Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 66 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 44
B
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 44
New Study Slams Male Circumcision As HIV Preventation
This is bad news for Neo-Christians. Cause, in their world view it made perfect sense:
Circumcision was good against sinful thoughts, masturbation AND homo-disease AIDS
Also, they expected them sinful polygamy muslims to have more AIDS than monogame groups. Also not so.
The only pet peeve they're left with is .... Fight the Ho's!!
But ... there's a problem with that, cause the best way to fight them whores is not throw all in jail, but GASP! LEGALIZE THEM
ROTFL!!! Pounding on the floor, even!!!
Thoughts?

Last edited by BrianPatrix; 06/22/07 04:05 AM.
.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
Quote:
Thoughts?


I prefer a circumcised male myself. Other than that, I tend to lean libertarian and think both drugs and prositution should be legalized. I'm also for gay marriage.


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I have heard that even married couples in some poor countries indulge in anal sex, the poor peoples' contraceptive. I don't know if that's true but certainly anal sex is a surer way to give and receive AIDS than is what we might call normal sex.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: BrianPatrix
New Study Slams Male Circumcision As HIV Preventation[/url]
This is bad news for Neo-Christians. Cause, in their world view it made perfect sense:
Circumcision was good against sinful thoughts, masturbation AND homo-disease AIDS
Also, they expected them sinful polygamy muslims to have more AIDS than monogame groups. Also not so.
The only pet peeve they're left with is .... Fight the Ho's!!
But ... there's a problem with that, cause the best way to fight them whores is not throw all in jail, but GASP! LEGALIZE THEM
ROTFL!!! Pounding on the floor, even!!!
Thoughts?


I'm afraid its the headline "New Study Slams Male Circumcision...etc....etc"
That dos'nt make any sense to me.


Firstly and most importantly- It is known that circumcision in a man does help in preventing him from aquiring a sexually transmitted disease.

This factual knowledge which took many years to confirm, was due to one or two doctors who worked in those 'unmentionable sexual treatment clinics' that were sometimes attached to large city hospitals, noticed that circumcised men attending these clinics were far fewer in number, relative to uncircumcised men. It was originally dismissed as being due to an 'educational thing' where prehaps a '1st class citizen' would more likely go to a private doctor for treatment etc.

And so, thats where the matter rested, for a number of years.
Of course the skew in sexual statistics was obviously due to those going private!! There could'nt possibly be any other reason, and that was the end of the matter.

That is until about the 1950's there was a huge jump in Gonorrhoea and Syphilis, with a similar rise in those attending the sexual clinics of Europe and America.
Proper medical notes in these times were taken. Although names were withheld, Goverments demanded times, place, and their contacts, which were all followed up wherever possible and correlated.

Eventually the statistical figures that came out were unmistakable.
Circumcised men were less prone to catching a sexual disease,....but why?

I am not going to make big spiel of this, since I have been away and v busy for the last few weeks, but I do want to comment quickly upon this subject.

To cut a complicated story short, the percieved difference was found to be strictly mechanical.
Or in three words 'The Entrapment of Smegma'
As well as anything else, fluff from clothes and dust, a veritable breeding ground should germs lodge there.
Which of course they do, whenever a flaciid man pulls back...
during the sexual act his foreskin closes over and entraps germs in a very sensitive damp area.

This does not happen in circumcised men, for not only dos'nt he produce smegma, but he is not even sensitive in that area, having walked around for say 20 years, protectionless, without a foreskin, its no wonder. In fact the skin color under where his foreskin was, is not red and delicate, but it is exactly the same color as the rest of his body, with the skin being a good deal thicker.
Less sensitivity, makes for longer foreplay, as well as taking more time with the sexual act, Which makes him choose his woman with more care. The longer time taken, means the more lubricant trickles down his uretha channel, helping to block any incoming germs, before ejeculation.
It has been found that a circumcised man can walk away after the sexual act, totally free of germs. Whereas a non-circumcised mans foreskin closes around his penis and can deposit those germs exactly where they are not wanted, long after the sexual act has finished.

I'm not going to mention AID's because it can be aquired by a number of different routes. Aquisition down the birth canal, during birth, is one route.
The 50 years of inter tribal and country wars and attendant rapes and rampant prostituton has increased AIDs out of all preportions in Africa. That was not mentioned in the article
AIDS is endemic in Africa, even though some tribes are indeed circumcised, (using a primitive knife, I might add, at about the age of 12yrs, which takes some time to heal at that age.) But war and prolonged pillage would mask any statistics regarding circumcised africans. Which is why I decided to write this in the first place.

The 'Falashas of Ethiopia' supposedly the offspring of the Queen of Sheba and King David, having practised Judaism in Ethiopia for 3000 years in isolation, including circumcision etc, were flown out in their thousands by Israel some years ago and resettled there.
Although they are not Negroid I happen to know that non of them brought in any sexual disease.

Jews have their babys circumcised at 8 days old,! It takes 3 seconds with a special circular blade, and there is never any need for any dressing, as there is virtually no blood.
Sorry I have got to run, but I should be back at this computer by next Tuesday.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Okay, well to explain the circrumscision from the Judeo-Christian viewpoint (which, by itself, would not make any contributions to science):
Suppesedly at eight days old they are circumsed, showing the young child's (and parent's, since they dont have a choice) devotion to God. Christians are taught (doesnt always happen in practice) to stay absident until marriage, which in turn would decreae sexual contact until marriage, thus having less sexually transmitted diseases.
But that may not be the scientific solution for this, just tell me if this is flawed.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
All I can tell you is my female preference is for circumcised men. I can also tell, you as a mother two boys, that even though they were circumcised they still had a little extra skin where stuff collected. I always had to pull it back and clean around the head. When they were old enough to start bathing themselves I instructed them to do the same.


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 44
B
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 44
Male circumcision does NOT help to combat STDs, this is a myth, if you teach your sons to wash their penis everyday, same as brushing your teeth, hygiene is the same. If you don't wash a circumcised penis, it will be unhygenic just the same. It gals me that women, especially mothers, are quick to circumcise their sons, largely for aesthetic reasons. This, of course, is child abuse. What if fathers were pushing for breast enlargement for their daughters?

Male circumcision has nothing to do with christianity. It is virtually non-existent in Europe, including Northern Protestant Europe, in case y'all think it's a Catholic thing NOT to circumcise and you don't regard Catholics as real christians. Also Latin America, Caribean, not big on circumcision.
Male Circumcision occurs in just 3 societies/groups in the world: Jewish, Muslim and ... America!!! Which is the only rich country/OESO-nation where it occurs hugely. of course america is different from other rich countries in many socio-economic ways, guns, more crime, very religious (due to tax-reasons), huge teen pregnancy, huge gap between rich and poor etc.
Male circumcision is big in america (and the uk perhaps) because of the victorian morals, it was seen as a means to combat masturbation.

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
Originally Posted By: scpg02
All I can tell you is my female preference is for circumcised men. I can also tell, you as a mother two boys, that even though they were circumcised they still had a little extra skin where stuff collected. I always had to pull it back and clean around the head. When they were old enough to start bathing themselves I instructed them to do the same.


Your personal preference does not justify cutting parts off your children's genitals. There are plenty of countries where most men prefer cut women btw.

It sounds like keeping circumcised boys clean is a lot harder than looking after intact boys, who need no special care down there:

American Academy of Pediatrics
"Care of the Uncircumcised Penis"
"foreskin retraction should never be forced. Until separation occurs, do not try to pull the foreskin back especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding and tears in the skin."

Canadian Paediatric Society
Circumcision: Information for parents
"Keep your babys penis clean by gently washing the area during his bath. Do not try to pull back the foreskin. Usually, it is not fully retractable until a boy is 3 to 5 years old, or even until after puberty. Never force it."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians policy statement on circumcision
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=B5606813-F174-8FA9-0522EE1FC3053078
"The foreskin requires no special care during infancy. It should be left alone. Attempts to forcibly retract it are painful, often injure the foreskin, and can lead to scarring and phimosis."

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4
Originally Posted By: BrianPatrix
Firstly and most importantly- It is known that circumcision in a man does help in preventing him from aquiring a sexually transmitted disease.

The longest study of circumcision and STI's in a western country (the Dickson study in New Zealand) showed a very slightly higher risk of STI's in the circumcised men. There are much better ways to reduce your risk of STI's than cutting parts of children's genitals off anyway though.

Originally Posted By: BrianPatrix
"It has been found that a circumcised man can walk away after the sexual act, totally free of germs"

Source please.

Originally Posted By: BrianPatrix
To cut a complicated story short, the percieved difference was found to be strictly mechanical.
Or in three words 'The Entrapment of Smegma'
As well as anything else, fluff from clothes and dust, a veritable breeding ground should germs lodge there.
Which of course they do, whenever a flaciid man pulls back...
during the sexual act his foreskin closes over and entraps germs in a very sensitive damp area.

Woman produce more smegma than men. Women also have "a very sensitive damp area", and theirs is a lot harder to clean than a man's, but we don't cut parts off baby girls.

Originally Posted By: BrianPatrix
Jews have their babys circumcised at 8 days old,! It takes 3 seconds with a special circular blade ...

The speed isn't really the point.

Originally Posted By: BrianPatrix
... and there is never any need for any dressing, as there is virtually no blood.

Really? This is from last month:
"Kaplan Medical Center doctors saved the life of a newborn baby who on Wednesday was seriously injured by a mohel during his circumcision and lost a third of his blood."
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=179486

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
Originally Posted By: BrianPatrix
New Study Slams Male Circumcision As HIV Preventation[/url]
This is bad news for Neo-Christians. Cause, in their world view it made perfect sense:
Circumcision was good against sinful thoughts, masturbation AND homo-disease AIDS
Also, they expected them sinful polygamy muslims to have more AIDS than monogame groups. Also not so.
The only pet peeve they're left with is .... Fight the Ho's!!
But ... there's a problem with that, cause the best way to fight them whores is not throw all in jail, but GASP! LEGALIZE THEM
ROTFL!!! Pounding on the floor, even!!!
Thoughts?

............"THIS IS PAGE ONE"......

I'm afraid its the headline "New Study Slams Male Circumcision...etc....etc"
That dos'nt make any sense to me.


Firstly and most importantly- It is known that circumcision in a man does help in preventing him from aquiring a sexually transmitted disease.

This factual knowledge which took many years to confirm, was due to one or two doctors who worked in those 'unmentionable sexual treatment clinics' that were sometimes attached to large city hospitals, noticed that circumcised men attending these clinics were far fewer in number, relative to uncircumcised men. It was originally dismissed as being due to an 'educational thing' where prehaps a '1st class citizen' would more likely go to a private doctor for treatment etc.

And so, thats where the matter rested, for a number of years.
Of course the skew in sexual statistics was obviously due to those going private!! There could'nt possibly be any other reason, and that was the end of the matter.

That is until about the 1950's there was a huge jump in Gonorrhoea and Syphilis, with a similar rise in those attending the sexual clinics of Europe and America.
Proper medical notes in these times were taken. Although names were withheld, Goverments demanded times, place, and their contacts, which were all followed up wherever possible and correlated.

Eventually the statistical figures that came out were unmistakable.
Circumcised men were less prone to catching a sexual disease,....but why?

I am not going to make big spiel of this, since I have been away and v busy for the last few weeks, but I do want to comment quickly upon this subject.

To cut a complicated story short, the percieved difference was found to be strictly mechanical.
Or in three words 'The Entrapment of Smegma'
As well as anything else, fluff from clothes and dust, a veritable breeding ground should germs lodge there.
Which of course they do, whenever a flaciid man pulls back...
during the sexual act his foreskin closes over and entraps germs in a very sensitive damp area.

This does not happen in circumcised men, for not only dos'nt he produce smegma, but he is not even sensitive in that area, having walked around for say 20 years, protectionless, without a foreskin, its no wonder. In fact the skin color under where his foreskin was, is not red and delicate, but it is exactly the same color as the rest of his body, with the skin being a good deal thicker.
Less sensitivity, makes for longer foreplay, as well as taking more time with the sexual act, Which makes him choose his woman with more care. The longer time taken, means the more lubricant trickles down his uretha channel, helping to block any incoming germs, before ejeculation.
It has been found that a circumcised man can walk away after the sexual act, totally free of germs. Whereas a non-circumcised mans foreskin closes around his penis and can deposit those germs exactly where they are not wanted, long after the sexual act has finished.

I'm not going to mention AID's because it can be aquired by a number of different routes. Aquisition down the birth canal, during birth, is one route.
The 50 years of inter tribal and country wars and attendant rapes and rampant prostituton has increased AIDs out of all preportions in Africa. That was not mentioned in the article
AIDS is endemic in Africa, even though some tribes are indeed circumcised, (using a primitive knife, I might add, at about the age of 12yrs, which takes some time to heal at that age.) But war and prolonged pillage would mask any statistics regarding circumcised africans. Which is why I decided to write this in the first place.

The 'Falashas of Ethiopia' supposedly the offspring of the Queen of Sheba and King David, having practised Judaism in Ethiopia for 3000 years in isolation, including circumcision etc, were flown out in their thousands by Israel some years ago and resettled there.
Although they are not Negroid I happen to know that non of them brought in any sexual disease.

Jews have their babys circumcised at 8 days old,! It takes 3 seconds with a special circular blade, and there is never any need for any dressing, as there is virtually no blood.
Sorry I have got to run, but I should be back at this computer by next Tuesday.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5