NOT strong evidence of your case.
If you agree that condoms are life-savers (99%!!), why would you want to focus on trivial studies about circumcision that cost too much and are NOT effective 59 out of 60 times?
And sure, this would be a suitable end.
........The "thousands of years" bit is irrelevant....lots of mans most bestial pursuits go back thousands of years but that does not make murder, greed, avarice, bigotry and cowardice, and the urge to injure other men (among many others) good things.....We can ALL hope for a better, more informed and civilised society
youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=U5kaEEckXmU
replace DOT by a dot: .
Cut man that ask: why the fuck was that done to me? Is that nonsense or is that a legitimate question?
If you think this is a nonsense-subject, why do you keep resisting? Why not give in, and say, yes, every man should decide for himself when he is an adult!
The "circ-brigade" might think it's a nonsense-subject, but, knife in hand, they keep on cutting-up boys! And some of those boys will ask questions, or be mad, later in life!
The "anti-circ-brigade" can ONLY use their voice (and vote) to stop this mutilation. And that is what they do! And thàt is why it's a subject so many times in forums like this.
I'm wondering why some cut guys react so defensive on this subject. This subject is NOT brought-up, because the heart of the discussion is: what about cut cocks with no foreskin... The heart of the discussion is: We shouldn't do this to our b o y s, we know better now, this should STOP!
And last, but NOT least: If you think discussing the foreskin is nonsense, how would you know?? With you, it's like discussing eye-sight with a blind man! And foreskin, like eyesight is FUN and an essential function!
You forgot to mention African witch doctors with rusty razors this time.
Your histrionic diatribes are less compelling without the witch doctors...
Don't lie to this forum: you're NOT disappointed in me!
What I think you want to do is to "frame" me as some idiot, getting into this discussion with "idiot" arguments.
But I am not doing that.
The problem is not in Africa, or the religious reasons for circumcising babyboys, that's the second step. The first step is to stop circumcission in the WESTERN world! All information available to EVERYONE, and still going on with it!
And there is NO reason to circumcise every boy. 95% of Euroean men walk around uncut, without any problem!
Give the doctor a knife, and tell him to look for a way to earn a salary with it, and he will find it!
Foreskin has a function, and if you cut-guys/circ brigade could START to say, there MIGHT be a point to that, that the penis was NOT invented with a foreskin BY MISTAKE, we could talk about it. Until that, we'll just keep on bouncing.
I have NEVER had to try to frame you as an "idiot". The Africans with rusty knives comment is taken from what YOU said on a similar thread a while back.
Also (I know this is a language thing...like your use of the word "odour" in the "cleanup" thread), the penis was NOT "invented". INVENTED implies that it was created by humans. Like the LIGHT BULB or the RUSTY AFRICAN RAZOR.
I believe that the foreskin was actually CREATED. Probably by African witch doctors who needed some use for those rusty razors...
Perhaps, the TRUE function of the foreskin is to give some people a reason to dramatically whine on forums such as this.
New Comment Go to top