Moderator: Community Team























Robinette wrote:Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?
Depends on what metric you use...
The coolest is squishyg






























































































































tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.



Symmetry wrote:tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.
I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).






































nagerous wrote:Symmetry wrote:tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.
I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).
Hell no. The older you are the more painful the procedure. If you're to get it done, at birth is the best time, I can testify to that.
If you get it done when sexually active, you'll be out of action for 3-4 months and won't be able to work for weeks either, not worth it.



Symmetry wrote:nagerous wrote:Symmetry wrote:tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.
I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).
Hell no. The older you are the more painful the procedure. If you're to get it done, at birth is the best time, I can testify to that.
If you get it done when sexually active, you'll be out of action for 3-4 months and won't be able to work for weeks either, not worth it.
Hmm- I'm pretty sure infants don't get it done. Not their decision, which was kind of my point.





















Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880












safariguy5 wrote:Symmetry wrote:nagerous wrote:Symmetry wrote:tkr4lf wrote:I've heard it cuts down on sensitivity. Basically, dudes who aren't circumsized get even more pleasure from sex...lucky bastards.
I've heard that too, but it's a subject of a lot of debate- just like most of the supposed health benefits (less chance of HIV? Then get it done when you're sexually active).
Hell no. The older you are the more painful the procedure. If you're to get it done, at birth is the best time, I can testify to that.
If you get it done when sexually active, you'll be out of action for 3-4 months and won't be able to work for weeks either, not worth it.
Hmm- I'm pretty sure infants don't get it done. Not their decision, which was kind of my point.
I got it done when I was baby. Strangely enough, I don't remember whether it hurt or not...






















saxitoxin wrote:The transient hygiene benefits of circumcision are non-starters. People wouldn't have to clean their fingernails if all infants had their fingernails pulled-out after birth.
There's a reason first world countries don't practice circumcision (US, Australia and Israel excepted).
























Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:The transient hygiene benefits of circumcision are non-starters. People wouldn't have to clean their fingernails if all infants had their fingernails pulled-out after birth.
There's a reason first world countries don't practice circumcision (US, Australia and Israel excepted).
Diseases aren't usually contracted from the skin under the fingernails.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880












saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:The transient hygiene benefits of circumcision are non-starters. People wouldn't have to clean their fingernails if all infants had their fingernails pulled-out after birth.
There's a reason first world countries don't practice circumcision (US, Australia and Israel excepted).
Diseases aren't usually contracted from the skin under the fingernails.
Diseases aren't usually contracted from the foreskin either.
Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.
Fortunately, after being eliminated from the rest of the developed world, circumcision in the U.S. and Australia have dropped to the 50% mark from the 8X% high it reached in the '70's through '90's and, by the advent of the next generation, will be a surgery performed on a statistical minority of newborns.
The cut-off in Canada is pretty dramatic. I used to hang-out in a lot of gym locker rooms all over Canada and it's remarkable to note that everyone over 30 is most usually circumcised whereas those under 30 are most usually uncircumcised (with the exception of Ontario). (Can't do those kind of observational studies anymore, though, after I got a chain-wide ban from GoodLife gyms due to member complaints.)


















saxitoxin wrote:Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.
























Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.
I didn't mention HIV. I was referring to all STDs, not just the rare ones.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880












saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Paronychia infection and other nailbed infections and deformities like Onychoatrophy are, statistically, as common as HIV infection in developed countries. They can be contagious and fatal and, unlike HIV, can't be arrested through lifestyle choices.
I didn't mention HIV. I was referring to all STDs, not just the rare ones.
I'm unaware of any recent medical literature that says circumcision arrests or mitigates the spread of STDs at a significant level. However, there is a wealth of literature that shows circumcised children are between 400%-600% more likely to get a MRSA infection, which is much more problematic. (That said, on the counter-point, we know that HPV incidence is decreased in the circumcised.)
There are very few body parts that exist for no reason at all. Surgical body modification should not be performed in the absence of an immediate medical reason. (Which, in some rare cases, like paraphimosis, can justify circumcision.) Body modification whose genesis was originally conceived not for medical reasons but for ritual purposes (as in Judaism and Islam) or ethical purposes (to stop masturbation, as in the U.S.) should be evaluated especially critically. This is as true for circumcision as any other style of body modification, including foot binding in China, Mayan head flattening, neck elongation in some African tribes, etc.
Fortunately, the fight over circumcision has been won in the developed world and this type of initiation surgery has effectively ended (or is on its way out as in the case of the US/Australia).


















saxitoxin wrote:I'm unaware of any recent medical literature that says circumcision arrests or mitigates the spread of STDs at a significant level. However, there is a wealth of literature that shows circumcised children are between 400%-600% more likely to get a MRSA infection, which is much more problematic. (That said, on the counter-point, we know that HPV incidence is decreased in the circumcised.)


































Users browsing this forum: No registered users