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

Forums - Politics - Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

theprof00 on 11 June 2011
elticker said:

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/

That's NOT how it works, unfortunately for you, ticker. It has nothing to do with area. It has to do with having unprotected sex. The genitals are porous. DO you know what that means? It means that the skin is thinner and filled with small holes. Those holes are direct pathways to inside of the body. This is the whole reason that stds are sexually-transmitted-diseases, and not hand-on-someone's-shoulder-diseases. Look at all the other ways to contract stds. Anal sex, oral sex, semen in the eye (heh heh), or any other "internal" body part.

Your analogy would make more sense if we were both holding a sheet of mesh wire, pouring water over each and saying "any drop that get is is an std". No matter how small the area of the mesh, even at 1 square centimeter, the water will get through.



Around the Network
elticker on 11 June 2011

i am off to sleep, going to see replies tom anyways, good luck.



 

 

theprof00 on 11 June 2011
Wonktonodi said:


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.


to bleed...TO BLEED!?! HAVE YOU EVER EVEN SEEN A PENIS? Wow, I have never heard something so crazy. This reminds me of when I was in highschool and was talking to another person, and they said that pussy tasted like tuna. Like, WOW you've never even tasted a pussy.

TO BLEED!

OMG, thanks, wonk. I'm going to be laughing all the way to gamestop, shortly.



theprof00 on 11 June 2011
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.



theprof00 on 11 June 2011
elticker said:

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

There's a couple tricks to faking it. Basically, if you feel like you're getting too close, tell her to get on her back, or ask to change positions. That will give you more than enough time. Then after some time, all you'll have to do is slow down a bit. I don't stop now even while changing positions!



Around the Network
acer67 on 11 June 2011

lol i think its a bit different reason read here its pretty easy to read summary http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids



Wonktonodi on 11 June 2011
acer67 said:

lol i think its a bit different reason read here its pretty easy to read summary http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids


thanks that also got the term I had forgoten "microscopic abrasions"



Wonktonodi on 11 June 2011

double post



fordy on 11 June 2011
elticker said:

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.


You do realise that restored foreskin is not a full cure to circumcision? ie. The nerve endings contained in the foreskin are severed. When a foreskin is restored, those nerve endings no longer exist. It's more than just a flap of skin, you know.

But really, I love your "ignorant jump in the dark" approach. Let's just do something because we may have a chance to undo it later. We could cut down all the world's rainforests, because we could ust grow new trees if we want them later! We could nuke places we don't like and hey, if we screwed up no big deal right? We'll just give the land back to them.



kevin the wiiite on 11 June 2011
elticker said:
kevin the wiiite said:
This topic is pointless. Its a religious issue, and the differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men are minimal enough both medically and in terms of sexual pleasure that they aren't quantifiable. Plus, how is it possible to know that it doesn't feel as good circumcised if almost everyone has it done as a baby? It's not mutilation because it doesn't "degrade the appearance or function of any living body," as per wikipedia.

Female genital cutting is practiced in Middle Eastern and African countries, generally Muslim, as a way of exerting male dominance in a sexual relationship and is expressly designed to remove pleasure from sex. That is mutilation. Case closed.



this is bullshit and you are bullshit. sry i am angry cause you are saying something without proof and insulting me as a muslim. i know my religion and in no way is there a line in the qoran or sharia which says we are supposed or even hints to circumsing women, it's outlawed in islam. In islam everything is allowed except anal sex and we are supposed to pleasure women in sex so how the fuck does islam say that and then says circumsize your women. please make sure you post remotely accurate info.

"FGC is predominantly practiced in Northeast Africa and parts of the Near East and Southeast Asia,[8][9] although it has also been reported to occur in individual tribes in South America and Australia"

Again, wikipedia.  I have nothing against Islam, its simply the geographic truth that the two are related.  Its the same things as saying male circumcision is almost always practiced in America by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

And another quote: "Various works of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) support the removal of the female prepuce."

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Reasons_for_female_genital_cutting



I'm not a fanboy, I just don't enjoy dual analog control.  It's d-pad or wii-mote for me.

the conduit has changed the way wii play games.

I know.  I'm sick of the puns too.