"Loose" v "tight" circumcision

funny way of saying it

lol

sry to say ur wrong on this
although its not stricly connected
guys who r uncircumsized have a higher chance of gettin an std because of the foreskin....(sumtin can be hidin in dere)
and yes uncircumsized guys have to clean down there because of the foreskin..schmegma can accumilate between the foreskin



im takin a sex class n i just learned this

 

I don't think that there is anything to do between the cleanliness of a cut or uncut dick. If you have a cut dick and you don't wash your penis it's still going to stink. Cleanliness comes down to the person, not the penis. I prefer natural dicks, and if I have a boy I will never have him circumcised it is a barbaric outdated practice and cutted only makes these stupid posts time after time to justify his feelings of being less of a man by having people agree with him. Regardless of what he says he's not a sex therapist he's a pathetic man looking for reassurance.

 

For circumcised men:

1. Is your cut "loose", "regular" or "tight"? between regular and tight it seems =S

3. Do you have your frenulum? yes

4. Would you rather be uncut? I'd like to have had a chance to try it =P If the benefits I've read are all true, yes.

 

Cutted has a problem with his dick. Stop bleeding here man. Your fine. It's not you fault they did that to you. Stop focusing on it so much.

 

Sorry, your knowledge of this subject seems to be about the same as your knowledge of the English language.
Any man who keeps himself clean down there is equal insofar as what might be 'hiding' there. I suppose if there were two guys who never shower/bathe and one was cut, he may be a little better-off.
That said, it's a silly stretch to justify cutting off and mutilating a piece of a person's genitalia without their consent.

 

Bingo....

 

Thats funny, I put 1 search into google about circumcision and what i found was definitely not nothing, it does seem to reduce the risk of quite a few things, Im just going to paste a few facts i found out about it.

Circumcision reduces by up to 5 times the risk of
the man’s female partner being infected by chlamydia
or getting cervical cancer

Uncircumcised men have 1½ – 2 times the risk of
prostate cancer, which affects 1 in 6 men.

Over 20-fold decrease in risk of invasive penile cancer and
eliminates the risk of phimosis, which affects 1 in 10 older
boys and men. This condition refers to a tight foreskin that
cannot be pulled back fully, so making cleaning under it,
and passing urine, difficult. Phimosis also greatly increases
the risk of penile cancer, and is the cause of foreskin and
catheter problems in nursing homes

Reduces by 3-fold the risk of inflammation and infection
of the skin of the penis

If not circumcised soon after birth, up to 10% will later
require one anyway for medical reasons

Yeah theres more but i figure there is enough here to warrant that its not as suggested a " idiotic bit of cruelty used to torture and disfigure the babies of aggressively ignorant people".

 

It certainly is! All those statistics are identical in one respect: they do not differentiate between hygenic practices in the test groups. Thus, I am lumped with a group of street dwellers who can't be clean even if they wanted to and who are delighted for the meal or money they receive for participation in the survey. Don't be so gulible, zday, m'boy! Your ancestors didn't circumcise, and there you are - healthy as a Derby winner on St Patric's Day. Cheers.

 

Yes the hygiene part may infact be true but the thing is only one of those things I stated would have anything to do with hygiene so thats a moot point. As for the part of your ancestors didnt circumcise and your healthly is just a cop out, my ancestors got along just fine without penicillin but im sure they could have used it at some point in their lives, now im not comparing penicillin to circumcison but what im saying is that its proven to reduce chances for having serious/minor health problems.
I just think its abit silly to tell people that circumcison has no benefits and to go one step further and say that they are idiotic and aggressively ignorant people when clearly this is not the case, on a final note please do not call me gullible when I present facts that I have double and triple checked to make sure that to the best of my knowledge I am speaking the truth, I only wished to try and provide another side to his aggressive stance on circumcison.

 

I doubt very much that such data came from a bona fide unbiased medical site, rather than from some pro-circumcision site determined to spread half baked 'facts' with no scientific basis to back them up.

 

i agree
i dnt wanna mutilate my baby (if i ever have one)
if he wnts to get circumsized wen he gets older it will be his choice:cheers2:

i know wat i learned in class
im not stupid
ur post will be disregarded completely

thnx for the facts.....:grouphug:

 

There are a lot of men out there pissed off that their parents allowed them to be mutilated. I find it rather interesting how they react.

We have all observed people faced with certain death jump from burning buildings. What goes on in their heads at such times?

On this issue it doesn't matter to them when you point out that it is indefensible to justify cutting off normal healthy tissue from a person who can not consent.

 

It saddens me to witness the emotional pain these men struggle with. There is tone of desperation to their words. "Look at me, everybody should look like me! Really I am okay with it." Stop coming here and doing this to yourself. I really can't see how it's helping your situation, or helping you deal with it.

Let me offer this; it's not your fault in anyway that they did that to you. You don't have to justify yourself by trying to influencing others. You're fine.