RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference?

RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 3:53:16 PM)
No-one said it was easy being a Jew, but did the moyle have to take so much???

meatcleaver -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 3:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress "Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents." -- O'Hara K, O'Hara J. *The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU International 1999;83 Suppl 1, 79-84.*** During intercourse the foreskin rolls back and forth, stimulating the glans. It means that the penis is always being stimulated, no matter how slow and soft intercourse is. I was surprised to find that circumcised men have to lubricate their penis when masturbating and have to directly stimulate the glans (this is what I've been told, maybe some do and some don't, I stand to be corrected). You don't have to with a foreskin, you just have to work the shaft as hard or as soft as you want, the foreskin rolls back and forth, lubricating and stimulating the glans as in intercourse.

somethndif -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 4:24:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress my partner and i are discussing circumcision of a future child. we have read many things from many view points but we are wanting your input based in real life experience if you would be so kind. If you are considering whether or not to have your child circumcised, you may want to consider this recently reported research. Policy Updates - December 2006 National Institutes of Health Halts Two Studies on Male Circumcision and HIV On Wednesday, December 13, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was stopping two clinical trials in Kenya and Uganda examining potential protective effects of male circumcision against HIV infection.1 According to data released by NIH, male circumcision was found to reduce a man’s risk of acquiring HIV by up to 50%. Over 6,000 previously uncircumcised men ages 15–49 from Uganda and Kenya were enrolled in the study; half of the participants were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half acted as a control group, remaining uncircumcised. The results of the study were so significant that researchers halted the study early and offered circumcision to all participants. http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0297.html Dan

Emperor1956 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 4:40:39 PM)
CT (and all readers, lest you think I'm singling anyone out): I'm a circumcized male, so I'm unable to "testify" as to the female response. That of course won't stop me from weighing in. At length, apparently. First, you are making this decision based upon how well your unborn son is going to please women when he begins having sex? That's pretty speculative. Consider: 1. When the time comes to make a choice, he might not want to have sex with women. Does that change your calculus? 2. You might consider that circumcision would appear to be about item 787 on the list of the 800 things that make a good (heterosexual) lover. If you are worried about his prowess/success as an adult male when having sex, focus instead on the other 786 issues that affect female orgasm? In other words, you are looking at a very little tail wagging a very big dog (yes, all the unfortunate metaphorical imagery is intended). 3. There is no way to know if you made a good choice. He will be 19, angry and uncut, and hate you for the decision, or 19, angry and cut, and hate you for the decision. Might I gently suggest, from my own experience as a father, that there are many more serious issues on the parenting horizon? Worrying about your kid's ability to please the ladies will not be a major concern as you try to get him past SIDS, colic, ADHD, VD, drugs, booze, driving, imitating "Jackass", crotch rot, puberty, compulsory military service, girls, boys, stupidity and the 1001 other things a parent worries about in between years 0 and 21 (and my mother tells me the worrying doesn't stop there). Second, a digression regarding some of the other posts: some moron made statements about the "refusal" of doctors to perform circumcision in Europe. I've worked with physicians from all over the Western hemisphere and Asia, and I've never heard this. Give me a citation, or be quiet. On the "nature put it there, leave it". Did you know that about 21% of American infants are born with extra toes or fingers, or the vestigial skin tags of them? "Nature put it there, leave it"? I hope your skanky finger child likes that. And by the way, the same is true of appendixes and tonsils. So when by God's will these organs get infected, lets leave them and let the kid die. Jesus would want that, right? somethingdif, thank you for posting the SIECUS/NIH study. As I understand it, the mechanisms as to why circumcized men are more resistant to HIV are not yet understood, but the results are dramatic. 3. And finally, onestandingstill has it pretty clearly: Absent religious reasons for circumcision, the one advantage (and yes, there are disadvantages) is cleanliness. You have a ton of info from those in the know about the smell and taste of cut vs. uncut penises. I won't go there. The issue I do think I can address is cancer and circumcision. The debate over cancer and circumcision is huge, and you can find a study to support your personal view no matter what it is. There are no definitive statements as to the relationships between circumcision and (a) penile cancer or (b) cervical cancer in female partners. However, the current thinking is: 1. Re: Penile cancer. The occurence of penile cancer in circumcised men is very low, where as in uncircumcised men, it is uncommon, but it does occur more frequently. Penile cancer is virulent and nasty. There are those (pro-cut) who argue (without citing numbers) that more deaths occur annually from circumcision than from penile cancer, but there are also those (I think more rational) that argue that any reduction in penile cancer risk is worth it. You takes your chances. 2. Re: Cervical Cancer: The female partners of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer. This has been known anectdotally for centuries. With the identification of human papilloma virus as the key agent for cervical cancer (and if you, dear reader, don't know that story, stop worrying about penises and educate yourself on a health issue that really does matter) most of the studies seeking carcinogens in uncut men's secretions have been thrown out in favor of research on HPV. One competent recent study that I have read says the following in conclusion: Bottom line Male circumcision is associated with reduced risk of genital HPV infection in men whether or not their female partners have cervical HPV or cervical cancer. Circumcision is associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in women with high-risk sexual partners. In men with low-risk sexual behaviour and monogamous female partners, circumcision makes no difference to the risk of cervical cancer. http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/sep/vol49-sep-critical-1.asp It is up to you (and by the way, the same moron I referenced above made statements about a woman having no right to make this decision for her son. Did that mean only daddies decide? Or no one should decide? I couldn't follow his argument. Big surprise). Anyway, it IS up to you and your partner. Absent religious belief, I think I'd still opt for circumcision for my son. Make an educated choice. E. (edited to address major dumbness)

MsLadySue -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 5:25:19 PM)
For what it's worth, my boy is not circumsized. When hard, he has no loose skin to roll and requires lubrication when masturbating. I've experienced sex with both types of cock and see no different at all.

Sinergy -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 6:26:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I think it is pretty irrelevent what women say about male circumcision, no woman would accept a man telling her what to do with her body. I would also go as far as saying that parents who mutilate their male children by having them circumcised are every bit as guilty of abuse as if they had their daughters circumcised. The foreskin is a functioning part of the male genitals and serves a purpose and it makes a great difference to sensitivity of the penis. It is not some pointless apendage like the apendix that has no apparent use. When my youngest UM was about to be born, the doctor asked if we wanted to have him circumcised. I looked at him oddly and said "Why are we cutting off a piece of the body he was born with? Is there a medical reason to do this?" He trotted out the usual cleanliness issues, which I had researched and anybody with half a brain knows to clean their genitalia. So I said it was not really a problem. Then the true gem reason to whack a chunk of my infant son's genitalia. "Dont you want him to look like his father?" True idiocy. Sinergy

TheGaggingWh0re -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 6:54:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 CT (and all readers, lest you think I'm singling anyone out): I'm a circumcized male, so I'm unable to "testify" as to the female response. That of course won't stop me from weighing in. At length, apparently. First, you are making this decision based upon how well your unborn son is going to please women when he begins having sex? That's pretty speculative. Consider: 1. When the time comes to make a choice, he might not want to have sex with women. Does that change your calculus? 2. You might consider that circumcision would appear to be about item 787 on the list of the 800 things that make a good (heterosexual) lover. If you are worried about his prowess/success as an adult male when having sex, focus instead on the other 786 issues that affect female orgasm? In other words, you are looking at a very little tail wagging a very big dog (yes, all the unfortunate metaphorical imagery is intended). 3. There is no way to know if you made a good choice. He will be 19, angry and uncut, and hate you for the decision, or 19, angry and cut, and hate you for the decision. Might I gently suggest, from my own experience as a father, that there are many more serious issues on the parenting horizon? Worrying about your kid's ability to please the ladies will not be a major concern as you try to get him past SIDS, colic, ADHD, VD, drugs, booze, driving, imitating "Jackass", crotch rot, puberty, compulsory military service, girls, boys, stupidity and the 1001 other things a parent worries about in between years 0 and 21 (and my mother tells me the worrying doesn't stop there). Second, a digression regarding some of the other posts: some moron made statements about the "refusal" of doctors to perform circumcision in Europe. I've worked with physicians from all over the Western hemisphere and Asia, and I've never heard this. Give me a citation, or be quiet. On the "nature put it there, leave it". Did you know that about 21% of American infants are born with extra toes or fingers, or the vestigial skin tags of them? "Nature put it there, leave it"? I hope your skanky finger child likes that. And by the way, the same is true of appendixes and tonsils. So when by God's will these organs get infected, lets leave them and let the kid die. Jesus would want that, right? somethingdif, thank you for posting the SIECUS/NIH study. As I understand it, the mechanisms as to why circumcized men are more resistant to HIV are not yet understood, but the results are dramatic. 3. And finally, onestandingstill has it pretty clearly: Absent religious reasons for circumcision, the one advantage (and yes, there are disadvantages) is cleanliness. You have a ton of info from those in the know about the smell and taste of cut vs. uncut penises. I won't go there. The issue I do think I can address is cancer and circumcision. The debate over cancer and circumcision is huge, and you can find a study to support your personal view no matter what it is. There are no definitive statements as to the relationships between circumcision and (a) penile cancer or (b) cervical cancer in female partners. However, the current thinking is: 1. Re: Penile cancer. The occurence of penile cancer in circumcised men is very low, where as in uncircumcised men, it is uncommon, but it does occur more frequently. Penile cancer is virulent and nasty. There are those (pro-cut) who argue (without citing numbers) that more deaths occur annually from circumcision than from penile cancer, but there are also those (I think more rational) that argue that any reduction in penile cancer risk is worth it. You takes your chances. 2. Re: Cervical Cancer: The female partners of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer. This has been known anectdotally for centuries. With the identification of human papilloma virus as the key agent for cervical cancer (and if you, dear reader, don't know that story, stop worrying about penises and educate yourself on a health issue that really does matter) most of the studies seeking carcinogens in uncut men's secretions have been thrown out in favor of research on HPV. One competent recent study that I have read says the following in conclusion: Bottom line Male circumcision is associated with reduced risk of genital HPV infection in men whether or not their female partners have cervical HPV or cervical cancer. Circumcision is associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in women with high-risk sexual partners. In men with low-risk sexual behaviour and monogamous female partners, circumcision makes no difference to the risk of cervical cancer. http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/sep/vol49-sep-critical-1.asp It is up to you (and by the way, the same moron I referenced above made statements about a woman having no right to make this decision for her son. Did that mean only daddies decide? Or no one should decide? I couldn't follow his argument. Big surprise). Anyway, it IS up to you and your partner. Absent religious belief, I think I'd still opt for circumcision for my son. Make an educated choice. E. (edited to address major dumbness) I think I love you O_O LOL, just kidding. Very, VERY good post!

Invictus754 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 7:17:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onestandingstill I think thrust has nothing to do with having/not having foreskin. I do think guys with forskin still, seem to actually get me more aroused during intercourse than men without foreskins. Oral sex is better for me on a circumsized guy as he's not as musky smelling as a guy with it still. I think if you're a clean person it causes no problems to not be circumsized, but unclean males end up with infections from the extra skin trapping germs. I tossed up a coin over an over while I was pregnant too. In the end I had my son circumsized as I didn't want to have to worry if he had issues with keeping his pecker clean that it would get infected. Keeping your "pecker clean" is like keeping your fingernails clean. If you don't clean underneath your fingernails, guess what? They get dirty. Just like the foreskin on a "pecker", it gets dirt and other stuff underneath if you don't actually take the time to skin it back and actually clean the glans. However, after taking a poll of 100,000 uncircumcised men, I have proven if you actually take the time to wash it, it removes all the musky smell and bad stuff. Not rocket science. My personal opinion is that every male child should have his right hand cut off because it may cause him problems later in life, like a foreskin does. Oh, yeah, I AM uncircumcised, now that you ask. And I have never had an infection from keeping my foreskin. Circumcision is a barbaric ritual that should be stopped.

Invictus754 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 7:43:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 On the "nature put it there, leave it". Did you know that about 21% of American infants are born with extra toes or fingers, or the vestigial skin tags of them? "Nature put it there, leave it"? I hope your skanky finger child likes that. And by the way, the same is true of appendixes and tonsils. So when by God's will these organs get infected, lets leave them and let the kid die. Jesus would want that, right? Let me quote you: "Give me a citation, or be quiet". You don't cite where your 21% number came from. How many percent were "vestigal skin tags" and how many actually were the "skanky fingers"? When you start to lump too many things together you can get percentages to say anything. quote: somethingdif, thank you for posting the SIECUS/NIH study. As I understand it, the mechanisms as to why circumcized men are more resistant to HIV are not yet understood, but the results are dramatic. Most likely because the glans has become a huge callous on circumcised men and won't let the infection through the skin as easily, like a glans that has been in a foreskin its whole life. quote: 3. And finally, onestandingstill has it pretty clearly: Absent religious reasons for circumcision, the one advantage (and yes, there are disadvantages) is cleanliness. You have a ton of info from those in the know about the smell and taste of cut vs. uncut penises. I won't go there. As I said before, if you don't wash it, guess what? Just like a woman's unwashed vagina, an unwashed penis can get pretty cheesy. Are you recommending that we should carve up women's nether regions at birth for health reasons, just in case she doesn't decide to wash regularly? quote: The debate over cancer and circumcision is huge, and you can find a study to support your personal view no matter what it is. There are no definitive statements as to the relationships between circumcision and (a) penile cancer or (b) cervical cancer in female partners. However, the current thinking is: Maybe YOUR current thinking, but not everyone's. don't put words in other people's mouths. It just isn't nice. quote: 1. Re: Penile cancer. The occurence of penile cancer in circumcised men is very low, where as in uncircumcised men, it is uncommon, but it does occur more frequently. Penile cancer is virulent and nasty. There are those (pro-cut) who argue (without citing numbers) that more deaths occur annually from circumcision than from penile cancer, but there are also those (I think more rational) that argue that any reduction in penile cancer risk is worth it. You takes your chances. 2. Re: Cervical Cancer: The female partners of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer. This has been known anectdotally for centuries. With the identification of human papilloma virus as the key agent for cervical cancer (and if you, dear reader, don't know that story, stop worrying about penises and educate yourself on a health issue that really does matter) most of the studies seeking carcinogens in uncut men's secretions have been thrown out in favor of research on HPV. One competent recent study that I have read says the following in conclusion: Bottom line Male circumcision is associated with reduced risk of genital HPV infection in men whether or not their female partners have cervical HPV or cervical cancer. Circumcision is associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in women with high-risk sexual partners. In men with low-risk sexual behaviour and monogamous female partners, circumcision makes no difference to the risk of cervical cancer. http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/sep/vol49-sep-critical-1.asp Your "studies" weren't in the United States. The studies were conducted in Spain, Colombia, Brazil, Thailand, and the Philippines (read your citation). Somehow, with all the OTHER nastiness running around in Columbia, Brazil, Thailand and the Philippines (I do have to say that I respect Spain's work - but we don't have the actual Spanish study in your citation) how are you sure that some other factors were not at work? Did you read the actual studies, or are you just parroting what someone else said? Who actually conducted the studies - and was it their best interest to show a correlation so that the United States could have "blockbuster" medication in the medicine cabinet - like the wonder pill Viagra? quote: It is up to you (and by the way, the same moron I referenced above made statements about a woman having no right to make this decision for her son. Did that mean only daddies decide? Or no one should decide? I couldn't follow his argument. Big surprise). Anyway, it IS up to you and your partner. Absent religious belief, I think I'd still opt for circumcision for my son. Make an educated choice. E. (edited to address major dumbness) It sounds like you are saluting the major yourself. You need to stop spreading "common knowledge" around like horsecrap, and do YOUR homework. And one more item you forgot to mention which comes directly from the citation you listed: "Analysis of methodology This paper pools a group of case-control studies and has the usual limitations of retrospective studies. By starting with the outcome of cervical cancer and HPV infection and looking back to see whether circumcision was an associated factor, unknown confounding variables might not have been taken into account. " This sounds to me like they are trying to prove a point without using all the facts.

KatyLied -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 7:48:24 PM)
quote: a woman's unwashed vagina fyi, the vagina is self-cleansing and it's actually unhealthy to introduce soap into it. Perhaps you are talking about the area outside of the vagina? The labia?

Invictus754 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 7:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: a woman's unwashed vagina fyi, the vagina is self-cleansing and it's actually unhealthy to introduce soap into it. Perhaps you are talking about the area outside of the vagina? The labia? I'm not sure what you mean when you say "self-cleansing". Can you specify? Also, I didn't mention soap once in my whole reply. Why do you assume I am recommending soap use in a vagina?

BDSM05478 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 8:14:47 PM)
quote: E somethingdif, thank you for posting the SIECUS/NIH study. As I understand it, the mechanisms as to why circumcized men are more resistant to HIV are not yet understood, but the results are dramatic. quote: Invictus Most likely because the glans has become a huge callous on circumcised men and won't let the infection through the skin as easily, like a glans that has been in a foreskin its whole life. I lean towards the theory that uncircumcised men have a longer exposure to infected vaginal fluids trapped within the foreskin. The virus, in the infected vaginal fluids, then contaminate the seminal fluids traveling through the urethra: The same could be said about oral-genital transer. Unless of course the uncircumcised group that was polled was also bi-sexual but they never release, or even ask, those questions. More outcomes than not are tweeked just by the act of gathering the information without any external influences.

beltainefaerie -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 8:35:43 PM)
katylied, I think he meant the outside of the vaginal area, (labia) which would be equivalent to the foreskin area on men. invictus754, the vagina being self-cleaning means that there is a delicate balance of ph, helpful yeast, etc in the vagina and that when cleaning the inside with soap, douches, etc, that balance is upset. This can lead to infections and unpleasantness. If you just leave the inside alone when it comes to cleaning, the vagina does just fine. To the OP, I think we were generally born with that parts we need, foreskin included. Just like you wouldn't want to remove the clitoral hood in an infant, so you don't really want to remove the foreskin. It is there for exactly the same reason. edited to add the last comment.

caitlyn -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 8:39:41 PM)
I'm all for better living, through cosmetic surgery.

Emperor1956 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 8:46:47 PM)
I knew that posting anything remotely scientific would lead to a cascade of idiocy. As I made clear to anyone who can read without using his dick, the issue of circumcision and health is in dispute. It amazes me how men have to post to defend their cocks -- I'm not cut so EVERYONE shouldn't be (or vice-versa). I will address one moronic statement: quote: Invictus754: Your "studies" weren't in the United States. The studies were conducted in Spain, Colombia, Brazil, Thailand, and the Philippines (read your citation). You are right. My bad. I forgot how dirty and filthy the people in Columbia, Brazil, Thailand and the Phillipines are! Obviously the women there are breeders of HPV. I bet their coochies are genetically different than the clean American girls who read this thread, right? And Africa? We KNOW what those people are -- no wonder they have so much AIDS. But Invictus, I bet you don't worry about AIDS, either, because White boys can't get it, right? (and worse -- the study I quoted was CANADIAN!). Stupidity plus racism. There's a cocktail of sadness for you. E.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 8:51:25 PM)
None of the uncircumcized men I've been with showed any sign of being unclean. While I completely agree that adults must be in charge of making choices for non-adults- I see no reason why circumcision must be one of them unless it caused a direct medical issue before the non-adult was able to choose for themselves. I don't think parents who choose to circumcize their children are evil, it's just not a choice I'd choose to take without reason.

slavegirljoy -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress my partner and i are discussing circumcision of a future child. we have read many things from many view points but we are wanting your input based in real life experience if you would be so kind. i have read many things over the years that claim that women have better sex with intact men....the most recent thing i read was that : "Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents." -- O'Hara K, O'Hara J. *The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU International 1999;83 Suppl 1, 79-84.*** Not true from my experience. The uncircumcised men, once they have a hard-on, look and act exactly like the circumcised men. Unless you see it when it's soft and covered by the foreskin, you can't tell there is anything different and there was absolutely no difference in the sexual satisfaction i have gotten from uncircumcised over circumcised or vice versa. On the other hand, i tend to suck an uncircumcised dick harder and faster, in order to get the dick hard and get that foreskin out of the way as quickly as i can, since i don't much care for the way it looks. quote: Women reported they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if the male partner had a foreskin" -- Bensley GA, Boyle GJ. *Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z Med J 2003;116(1181):595-6.* This just makes me laugh, it sounds so silly. Definately not true in my experience.** quote: this coupled with the numbers of grown men that regret a late in life circumsision, and the cruelty to a small baby has made me pretty clear on how i stand on the issue... my partner is not as convinced so i am asking you guys to be really real and honest with me has it been your experience that intact men are any different then cut men? It's up to the parents to decide and, from what i have heard, it is something of a tradition for some families. To me, uncircumcised or circumcised, it really doesn't matter to me, as long as it gets hard and stays hard. Also, none of the uncircumcised men i have known ever had a cleanliness issue. They were all clean and healthy. slave joy Owned property of Master David

RobertCloud -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress gosh i knew there will be many replies like yours, where folks jump in to defend thier partners cut dicks and the hot sex they always have....yawn......but that was not what i was hoping for...i was hoping for a woman to come here and look over the compendium of her sexual history and really be honest about how cut and uncut compares to each other.[;)] i am with you on the looks thing though...and that is a big part of the dilema to be honest. Let me give you another viewpoint as well.. My father is uncircumcised. Even though he is very clean and hygenic, (AND I REPEAT HE IS CLEAN, washing multiple times daily and making certain the area underneath the foreskin is fully clean) he has problems with infection and cracking of the foreskin. He now has diabetes, and the doctor has informed him that if he does not have a circumcision their is a high risk of gangrene in the foreskin and he could actually lose his penis. Yet, having the circumcision at 66 years of age with diabetes is almost as risky, the healing period will be months, and the risk of gangrene is still there, just less likely and once it is healed he will be better off. He has already loss function due to the diabetes, but he can have a surgery to restore function at the same time. So he is going to opt for the surgery. His brother who was also uncircumcised, had the circumcision done when he joined the Navy. He has never regretted it, and considered it one of his wisest decisions. Statistical data from a study I took when going for my Bachelor's tends to be weighted and biased depending on who is taking the data and what results they actually are looking for. No research ever goes in 100% neutral, they are looking for one answer or another and they tend to weigh the questions in such a way that they will get a higher number of answers in favor of the result they are seeking. The only way to get truly accurate results are to have several surveys taken from opposing groups and average their results. The only statistical data you can trust are those based on facts and not opinions, because those based on opinions where people answered questions and not from facts taken from actual case studies will be biased. I am circumcised, I have not been with many women. For a 45 year old man, very few in fact, but not one woman I have been with has failed to have an orgasm. (No, they did not fake it... and yes, I am certain.) [And before anyone comments about me being back in the Forums.. I am not back full-time.. but I saw this one pop up and had to comment due to my father's experience and wanted his experience to help in their decision making. It is a very important thing to consider. The possible surgery the child might have to face in the future, or the pain of a cracking and ripping foreskin is something that needs to be considered.]

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:20:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RobertCloud I am circumcised, I have not been with many women. For a 45 year old man, very few in fact, but not one woman I have been with has failed to have an orgasm. (No, they did not fake it... and yes, I am certain.) I'll just point out that female orgasms rarely have anything to do with a penis.

Emperor1956 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:26:25 PM)
quote: LA: None of the uncircumcized men I've been with showed any sign of being unclean. While I completely agree that adults must be in charge of making choices for non-adults- I see no reason why circumcision must be one of them unless it caused a direct medical issue before the non-adult was able to choose for themselves. I don't think parents who choose to circumcize their children are evil, it's just not a choice I'd choose to take without reason. Pretty much in agreement. I hope you don't think I said uncircumcized men were always unclean. My comments were about cancer risk and HPV transmission, neither of which are affected by soap and water (unfortunately). Regarding making the choice for your child, again, I agree. I would hope any parent reasons it out. My reasoning is that I would do it, but as I made clear, I have religious reasons as well as health and culture reasons. And as I've only fathered girls, it is purely theoretical. I feel the same way about piercing a baby's ears, by the way -- a custom I simply do not understand. Granted the risks are much less, and the "surgery" is reversible. But why? E.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625