Going for the snip

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Dr. Strangelove had to go tend to his real life, that's why. Frankly two years ago I took the opposite position, I was skeptical that circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection. Then I was against circumcision. Since I've seen the data showing that circumcision does indeed reduce HIV infection I've changed positions.
Actually there is some reason to believe that it is not the case that circumcision protects against infection, but that instead the intact foreskin enhances the invasion of the immune system by HIV viruses.

Just out of interest, how man adult males with normal foreskins (and no problems with galloping knob rot, due to mastering the ancient Ninja art of "washing") have you managed to persuade to get circumcised in order to avoid HIV infection?

This is a shot in the dark, but I suspect it's not many.

There is also the issue that if circumcised men suddenly start thinking they're immune from infection, you end up creating a lot of priapic Typhoid Marys.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually I haven't counseled any prospective parents on the subject of circumcising their soon to be newborn sons either. Since my clinic accepts new Medicaid patients I examine quite a few young infants. I'm finding that recently most male infants in this area are being circumcised. My guess is that the local hospital is pushing the idea of circumcision more aggressively now that its protective function is fairly well established.

It would make a lot of sense for African governments and other interested associations in Africa to undertake campaigns of mass circumcision of adult and young males. Millions of lives could be saved. That doesn't mean that they could not also impress upon their subjects that the degree of protection is only relative and that the use of other techniques ( monogamy, condoms ) will further reduce the likelihood of infection.

[elle]

Sorry I am late guys, my invitation to this lovely topic must have gotten lost in the mail.

I have to agree with Asher and KrazyHorse on this, and i would like to introduce a new word of sorts. If a man has his foreskin removed it is called circumcision, right? So, if a man has his foreskin left alone he is called "intact". This is an important point, as all men are born intact, and only if they receive surgery should they have that differentiation.

Also, it was mentioned about how circumcized men loose sensation over time without the foreskin as a protective shield while at rest. This is true, but there is another matter that hasn't been brought up. If the foreskin is removed, it generally means that the penis in question, would not reach it's potential size when erect. More skin oftentimes means more space to fill. So, that is something for you men to think about when you have sons of your own. More and more these days in the U.S., circumcized men are choosing to leave their infant sons intact, and breaking the family tradition that they now find illogical. I find this very impressive, and am happy to know that as a society we can sit back and re-evaluate the situation.

Lastly, it was mentioned that yeast infections are caused by poor hygiene, when in fact they are caused by a lack PH balance. The vagina needs to remain fairly acidic to keep the yeast at bay. When a vagina becomes more alkaline, the yeast is allowed to overgrow and cause an infection. Some of the things that can make a vagina plunge into severe alkaline-ness (is this a word, lol) is semen, along with common soaps we use in the shower.

Great topic by the way
What have you decided Snoopy?

[General Ludd]

I only use soap when washing my hands and hair (well, shampoo in that case).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by elle
More skin oftentimes means more space to fill. So, that is something for you men to think about when you have sons of your own.

That's just silly, since it is the erectile tissue that determines the ultimate size of the penis, not the skin. Skin will stretch, but more skin won't create something to fill it.

[Tuberski]

This is an important point, as all men are born intact, and only if they receive surgery should they have that differentiation.

All babies are born with an umbilical also, so uless you are carrying around your placenta, no one ever born is "intact".



ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
My guess is that the local hospital is pushing the idea of circumcision more aggressively now that its protective function is fairly well established.

I would think it makes more sense that the for-profit hospital is pushing the idea of circumcision because it makes them money.

Circumcising newborns in America based on the NOT scientificially proven assumption that it may help prevent contraction of HIV is ridiculous.

The vast majority of people who contract HIV are "bottoms" -- men who take it, or women. That doesn't matter though! You USE A CONDOM.

Instead of chopping up the genitals of newborns, why don't we teach them how to use condoms? It's funny how circumcision is most common in the most Republican, socially backward states.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski

This is an important point, as all men are born intact, and only if they receive surgery should they have that differentiation.

All babies are born with an umbilical also, so uless you are carrying around your placenta, no one ever born is "intact".



ACK!

Umbilical cords lose their function after birth.

Foreskins have functions for the rest of your life.

[elle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's just silly, since it is the erectile tissue that determines the ultimate size of the penis, not the skin. Skin will stretch, but more skin won't create something to fill it.

Here is a good website about why baby boys should remain intact.

http://www.boystoo.com/anatomy/whatslost.htm

This is from their FAQ page:

Does circumcision affect penis size? A recent article found that the mean penis erect length was 16cm, i.e., about 6 3/8 inches. It further found that the average erect penis length in circumcised men was 3/8" shorter than in normal men.

Now for me, the word normal made me flinch a bit, as circumcison is very normal in many communities. I am not saying that any circumcized man should in any way be made to feel bad about it and also it was not his choice. I am just hoping for future generations we can maybe start to re-think this particular surgery.

[RGBVideo]

3 questions, elle

Originally posted by elle
Here is a good website about why baby boys should remain intact.

http://www.boystoo.com/anatomy/whatslost.htm

This is from their FAQ page:

Does circumcision affect penis size? A recent article found that the mean penis erect length was 16cm, i.e., about 6 3/8 inches. It further found that the average erect penis length in circumcised men was 3/8" shorter than in normal men.

Who are you? How did you found Apolyton? Are you a troll dl of an existing member?

[elle]

Re: 3 questions, elle

Originally posted by VJ

Who are you? How did you found Apolyton? Are you a troll dl of an existing member?

My answers:

1. elle (as in "L." the first letter of my name - see profile)

2. I found Apolyton by going to my search engine and typing in: "forum + incredibly welcoming members named VJ"

3. I am not sure what you mean, but I am certainly not a troll. You see, I am simply not that in touch with my dark side. Just ask Vel.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Lancer


Studies show that men fishing with their removed foreskin catch 22% more fish.

LINK!!!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher

I would think it makes more sense that the for-profit hospital is pushing the idea of circumcision because it makes them money.

Circumcising newborns in America based on the NOT scientificially proven assumption that it may help prevent contraction of HIV is ridiculous.

The vast majority of people who contract HIV are "bottoms" -- men who take it, or women. That doesn't matter though! You USE A CONDOM.

Instead of chopping up the genitals of newborns, why don't we teach them how to use condoms? It's funny how circumcision is most common in the most Republican, socially backward states.

Preliminary data from large scale randomized prospective studies under the auspicies of the WHO has indeed been published and clearly shows that circumcision does indeed have a protective effect vis a vis HIV infection. You should be able to find it easily on the web. Furthermore the vast majority of African men who contract the disease get it from infected women, not from anal sex. In Africa the disease passes from male to female to male to female, etc.

[RGBVideo]

Re: Re: 3 questions, elle

Originally posted by elle
1. elle (as in "L." the first letter of my name - see profile)

2. I found Apolyton by going to my search engine and typing in: "forum + incredibly welcoming members named VJ"

3. I am not sure what you mean, but I am certainly not a troll. You see, I am simply not that in touch with my dark side. Just ask Vel.

DL stands for duplicate login or double login... You just look like a typical DL troll of some bored guy who has a long posting history here... coming into a forum which is 98% male and starting to lecture us about our penises, basing all claims on an obviously biased website.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Preliminary data from large scale randomized prospective studies under the auspicies of the WHO has indeed been published and clearly shows that circumcision does indeed have a protective effect vis a vis HIV infection. You should be able to find it easily on the web. Furthermore the vast majority of African men who contract the disease get it from infected women, not from anal sex. In Africa the disease passes from male to female to male to female, etc.

If you have non-observational studies that took place in controlled conditions, preferably outside of Africa, then link it. Otherwise it's nonsense.