elticker said:
Wonktonodi said:
theprof00 said:
Wonktonodi said:
theprof00 said:
Wonktonodi said:
theprof00 said:
Wonktonodi said:
no just a movement to curcumsize the men to make them less likely to get HIV from a woman who is posative, not as effective as a condom but it does help.
|
you know I don't mean to insult you wonk, but that is the most uninformed statement I've heard in a long long time.
|
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132368
or one part from
"that Numerous studies have shown that male circumcision reduces the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, foremost among them AIDs. Several studies done in Africa over the past decade have shown that circumcision results in a 50-60 percent reduction of HIV infection."
where is there something that is uninformed? 50 to 60%is less teffective than a condom but is much better than nothing
|
I've seen that study. All it says is that uncircumcised people get AIDS more than circumcised do. There is literally no scientific evidence. Science requires testing. ie; they should take 400 people, half of them circumcised, and inject them all with AIDs, or have them all have sex with AIDs infected people and see who develops it. (Of course, that is completely against scientific moral code, so they'll never do it. Unfortunately, all they have is links and no proof)
The actual result of this study only says that people who are circumcised as adults have less sex.
|
that study? so you saw one? good job now why not read all of them? then if they are all so wrong go tell the WHO that it's recomendation was wrong. Or maybe then you will just say it's adults and not babies changing the argument instead of conceding that there are benefits.
|
the argument FOR circumcision is that it lowers sexual activity, and thereby lowers the CHANCES of getting an STD. It is only due to human error and carelessness that someone contracts an STD. It has nothing to do with the actual physical or chemical process of circumcision. It's a mental change. Therefore, recommending that circumcision be done to prevent (key word) EXPOSURE is logical. But recommending circumcision to PREVENT is illogical. A circumcised and uncircumcised person can both have sex with the same partner with an std, and they will both contract the std.
And no, I'm not going to read all of them until you do, and admit that the studies are flawed. Circumcision does not lessen the chances of getting an std. It lessens the chances of being exposed. There is a whopping difference between those two sentences. At the end of the day, it's engaging is risky sexual behavior that increases the chances of getting an std, nothing more.
|
No the argument isn't about sexual activity. It's about physically circumcised guys are less likely to bleed. Not bleeding makes them less susceptible to dieases. Now I wonder where you got your info that cut guys have less sex.
|
was wondering about that cause i feel horny alot so how would an uncircumsized guy feel, pretty much horny all the time?
btw anyone have any success in holding back their ejac without stopping for a few seconds. i am currently doing kegals to achieve this target
|
Like wonk feared I might bring up, the two articles I read (the one he showed, and the one I looked up) both involve circumcision DURING adulthood. It is common knowledge nearly everywhere that adult circumcision (even as young as age 7) has profound psychological and physical effects on the sex drive. Furthermore, in many studies, men circumcised as adults were vastly more likely to become impotent.
Wonk said that using this as counter-evidence would be "changing the subject", but it's not. It's counter-evidence.
