Cut it out

From msnbc

Updated: 4:56 p.m. ET Nov. 6, 2006

Men's Health

Circumcision cuts STD risk, major study finds

25-year study finds substantial benefit to controversial procedure

Reuters

Circumcised males are less likely than their uncircumcised peers to acquire a sexually transmitted infection, the findings of a 25-year study suggest.

According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests "substantial benefits" for routine neonatal circumcision.

The current study is just one of many that have looked at this controversial topic. While most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.

In the current study, the researchers analyzed data collected for the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which included a large birth cohort of children from New Zealand. Males were divided into two groups based on circumcision status before 15 years of age. The presence of a sexually transmitted infection between 18 and 25 years of age was determined by questionnaire.

The 356 uncircumcised boys had a 2.66-fold increased risk of sexually transmitted infection compared with the 154 circumcised boys, lead author Dr. David M. Fergusson and colleagues, from the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences report.

Moreover, this elevated risk was largely unchanged after accounting for potential confounders, such as number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.

The authors estimate that had routine neonatal circumcision been in place, the rate of sexually transmitted infections in the current cohort would have been reduced by roughly 48 percent.

This analysis shows that the benefits of circumcision for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infection "may be substantial," the authors conclude. "The public health issues raised by these findings clearly involve weighing the longer-term benefits of routine neonatal circumcision in terms of reducing risks of infection within the population, against the perceived costs of the procedure," they add.
 
the difference was 2.66-fold, but the population of uncut was 2.31 fold. I don't think the numbers are that different.

Also, wouldn't it make sense to look into places like all of England where the rate of circumcision is less than 1%? I mean shouldn't that place be brimming with STD more than the US, at least percentage-wise?

And again, who fucks without a condom nowadays?
 
From msnbc

Updated: 4:56 p.m. ET Nov. 6, 2006

Men's Health

Circumcision cuts STD risk, major study finds

It cuts the risk because chicks won't fuck 'em. It's impossible to catch something standing at the starting line with your anteater in its harnass.

I concur. That extra skin makes the head bigger and it hits the g-spot.

The logistics of this statement don't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
i thought that once an uncircumcised penis was erect, the extra skin was pulled taut? i've never seen a grown man's uncircumcised penis, so i have no idea what it looks like soft or hard. :iono:
 
7455130a55ccb1.jpg

NWS of docking with an uncircumcised cawk.

http://www.circinfo.com/glossary/uncirc.jpg

NWS of plain uncircumcised cawk.
 
Last edited:
The guy I was with that was uncut just had more skin enough to stroke better with when hard. He didn't have any overhang when it was hard. But then again everyone is different. Some guys that are uncut you couldn't tell, some they trip over their foreskin walking.
 
Oh sweet, the circumcision argument :>



Here is what I know: I have a close friend who had to get circumcised for medical reasons when he was 14, basically his foreskin was too tight and couldn't be fully retracted.

So he got the snip. First thing he noticed was the loss of sensitivity, the head of his penis rubbing against his underwear all day was initially very painful but soon became tolerable and eventually he started not to notice it. That can only say one thing, circumcision significantly lowers sensitivity.
Now of course he was in a pretty unique position to have experienced 'both ways' and while he is on the whole happy with his penis these days he does complain about the fact that masturbation doesn't feel as good as it used to.


As for myself, uncircumcised and happy - I don't think I was even aware that it was a normal thing to do to your children in the states until I was around 15-16. It does seem like an odd practice but I guess its just a cultural difference. Of course, if I had one of those freak foreskins which are either too small or too big or dont retract when hard (now thats fucking horrible looking) I might think differently about my penis but as it stands i'm happy with what nature decided would be best for my junk.

Cleanliness is a complete non issue for 95% of the developed world, surely we all shower at least once a day?
A properly working :)lol:) uncircumcised penis should only really appear significantly different to a circumcised penis when flaccid, when hard the foreskin should either retract to make up for the additional length on its own or with a bit of assistance.


The one big downside that i've heard about however is the possibility of breaking the frenulum... i've heard stories and they scare me.
 
Oh sweet, the circumcision argument :>



Here is what I know: I have a close friend who had to get circumcised for medical reasons when he was 14, basically his foreskin was too tight and couldn't be fully retracted.

So he got the snip. First thing he noticed was the loss of sensitivity, the head of his penis rubbing against his underwear all day was initially very painful but soon became tolerable and eventually he started not to notice it. That can only say one thing, circumcision significantly lowers sensitivity.
Now of course he was in a pretty unique position to have experienced 'both ways' and while he is on the whole happy with his penis these days he does complain about the fact that masturbation doesn't feel as good as it used to.


As for myself, uncircumcised and happy - I don't think I was even aware that it was a normal thing to do to your children in the states until I was around 15-16. It does seem like an odd practice but I guess its just a cultural difference. Of course, if I had one of those freak foreskins which are either too small or too big or dont retract when hard (now thats fucking horrible looking) I might think differently about my penis but as it stands i'm happy with what nature decided would be best for my junk.

Cleanliness is a complete non issue for 95% of the developed world, surely we all shower at least once a day?
A properly working :)lol:) uncircumcised penis should only really appear significantly different to a circumcised penis when flaccid, when hard the foreskin should either retract to make up for the additional length on its own or with a bit of assistance.


The one big downside that i've heard about however is the possibility of breaking the frenulum... i've heard stories and they scare me.


I bet he gets laid more often now. :fly:
 
I bet he gets laid more often now. :fly:

Have you ever been in the mood, made your moves, he made his, you are in bed together, you are both naked, then you see his small bit of extra skin and jump up running and screaming away?
 
Have you ever been in the mood, made your moves, he made his, you are in bed together, you are both naked, then you see his small bit of extra skin and jump up running and screaming away?

I've never seen extra skin before. hmpf.