By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

Wonktonodi on 11 June 2011
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.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 11 June 2011
elticker said:
theprof00 said:
elticker said:
pearljammer said:
elticker said:
also remember that by being uncircumsized you carry more of the hpv as it is harder to clean uncircumsized dicks. hpv has been linked to umm what was it i think it was uterus/vaginal cancer something like that which has to do with the womens reproductive system.

Saying that a penis that isn't circumcized is difficult to clean is as absurd as it is to say that it's difficult to clean the back of your ears.


i didn't say it is difficult to clean. i said it is harder to clean the a circumsized one and hpv can hide anywhere on your penis, with having an uncircumsized penis you have more surface area therefore more place in which hpv can be in.

that's not a fact, it is a theory with no evidence. end of story.



it is a fact that having more surface area = more area for hpv to be in or hide in. could you disprove it. no, end story.

however that doesn't mean that uncircumsized men have to have hpv. they could wash but if on an eqaul basis each or circumsized vs uncircumsized are exactly exposed to the same conditions and each washes his dick for 30 seconds everyday, the probability will be higher that the uncircumsed will have a higher chance of having hpv than the circumsized one.

yes, i can disprove it. You can get cold sores regardless of how large your mouth is. You are not MORE susceptible to getting cold sores if you have a wider mouth. Similarly, hpv doesn't hide or be in any particular part. If you contract hpv, then you get it WHEREVER there is space to get it. It has nothing to do with area, otherwise men with larger penises should have higher rates of hpv. It's not like if you don't have a certain piece and the hpv would've gone there, and then the HPV is just like "oh well guess there's no place for me to go" and disappears.

@bolded, no that is not true. There has never been a study showing that.



elticker on 11 June 2011
theprof00 said:
elticker said:
theprof00 said:
elticker said:
also remember that by being uncircumsized you carry more of the hpv as it is harder to clean uncircumsized dicks. hpv has been linked to umm what was it i think it was uterus/vaginal cancer something like that which has to do with the womens reproductive system.

lololol, yeah maybe for Americans circumcision is the answer since everyone here is so lazy they can't take an extra 5 seconds to clean themselves.

 

"Roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults have had at least one HPV infection, according to an editorial by Matthew R. Golden, M.D., and Judith N. Wasserheit, M.D."

-and yet >60% of males are circumsized

"It's not clear why circumcision may affect infection rates. But the study authors suggest that penile foreskin may provide a moist, favorable environment for herpes and HPV to survive and enter cells on the skin's surface. Once the foreskin is surgically removed, the risk of infection may be reduced. Health.com: Men can lose their sex drives too

They also note, however, that male circumcision is not completely effective in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Safe sex practices, including consistent condom use, are still necessary to provide the best protection."

 

This whole study, which several of you have now referred to simply looks at a case study (a long term study involving multiple checkups over a period of time) and looks at a group of newly circumcised individuals versus non circumcised ones and sees who was more likely to get hpv or hiv or herpes. What a fatal fatal failure of logic for those scientists. Hey, did you guys know that eating ice-cream is linked to drowning?!?! It's true! But not because ice-cream makes you drown, but because ice cream is mostly eaten in the summer when people also go swimming. MASSIVE FAIL for these scientists. "It's not clear why circumcision may affect infection rates." FAIL.

is this sarcastic or did scientists really say. i love ice cream and eat it summer or not if it was up to me i would eat it everyday after each meal.

This is the problem with studies not involving actual testing. It's called a "confounding factor", and it relates to correlations. Correlations do not equal cause. So many scientists have a problem understanding this simple concept. Eating ice cream does not make one more susceptible to drowning. It just so happens that eating ice cream and swimming both receive a huge boost at the same time due to the fact that both happen most in the summer.

And yes, at one point, a scientist actually thought that eating ice cream makes you more likely to drown.

lol, i would have drowned by now i probably eat more icecream in a month what the average person eats in a year. however this month and the one before it i am dormant cause of exams and stress, dam once i finish exams i am getting 4kg of icecream home with strawberry dressing and i will test there theory and going swimming daily lol.

side note. i almost drowned twice before at sea when i was young and i didn't eat ice cream before either. it was so scary though, however i was young and learned how to anchor my self and saved my sister later on after a year or 2. dam sea at egypt is fatal, especailly that there arent alot of lifeguards



 

 

pearljammer on 11 June 2011
elticker said:
theprof00 said:
 

that's not a fact, it is a theory with no evidence. end of story.

it is a fact that having more surface area = more area for hpv to be in or hide in. could you disprove it. no, end story.

however that doesn't mean that uncircumsized men have to have hpv. they could wash but if on an eqaul basis each or circumsized vs uncircumsized are exactly exposed to the same conditions and each washes his dick for 30 seconds everyday, the probability will be higher that the uncircumsed will have a higher chance of having hpv than the circumsized one.

I'll give you the assumption that you're right here:

You must realize, though, that this very dialogue is absurd. Who the hell washes according to averages. Whether or not one is easier to wash is beside the point. It's still extremely easy to wash.

By the same logic, it'd be noteworthy to point out that people with larger penises are more susceptible to acquire hpv due to increased surface area. While this may be true, it is an absurd dialogue to have, becuase they simply wash longer. It's a matter of seconds and is pointless in discussing.

Let me reiterate: it is as ridiculous as pointing out that people with larger hands are more susceptible to ingesting germs to to an increased time, on average, it takes to clean them. Totally absurd.



theprof00 on 11 June 2011
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.



Around the Network
elticker on 11 June 2011
theprof00 said:
elticker said:
theprof00 said:
elticker said:
pearljammer said:
elticker said:
also remember that by being uncircumsized you carry more of the hpv as it is harder to clean uncircumsized dicks. hpv has been linked to umm what was it i think it was uterus/vaginal cancer something like that which has to do with the womens reproductive system.

Saying that a penis that isn't circumcized is difficult to clean is as absurd as it is to say that it's difficult to clean the back of your ears.


i didn't say it is difficult to clean. i said it is harder to clean the a circumsized one and hpv can hide anywhere on your penis, with having an uncircumsized penis you have more surface area therefore more place in which hpv can be in.

that's not a fact, it is a theory with no evidence. end of story.



it is a fact that having more surface area = more area for hpv to be in or hide in. could you disprove it. no, end story.

however that doesn't mean that uncircumsized men have to have hpv. they could wash but if on an eqaul basis each or circumsized vs uncircumsized are exactly exposed to the same conditions and each washes his dick for 30 seconds everyday, the probability will be higher that the uncircumsed will have a higher chance of having hpv than the circumsized one.

yes, i can disprove it. You can get cold sores regardless of how large your mouth is. You are not MORE susceptible to getting cold sores if you have a wider mouth. Similarly, hpv doesn't hide or be in any particular part. If you contract hpv, then you get it WHEREVER there is space to get it. It has nothing to do with area, otherwise men with larger penises should have higher rates of hpv. It's not like if you don't have a certain piece and the hpv would've gone there, and then the HPV is just like "oh well guess there's no place for me to go" and disappears.

@bolded, no that is not true. There has never been a study showing that.

lets assume we have 2 plain pieces of paper, one is the area of circumsized and one is the area of uncircumsized. we try and put as much much sticky dots on both, and wash both for the same amount of time. which one will have less sticky dots left at the end of the washing period. we repeat taht 356 times as in a year. which one would you think will have accumalated more sticky dots.

same washing techniques

same number of sticky dots for both

same washing time

same volume of water used

 you would see one is spread over more surface area so it is harder to remove the sticky dots making it more prone to having sticky dot left after washing as the water is distributed on a larger SA so less water per cm3/



 

 

Wonktonodi on 11 June 2011
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.



elticker on 11 June 2011
pearljammer said:
elticker said:
theprof00 said:
 

that's not a fact, it is a theory with no evidence. end of story.

it is a fact that having more surface area = more area for hpv to be in or hide in. could you disprove it. no, end story.

however that doesn't mean that uncircumsized men have to have hpv. they could wash but if on an eqaul basis each or circumsized vs uncircumsized are exactly exposed to the same conditions and each washes his dick for 30 seconds everyday, the probability will be higher that the uncircumsed will have a higher chance of having hpv than the circumsized one.

I'll give you the assumption that you're right here:

You must realize, though, that this very dialogue is absurd. Who the hell washes according to averages. Whether or not one is easier to wash is beside the point. It's still extremely easy to wash.

By the same logic, it'd be noteworthy to point out that people with larger penises are more susceptible to acquire hpv due to increased surface area. While this may be true, it is an absurd dialogue to have, becuase they simply wash longer. It's a matter of seconds and is pointless in discussing.

Let me reiterate: it is as ridiculous as pointing out that people with larger hands are more susceptible to ingesting germs to to an increased time, on average, it takes to clean them. Totally absurd.

yes however you don't take in human error, having to wash more and under the shaft. i am just saying there is an increased chance by how much i don't know, i dont have an uncircumsized dick so i don't know how much it takes to wash it. its also pointing out that more effort is needed in cleaning an uncircumsized dick and knowing the nature of man which is pretty lazy, he may sometimes take shortcuts which may mean increased chance of error.

well nvm i don't really have statistics or have tryed washing an uncircumsized dick. ignore ...........



 

 

elticker on 11 June 2011
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



 

 

elticker on 11 June 2011

well i personally think parents can decide wether to circumsize or not at birth, especailly that he can regrow it back later if he wants to (correct me on this if i am wrong).
parents sacrifice their carriers, health, money and pretty much their life for their children so they should have this freedom sustained even if the first part is wrong, i think its more of a point of view on this matter than morals.