If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   The next in a long line of Fark circumcision flamewars: World Health Organization hails circumcision as vital in HIV fight   (newscientist.com) divider line 854
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5606 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Mar 2007 at 2:24 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



854 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-28 03:16:51 PM
jst3p: The Department of "Making Up Unverifiable Facts" agrees with you.

The statement was based on my own experiences, as the context shows.

/farkin' reerees
//They did have bigger/more intense orgasms every time. Neener.
///Random: Now that I think of it, I suppose if one has a cavernous love tunnel a cut penor would feel better... if it's big enough that is. I guess.
 
2007-03-28 03:17:01 PM
Also, I love sex. And being cut makes sex better. My head is always exposed. How is that not cool?

I heard that an 'uncut' version stays at like 2 or 3 layers of skin where the 'cut' version grows up to 20-30 without the protection of the foreskin.

So being 'uncut' allows for much more sensitivity.
 
2007-03-28 03:18:03 PM
strayling: LOL! That was one of those double intenders, wasn't it?

Entendres, yes.
 
2007-03-28 03:18:22 PM
peachgirl: Thank you.

I'm here to educate.
 
2007-03-28 03:18:22 PM
Big difference between female and male circumcision:

Females they remove the clit and sometimes sew the hole most of the way up.

Males they remove the foreskin.

Removing the entire clit is as if they "circumcised" men by removing the entire head of the penis.

Both might be mutilation, but one is clearly worse.
 
2007-03-28 03:19:08 PM

No but less nerve endings does equate the possibility of less "enjoyment"


Possibility != everyone reality.

I am a living testament to the something like 10 to 15 percent of men who experience server sensation loss.

Can you even imagine what it's like to have sex for 4 hours straight with three women at once and never once reach orgasm?

At first the thought sounds great, but once you live through it a few times it wears thin quickly.


Your anecdotal experience does not equate to everyones reality. I feel bad for you but what percentage of people are we talking about here? My guess would be a statistically insignificant number of men, otherwise the practice would have been stopped a long time ago.
 
2007-03-28 03:19:10 PM
I'm uncut. Sometimes when it's cold, I whip my dick out and wear my foreskin like a hat.
 
2007-03-28 03:19:16 PM
jst3p: If there are ANY heath benefits at all, and it can be argued that there are, and it causes no harm, and it can be argued that it does not, then you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's pretty well documented that sensitivity is down, which I mark down as harmful. Again, if I cut off your pinkie, it would be very unlikely to endanger your life, but it would still be mutilation.

The health benefits aren't highly significant. A slightly smaller risk of aids isn't a reason to cut someone's genitals. Would you support the removal of breast tissue from young girls to protect against breast cancer?

And to say "Yes, I feel mutilated!" makes you sound... well pussyish.

Ok, fine, you're the toughest guy on the internet. That doesn't change the fact that circumcision is mutilation.
 
2007-03-28 03:19:55 PM
muninsfire
I liked that one. A bit odd, but if I was looking for 'not odd' I wouldn't have gone to the "Heinlen" section.

Farnham's Freehold

Don't think I've read that one--what's it about, again?


In that one he attacks Racial issues you could say. It is over the top even for Heinlen, but it is still a good read. I basic story starts with a family that survives a nuke war and ends up way off in the future. From there it basicly gets weird. I'd offer to loan you my copy as you won't find it in any public libary, or if you do it will be gone if one of the ladies reads it. I'll say again it is not a book that is nice to racial sterotypes. Oh and the jooos are screwed in Heinlen's future too. If I say more it would really kill the fun of the book. If you get it and read it, let me know what you think as I don't know anyone that has read it. It is a somewhat obscure book for him.
 
2007-03-28 03:20:18 PM

The statement was based on my own experiences, as the context shows.


So you have experienced sex with both a cut and uncut penis?

Otherwise you are comparing your experience to... nothing.
 
2007-03-28 03:20:26 PM
muninsfire

Not really. At least, not if the person putting 'em on has a clue what they're doing.

actually, i meant they might be more difficult to put on for uncircumcised men, and easier for circumcised (the opposite to what i wrote, but perhaps obviously). common sense really - the more working parts there are the more chance of failure
 
2007-03-28 03:20:27 PM
So all you uncut guys always take a shower directly after sex then? Just because the study was done in Africa doesn't mean its not relavent everywhere else. The HIV virus dies almost instantly when exposed to air. There are a lot of blood vessels close to the surface of the skin on the head of the penis. fill in the rest yourself....
 
2007-03-28 03:20:45 PM
Sir Charles: I heard that an 'uncut' version stays at like 2 or 3 layers of skin where the 'cut' version grows up to 20-30 without the protection of the foreskin.

"I've got 1800 tonnes of armour and an AT Field layers of skin and you think you can stop me?!"

/Only slightly obscure.
 
2007-03-28 03:20:56 PM
Video of a male infant being circumcised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk
 
2007-03-28 03:21:31 PM
jst3p: If there are ANY heath benefits at all, and it can be argued that there are, and it causes no harm, and it can be argued that it does not, then you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's pretty well documented that sensitivity is down, which I mark down as harmful. Again, if I cut off your pinkie, it would be very unlikely to endanger your life, but it would still be mutilation.

The health benefits aren't highly significant. A slightly smaller risk of aids isn't a reason to cut someone's genitals. Would you support the removal of breast tissue from young girls to protect against breast cancer?

And to say "Yes, I feel mutilated!" makes you sound... well pussyish.

Ok, fine, you're the toughest guy on the internet. That doesn't change the fact that circumcision is mutilation.

MrGumboPants: I guess. That's like saying that piercing an infant's ear is mutilation. It's *unnecessary*, but the risks are staggeringly low if you have someone who knows what they're doing perform the procedure.

Just because people feel strongly about the genitals doesn't mean that overheated words are necessarily called for. An 'unnecessary surgical procedure' probably makes your argument just as well, and doesn't make you seem crazy!


I'm not really that concerned with seeming crazy. Piercing of the ears doesn't have any direct consequences (except possible infection), whereas circumcision is well documented to reduce pleasure from sex.

For the record, though, I think that people who pierce their babies' ears are also really farked up.
 
2007-03-28 03:21:52 PM

It's pretty well documented that sensitivity is down, which I mark down as harmful. Again, if I cut off your pinkie, it would be very unlikely to endanger your life, but it would still be mutilation.


Wrong:

mu·ti·late /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/
-verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


Either you are a troll, an idiot or just intellectually dishonest.
 
2007-03-28 03:22:04 PM
baby_hewey: If you get it and read it, let me know what you think as I don't know anyone that has read it. It is a somewhat obscure book for him.

I'll have to see if I can dig it up--I'll throw it on the list next time I go to that one bookstore in Portland.
 
2007-03-28 03:22:16 PM
Nightfiresown: Big difference between female and male circumcision:
Females they remove the clit and sometimes sew the hole most of the way up.
Males they remove the foreskin.
Removing the entire clit is as if they "circumcised" men by removing the entire head of the penis.
Both might be mutilation, but one is clearly worse.


Doesn't make a shiat of difference.

Enen if female circumcision ONLY involved removal of some skin, there'd be marches in the streets to protest it.
 
2007-03-28 03:22:24 PM
Some consider the female circucision as mutilation.

They just use the term "mutilation" to make it sound worse than it is. All it is, is the surgical removal of the clitoris and/or some folds of skin.

Every surgical procedure can be described in ways that make it sound good or bad, depending on how you want it to sound.

Example: An appendectomy.

Positive spin: "I'm having my appendix surgically removed."

Negative spin: "I'm having my gut split open and my appendix chopped out."
 
2007-03-28 03:22:39 PM
jst3p: Your anecdotal experience does not equate to everyones reality.

He also listed statistics, but I see you didn't respond to them.
 
2007-03-28 03:23:39 PM
Weird how the minute the thread started, Tatsuma was in here defending circumcision. Why would it need defending?

It's a choice.. certain societal groups will perform body modification so they can identify themselves to others or have a 'badge' branding them permanently.. the Japanese yakuza as I understand it will remove the little finger from one of their hands to show 'loyalty' to their boss.

Little finger, little dick.
 
2007-03-28 03:23:41 PM
plastroncafe: So what you're saying is that you believe the foreskin to be the same as a manual digit?

I'd like to see you pick up a quarter with that foreskin.

MrGumboPants: I guess. That's like saying that piercing an infant's ear is mutilation. It's *unnecessary*, but the risks are staggeringly low if you have someone who knows what they're doing perform the procedure.

So, what you are saying is that pierced ears prevent AIDS?

vagina: A fourth of americans are retards. I guess the people who believe uncut wangs look nice fall into that category.

I find you offensive and uninformed, but due to your login and my being male, I am prepared to concentrate my attention your way.

koniver: Is there anyone in here who was circumcised later on in life who has done the horizontal limbado both with and without a turtleneck?

Not me. I had only one encounter with a vagina prior to being circumcised and that was not pleasant.
 
2007-03-28 03:24:08 PM
The health benefits aren't highly significant. A slightly smaller risk of aids isn't a reason to cut someone's genitals. Would you support the removal of breast tissue from young girls to protect against breast cancer?

The health benefits are actually pretty significant. In Kenya they found it reduced the risk of contracting HIV by about 40%. That nearly cuts (no pun intended) your risk in half.

And actually, removing breast tissue to prevent breast cancer IS sometimes advised for women who have a family history of breast cancer along with genetic testing showing they have the BRCA genes that put them at high risk of cancer. For someone without that history or genes, it doesn't lower the risk of the cancer enough to be worth it. Therefore it's not done.
 
2007-03-28 03:24:22 PM
Sir Charles: I heard that an 'uncut' version stays at like 2 or 3 layers of skin where the 'cut' version grows up to 20-30 without the protection of the foreskin.

I'm pretty certain my "helmet" doesn't have 25 layers of skin on it. If it does, then uncut gentlemen must have to wrap it daily in gauze made from lambswool and Egyptian cotton to keep it from bruising.
 
2007-03-28 03:24:22 PM
Smarshmallow: I'm not really that concerned with seeming crazy. Piercing of the ears doesn't have any direct consequences (except possible infection), whereas circumcision is well documented to reduce pleasure from sex.

For the record, though, I think that people who pierce their babies' ears are also really farked up.


But clearly there are bazillions of cut people out there with functional sex lives. More than functional!

So we get back to the point that using the word 'mutilation', which implies a destructive alteration, just doesn't fit. And I'm sure you understand that.

It's exactly like piercing. Tiny-slightly-possibly dangerous (people do periodically die from piercing), totally unnecessary, essentially harmless.

If you want to call that 'mutilation', then I think you're succumbing to the symbolism of the act and not the reality.
 
2007-03-28 03:24:24 PM
jst3p: Your anecdotal experience does not equate to everyones reality. I feel bad for you but what percentage of people are we talking about here? My guess would be a statistically insignificant number of men, otherwise the practice would have been stopped a long time ago.

About 10 to 20 percent of men will experience severe sensation loss. Because everyone's nerve endings age differently some will experience this starting at a young age (me) while others will experience this progressively better and at an older age.

Unfortunately, for the longest time it has just been assumed as a natural progression of aging. However more and more light is being shown onto this subject of human sexuality and more and more data is coming to light which points towards circumcision as the culprit in all manner of peener dysfunction problems.

Who knows how many men out there who live on viagra and the like may not have really needed it had they never been cut.
 
2007-03-28 03:24:25 PM
jst3p: mu·ti·late /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/
-verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

Either you are a troll, an idiot or just intellectually dishonest.


Right, because removing part of the genitals doesn't constitute "removing or irreparably damaging parts."
 
2007-03-28 03:24:26 PM
jst3p

surely by your own definition it is mutilation?

1 - to injure or disfigure by removing parts
 
2007-03-28 03:24:29 PM
Smarshmallow

He also listed statistics, but I see you didn't respond to them.


Not in the post I quoted...
 
2007-03-28 03:24:30 PM
We "skin on" folks
Just use our trusty
Penis gourd
 
2007-03-28 03:24:48 PM
muninsfire

And condoms are not always available in the middle of the African bush.

you're supposed to put on a condom before you go into the bush
 
2007-03-28 03:25:00 PM
Circumcision works as a measure against AIDS, especially in areas where this is the fetish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sex
 
2007-03-28 03:25:12 PM
A couple of responses of mine:

1) Can anyone explain to me how they know sex is better for the male when he's uncut? If you're not cut, you don't know what cut sex feels like. I would only accept the testimony of a man who's had a variety of sex uncut, then got circumcised, and had a variety of sex again, to be sure. So, unless that roughly describes your penile history, I must call shenanigans on the "sex is better for the man" argument.

2) As for sex being better for the woman, well, I think my dad said it best:


WOMAN: Just who do you intend to please with that?
MAN: Me.
 
2007-03-28 03:25:43 PM
...okaaaaayyy, I came for the peeners, and instead I get Portia De Rossi! I love teh intarwebs!

i161.photobucket.com

/I've had both cut and uncut peeners
//loved 'em both
//no, not at the same time
 
2007-03-28 03:25:51 PM
jst3p: Not in the post I quoted...

Yes, in the post you quoted. The post at 2007-03-28 03:19:08 PM. That same post.
 
2007-03-28 03:26:05 PM
Smarshmallow: It's pretty well documented that sensitivity is down, which I mark down as harmful.

Its also pretty well documented that it can help prevent HIV. So, we are stalemated...death v. enjoyment of the hoo hah.
 
2007-03-28 03:26:15 PM
MY PARENTS MUTILATED ME!!!!
 
2007-03-28 03:26:15 PM
Dear Uncut barbarians,

I am cut. My head is big. Ladies like that. Hell, I like it. It's hard for me NOT to come. Hell, I can come in under 3 minutes if I had to.

Keep spewing your bullshiat, though.

Mr. Cut
 
2007-03-28 03:26:28 PM
Smarshmallow
21-7-b


Is a tonsillectomy mutilation?
If you don't need the "part" that was removed, and no damage was done, it isn't mutilation. To use that word is hyperbole.
 
2007-03-28 03:26:42 PM
gradatim

Spin aside, an burst appendix will kill you. A clitoris will not.
 
2007-03-28 03:27:17 PM
How bout using protection lowers your risk of HIV.. or not whoring yourselves around?
 
2007-03-28 03:27:20 PM
Where do you think the condom geniuses got the idea of "Ribbed for her pleasure"

/Ribbed for her pleasure
//OEM Feature
///Not aftermarket add on
 
2007-03-28 03:27:23 PM
img518.imageshack.us
 
2007-03-28 03:27:28 PM
Don't think the article explained it, but how does losing the foreskin decrease the possibility of getting HIV?

I mean assume two men, one who is cut the other is not, both have sex with HIV+ person. How is the cut person more protected??
 
2007-03-28 03:27:34 PM
Wow...Farnham's Freehold. The only time I've heard it was when my father had the book (from his younger days) and gave it to me.

I wondered why the husband, wife, and kid were floating...never read it though.
 
2007-03-28 03:28:01 PM
Sir Charles: I heard that an 'uncut' version stays at like 2 or 3 layers of skin where the 'cut' version grows up to 20-30 without the protection of the foreskin.

It's more like this.

Being exposed to air the skin around the head of the penis begins to harden and grow a firm layer of keratin around it to protect itself.

As the layer of keratin grows thicker, your sensitivity goes down. That's a fact really.
 
2007-03-28 03:28:07 PM
jst3p

it was your dictionary definition! are you now suggesting that the definition was wrong?
 
2007-03-28 03:28:09 PM
muninsfire: Entendres, yes.

I know, but I've been reading too much Pratchett recently and that's one of my favourite Nanny Ogg-isms.

Oh, and FWIW I'm uncut and like it that way.

/Ogg-isms?
 
2007-03-28 03:28:39 PM
jst3p
It's pretty well documented that sensitivity is down, which I mark down as harmful. Again, if I cut off your pinkie, it would be very unlikely to endanger your life, but it would still be mutilation.


Wrong:

mu·ti·late /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/
-verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


Either you are a troll, an idiot or just intellectually dishonest.


Dude, cutting off somebody's pinkie fits the definition of mutilation to a T. What have you been smoking?
 
2007-03-28 03:28:48 PM
jst3p: Is a tonsillectomy mutilation?
If you don't need the "part" that was removed, and no damage was done, it isn't mutilation. To use that word is hyperbole.


If it's unnecessary, and done mostly for reasons having nothing to do with health, and done on someone who doesn't understand what's happening, yes.
 
Displayed 50 of 854 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report