are you pro or against circumcision?

Before I understood the idea that penises weren't this way to begin with (I am circumcised) the word "smegma" was just a joke. Even when I came across it as a cool band name I gave no thought to circumcision.

And then one day I was at work and I looked at my boss after a co-worker walked away and whispered, "Okay, what's up with that smell?" My boss, a queen of queens, said calmly, "He's not circumcised. And he has poor hygeine."

Never smelled anything like it in my life; if I never come across that stench again, I'll be happy.

Even I can get stinky thereabout if I don't shower, but phack . . . . I wouldn't have said anything at all except that it was enough to literally make me sick, and few stenches that I've come across have that effect on me.

And that look of recollection on my boss' face told me I didn't want to know the story, even if it had nothing to do with the guy we were talking about.

I will confess, however, that having bled out my penis before with no documented cause (blindly hammering away with top-end antibiotics is not fun) has made me considerably more aware of its condition. Frankly, I wouldn't have thought that possible beforehand.

However, on reflection, looking back to that time of ginger handling and hypochondria, I can say I'm rather quite glad that I didn't have smegma issues to deal with as well.

Is it live or is it mammorex?° Is it a discharge, or is it just smegma?

Spend some time being absolutely paranoid about the future of your sexual function ... it changes the way you look at your penis.

__________
° mammorex - How many of you actually remember John Ritter in "Hooperman"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

look, people are still allowed to have abortions, the child has no choice in that, why bother complaining about a little piece of flesh.

It seems plainly obvious that it is the parents choice, be it on the grounds of religion or health.

This is a decision which they make for their child when it is too young to decide.

The website was one sided, as has been said before.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just in from the BBC:

It seemed relevant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is it the case that people who are circumcised are less likely to catch HIV if they have sex or that they just are more careful when they have sex and as a result catch it less.

What i mean is, how would they test to see if circumcision made a person less likely to catch a disease like HIV. Hey bob have unprotected sex with this person who has HIV and lets test if you get it?

The test seems odd. I could see how they might survey circumcised and uncirced men and see how often they sleep with people and whether or not they are infected, but this would prove nothing.

I would be more inclined to say, expecially in a third world country such as India, that people who are circumcised are generally from more health conscious families, and they therefore are more careful when having sex. Not that the actual circumcision itself plays any part in reducing the risk of HIV infection.

 

If you plan to have this procedure done later in life, as some do ... word of advice: Get it done professionally.....

 

so much uproar all of a sudden about priests but rabbis have been sucking on newborns' penises for centuries.

 

I think it's a plot against women. I've never had sex with an uncircumcised man (or woman, for that matter

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) so I don't know this for sure, it's only a theory....but I think maybe the foreskin was God's version of a French tickler. Might make sex more enjoyable for the chick. But NOOOOOOOOOOO, can't have that, nope, uh uh, gotta get rid of that. Can't have our women happy. Sexual tension makes them clean better.


(Disclaimer: The foregoing post contains sarcasm, which is not intended to be taken literally by the reader. Any literal interpretation is done at the reader's own risk.)

 

I never looked good in a turtleneck, anyway.

 

Nebuchadnezzar

The second half of the BBC article reads, in part,

Just as a starter.

Beyond that, I would have to subscribe to Lancet to give you a better answer.

 

luckily, i do. give me the lookup.

 

i'm having trouble finding it. which issue is it in?

 

I believe it will be the March 27, 2004 Lancet. Presently, I'm looking at WebMD:

Edit: D'oh! At the end of the WebMD article: SOURCES: Reynolds, S. The Lancet, March 27, 2004; vol 363; pp 1039-1040 . . . . .

Silly me. Silly me.

 

well that doesn't come out until tomorrow so full text will have to wait until then.

note to mods: full text will be labelled 'copywritted material' and text will be removed after reasonable period of time

 

After it's posted I'd be willing to transfer it to an off-site web page according to Fair Use. I would recommend it here, in the long run, but a number of obstacles present possible challenges. Namely, (A) We don't want a whole lot of long text here, and (B) it could be a rough time getting people used to how to do it (I would have to look up exactly what's required).

An unrelated article to the topic: Click here and jump to the bottom of the page for an example of a Fair Use notice. Beyond that, I don't know what else is required, though.

 

we do a lot of things to ourselves that my not be considered "natural". we cut our hair, nails, brush our teeth, wear clothing, weight lift, make fires to cook, talk on telephones and computers, etc... i do believe there is a case to be made for both sides. Vehement opposition to it (from earlier said western Europeon country) reminds me of possible other motives besides for the sake of "nature".

 

This I believe is the most important aspect of the debate on circumcision.

I have two children including a boy now aged 22 years. My ex-wife and I decided that it is not our choice to make, whether circumcision or not. We decided that it is a future choice that our son can make for himself.
Just because it is easier done as a young child doesn't entitle us to overrule our childs future decision capacities.

I recenty asked my son whether we had made the right decision and his reply was: "to decide to give me a decision when you don't have the right to decide for me in the first place is a bit oxymoronic don't you think?"We had a bit of a laugh about it but true he was very grateful that he now has a choice, abeit a painful one maybe but at least his self determination is sustained.

One day medical science may find out the real purpose of the foreskin and I bet it's not just about keeping the penise warm and protected from abrasive underwear......the same could be said for the appendix and wisdom teeth....one day we may actually find out why they are part of our bodies

 

the appendix and wisdom teeth are for keeping the penis warm and protected? then i really wish i hadn't had mine taken out.

 

ha ha....oops maybe I should rephrase it....ha

 

Actually hygiene is not an issue. If you don't wipe your ass or wash your arm pits or for ladies that don't wash their crotch, well that is a matter of hygiene as well.

I have read medical literature that suggests that circumcision exposes the head of the penis to constant rubbing and causes it to lose sensativity.

That uncircumcised males have greater sensation during sex.

Damn I'm glad my parents never had me circumcised. I get to wash so much more often. Got to work up a good lather too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If circumcision were useful, our Father would produce children already circumcised from their earthly mother's womb.
Rather, it is the true circumcision in spirit which is good for man.