Circumcision Just Keeps Getting Better!!!

[Docfeelgood]

Just learn how to spank your monkey properly.

BTW
don't let the skin get in the way

[Naked Gents Rut]

Not necessarily, if you enter into a monogamous relationship early in your life.

Where's the fun in that?

[BeBMan]

If the thread title is correct they shouldn't stop cutting while they are at it

[Lorizael]

I am circumsied, I've never felt deprived because of it... but the truth is Asher may be right it may be more trouble than its worth. Some of the complications are downright disturbing.

This is more or less my opinion on the subject, except with fewer spelling and grammar errors.

It does look better but I don't think something as subjective as aesthetics should warrant surgery.

lol you're not in favor of cosmetic surgery?

[MikeH]

Hard to feel deprived of something if you had it done when you were too little to know better.

Believe us uncircumcised adults when we tell you that the thought of someone cutting a bit of our **** off is EXTREMELY UNAPPEALING.

[Asher]

I am circumsied, I've never felt deprived because of it... but the truth is Asher may be right it may be more trouble than its worth. Some of the complications are downright disturbing.

It does look better but I don't think something as subjective as aesthetics should warrant surgery.

I don't agree that it looks better. I think, depending on the social context, it looks normal to you (and to Americans in general). I'm in the other boat, I don't particularly like the look of a circumcised penis in comparison. There's usually a scar around it where the foreskin ended, the colour is different (due to a thicker layer of skin around the head to compensate for the lack of foreskin as protection), and there's less things to do to it.

[Naked Gents Rut]

the thought of someone cutting a bit of our **** off is EXTREMELY UNAPPEALING.

So is AIDS.

[MikeH]

You can still get AIDS if you are circumcised, I wouldn't risk not using a condom just because there's a slightly lower chance of catching it if I was cut! I'm sure almost no-one would, so the STD thing is a **** argument.

[Alinestra Covelia]

^ This.

Circumcision is primarily a matter of personal preference. (I was going to say "personal taste" but then I realized it might be misconstrued as ribaldry.) STDs are a matter of health and common sense.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You can still get AIDS if you are circumcised, I wouldn't risk not using a condom just because there's a slightly lower chance of catching it if I was cut!

If the condom breaks, being circumcised could save your life.

[Lorizael]

I seriously don't understand what's so hard about not having sex with someone who has an STD.

[Asher]

the thought of someone cutting a bit of our **** off is EXTREMELY UNAPPEALING.

So is AIDS.

There's zero difference in HIV transmission between circumcised and uncircumcised individuals when a condom is used, and the studies on unprotected sex continue to be contradictory. Frankly, if you have unprotected sex and you contract HIV, then that's just a form of survival of the fittest.

On the other hand, the complications from circumcision are FAR more common than contracting HIV/AIDS. Circumcised men are also nearly twice as likely to contract genital warts. And let's also not forget the simple fact that circumcised men get less pleasure from sex.

[Naked Gents Rut]

the studies on unprotected sex continue to be contradictory.

They're only contradictory in that the less well-designed studies give a less conclusive result than the well-designed studies. It's pretty clear that circumcision reduces the chances of contracting HIV and other STDs.

And let's also not forget the simple fact that circumcised men get less pleasure from sex.

Yes, but they get more pleasure from sex than dead men.

[Asher]

the studies on unprotected sex continue to be contradictory.

They're only contradictory in that the less well-designed studies give a less conclusive result than the well-designed studies. It's pretty clear which result should be believed.

I'm sure you know longitudinal studies like the New Zealand one was more relevant. There's all kinds of well documented issues with the Ugandan studies, such as massive subject attrition and the short-term duration they've followed. There's well-documented behaviour changes in men circumcised as adults relating to both physical discomfort, dullened sensation in sex and a corresponding lesser interest in sex.

There's also a massive factor of self-selection bias, even though it is claimed to be 'random'. The men willing to be circumcised as adults are few and far between -- the ones that do agree to do it are obviously far more paranoid. If they're more paranoid, they're more likely to use protection during sex as well. The simple fact is this is not a randomized study, because you can't just order people at random to be circumcised -- they need to volunteer!

[Naked Gents Rut]

I'm sure you know longitudinal studies like the New Zealand one was more relevant.

It may be more relevant in that the New Zealand's society is more similar to America or Canada than Ugandan society is. This doesn't change the fact that the design is poorer and the results are therefore less convincing.

There's also a massive factor of self-selection bias, even though it is claimed to be 'random'.

If the experiment is properly randomized, self-selection bias doesn't matter.

The men willing to be circumcised as adults are few and far between -- the ones that do agree to do it are obviously far more paranoid. If they're more paranoid, they're more likely to use protection during sex as well.

This also doesn't matter.

The simple fact is this is not a randomized study, because you can't just order people at random to be circumcised -- they need to volunteer!

Wrong. You can easily assign men willing to be circumcised to randomized treatment and control groups. This is just as good.