Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[blackbeltninja]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Fun Fact: The vagina produces up to 30 times more smegma than the male foreskin does. Is hygiene is the deciding factor, then why aren't we removing the clitoral hood and/or labia in baby girls?

Fun counter-fact: the day you can shove a fully formed baby out your pee-hole, the foreskin and labia will be properly equatable (is that a word?).

-d-

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Whoa. Easy, tiger!

I'm just offering this as evidence that hygiene CAN SOMETIMES be an issue for uncircumcised guys. As far as you guys are arguing, you'd swear the uncuts were simply pissing out Chanel No. 5 all day.

-d-

I'm 100% certain that if a guy didn't bother cleaning himself to the point that smegma built up in his foreskin, this is not a man whose penis would be any more pleasant to be near even if he got circumcised a hundred times. Poor hygiene is poor hygiene, and a dirty dick is a dirty dick.

Seriosly "after 6 years of gagging on your putrid cock because you don't wash it, thank you for getting circumcised. Now your lack of hygiene doesn't matter nearly as much!!!"

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

And in a country that still has the Patriot Act, I'd laugh if it weren't so sad to hear people arguing that governments preserving a boy's choice about his own dick is some kind of big brother dictatorship. Get real.

Get circumcised if you want to.
But don't get circumcised just because your parents want you to.
And make that the law.

 

[unloadonme]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

No, the government is not imposing anything on anyone. The government is preventing a parent from imposing their will on a child. What part of that don't people understand?

I wonder if you realize how ridiculous that sounds...

Actually, it sounds perfectly sensible to be. The proposed legislation is a prohibition rather than an imposition.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

not exactly... for every study that says it reduces infection, another one comes out saying that it doesn't. I mean, STD rates in europe are the same as in America, despite the differences in cut/uncut rates. Read my post on the previous paaaage

Actually, there is a slight difference, and North America has slightly fewer cases per thousand (19 vs. 20). And those vary by generation; over the last 60-80 years, the medical community in general tends to flip the decision about every 20 years or so. SO...Even the difference is marginal at best, it is nonetheless interesting to note...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

People shouldn't have to get circumcised to avoid offending jews and muslims. Circ was NEVER routine in MOST of Europe outside of the UK. Just because Europe doesn't circumcise doesn't mean they should be flamed for it and forever associated with antisemitism. The US isn't too Muslim friendly either, if you heard some of the things I've heard then you'd be shocked.

Er....huh?

My point wasn't that circumcision was a matter of antisemitism, but rather that it was seen as the mark of a religion period (the reason it never caught on was because it was the mark of Judaism, and then JCM in general). But, um, thanks for playing....

Gee I didn't know that condoms were useless! Apparently the fact that 1 in 5 gay men have hiv can be totally erased by the next generation if all American men get circumcised...

Er...It only cuts the infection rate, not giving the person immunity.

Whatever though, I don't care anymore. Intact penises lead to infections and behavior doesn't, because circumcision is an idea from God Almighty, because only one in a million cut guys get STIs in their lifetime.

Yeah go get the cut so you can be more promiscuous...you won't get sick!

Yeah! GET SICK! SHOW THEM DOCTORS!

Er..wait...

RG

 

[EwanSF]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Intact penises lead to infections and behavior doesn't...

I've had one infection in my entire life. And behaviour is a factor. Try again.

because circumcision is an idea from God Almighty...

There is no god.

because only one in a million cut guys get STIs in their lifetime...

That would mean that about 20-25 men in America would have some sort of STD. Your HIV infection rate would be paracticaly non existant. Don't talk utter shite.

 

[Zabotugi]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Whatever though, I don't care anymore. Intact penises lead to infections and behavior doesn't, because circumcision is an idea from God Almighty, because only one in a million cut guys get STIs in their lifetime.

I hope you know I was being somewhat sarcastic...

 

[Zabotugi]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Actually, there is a slight difference, and North America has slightly fewer cases per thousand (19 vs. 20). And those vary by generation; over the last 60-80 years, the medical community in general tends to flip the decision about every 20 years or so. SO...Even the difference is marginal at best, it is nonetheless interesting to note...

RG

But you can't say that's due to them being intact. It could be anything causing that.

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Fun counter-fact: the day you can shove a fully formed baby out your pee-hole, the foreskin and labia will be properly equatable

That's a complete non-sequitor; smegma has nothing to do with childbirth.

The penis and clitoris ARE properly equatable, because biologically, all males begin life as a female in the womb. Due to hormonal changes, the clitoris becomes a penis, so it's a modified version of the same basic organ.




-n-

 

[blackbeltninja]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

^Yes, but the smegma is secreted from structures covering larger surface area in the ladies; presumably this accounts for the up to 30x increase in amounts produced.

Ergo, my comparison was related to size and volume of the organs concerned as opposed to function.

-d-

 

[theFallenGod]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

I am sorry. Why are we feeding this troll?

EVERY single post of the OP's is nothing but pro-circumcision propaganda. (don't believe me do a search on his posts)

Who is he really trying to convince us or himself?


And the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Most of you know that this subject is one of those hot button troll subjects and you were all baited right into it.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

^I don't know the OP as well as you do, and the topic does have some merit.

Even a puppet master can be useful, albeit on accident.

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

^Yes, but the smegma is secreted from structures covering larger surface area in the ladies; presumably this accounts for the up to 30x increase in amounts produced.

Ergo, my comparison was related to size and volume of the organs concerned as opposed to function.

-d-

The Point Being: Smegma would still exist be in the modern lexicon, as you put it, because of vaginae. A lot of people say that men should be circumcised for hygiene issues, due to smegma. I'm pointing out that this is a fallacy, since by that logic, women would require circumcision for "hygienic" reasons moreso than men would.


The End And Thank You.





-----

I am sorry. Why are we feeding this troll?

EVERY single post of the OP's is nothing but pro-circumcision propaganda. (don't believe me do a search on his posts)

Who is he really trying to convince us or himself?


And the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Most of you know that this subject is one of those hot button troll subjects and you were all baited right into it.

This is a free forum, and this happens to be an important legal/political issue. The reason we're here is because we want to talk about this issue, not because we're arguing with the OP. Frankie says "Relax".

 

[blackbeltninja]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

^I don't like you anymore.

-d-

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

But you can't say that's due to them being intact. It could be anything causing that.

Nonetheless, if you have a study that says that circumcision slows down STD infection, and then you have one group that does it and has fewer instances and another group that doesn't but has higher instances, it would seem to back the study...

Also: I love how you and EwansSF are quoting and commenting on a non-existent post that I never wrote, and doesn't even match my style. When you get back yourself with facts, just make stuff up...

RG

 

[milboy]

Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

http://www.4eric.org/why-circumcision-does-not-slow-the-spread-of-hiv/

 

[Seasoned]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

I believe that circumcision became common in the US beginning in the 1930s when most babies were being born in hospitals. There was a controversy already in play during the 70s. Uncircumcised penises were linked to increased cervical cancer, but further studies showed it was a hygiene issue. At that time my sister and I were each starting families. We made a pact that if either of us had boys they would not be circumcised. She went on to have two and I have one and they're all intact.

 

[milboy]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

You guys are awesome, gayface and soreknees!

 

[jonduer]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

It does when the female has AIDS/HIV and the male has intercourse with her. Check out the research of Canada, France, the United Kingdom, the USA, and the UN.