.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
LevelHead
-
Posts
882 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LevelHead
-
-
Democrat MP's chased out of Chiang Mai
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/01/04...cs_30092361.php
PROTESTERS CROSS SWORDS
Thaksin backers see red as Democrat MP Somkiat visits northern province
By THE NATION ON SUNDAY
Published on January 4, 2009
Pro and anti-Thaksin supporters nearly clashed yesterday in Lampang after Democrat MP and PAD co-leader Somkiat Pongpaiboon paid a visit to the province to meet his supporters.
About 150 police were quickly deployed at a local shopping mall in Lampang where the meeting took place with both sides engaging in heated verbal exchanges and finger-pointing. Many local shopkeepers closed their shops.
Somkiat was forced to delay going to the meeting place at Seri shopping mall in Lampang due to safety concerns after nearly 100 red-shirts marched there after learning through two local community radios that Somkiat was coming to town.
The red-shirt crowd managed to break through the barricade but was prevented by the police from physically clashing with the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) supporters.
The red-shirts shouted: "Take back your Democrat Party and return us Thaksin!" They also used their foot-clappers to show their dissatisfaction with Somkiat, the PAD and the ruling Democrat Party.
Somkiat later told the press that it was his first visit to Lampang and the objective was to meet and exchange views with PAD supporters. He also planned to visit PAD supporters in Tak province's Mae Sot district. The Democrat MP cum PAD co-leader soon left driving a white car with no licence plate.
Meanwhile in Chiang Mai a group of red-shirts calling itself "Lovers of Chiang Mai 2008" declared a new era of anti-Democrat government protests. More than 100 of its members surrounded the Royal Lanna Hotel, where a senior Democrat was staying.
A small convoy, led by a truck mounted with loud speakers followed by some tuk-tuks and other small four-wheel taxis, went to the downtown hotel. The group was led by Kanyarat Maneejak.
Labour Minister Paitoon Kaewthong, who is also a senior Democrat and a member of the party's advisory council, was staying there to help a Democrat candidate, Kayan Vipromchai, to run in the upcoming snap election in Lampang.
Some 20 police officers were mobilised and barricades were set up in front of the hotel. The pro-Thaksin red-shirt group later learnt that Paitoon had checked out earlier so they eventually left without any incident.
The group leaders later told the locals that a new era of anti-government protests had begun. They said any Democrat Party member and PAD members will be chased away from Chiang Mai if they ever show up. Their announcement was also broadcast by a local community radio, FM 92.5.
-
Having blue eyes also reduces the risk of HIV transmission. Most of the HIV positive people in the world have brown eyes. It's a simple fact. Beware of simple facts and be highly suspect of studies and statistics.
Yes I agree, far too many studies like these. It's at times like these that I wished I'm had kept the links:it was discredited.
I think any attempt to portay "blue eyes" as protection would be discredited
LOLIt may be representative of target groups, but not obviously in any way to do with transmission rates of infected to as yet not infected.
-
Not according to Time magazine quoting a JAMA article from October 2008.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...feed-cnn-topics
sbk, the trouble with the newer reports is that have been statistically "altered".
If they keep the trials and results and percentages to "men who have vaginal sex with women", you would see a very high and significant reduction.
As they want to keep the push on condom use they have added in now, male to male sex, male to female anal sex, and all sorts of others and now quote in some reports the percentages low, however they do not quote the "subject group" with the low rate.
EG they do not say which target group, they group them all together and rather dilute the pure "male to female vaginal" figures.
I would prefer these reports to stick to pure target groups and therefore allow the true picture to be seen :
EG
male to women vaginal sex reduction of ??%
male to women with anal sex thrown in reduction of ??%
male to male anal sex ??%
If it were reported like this the true "preventative" nature of it in pure male to woman vaginal sex only would shine through.
-
Chinese indoor fireworks causing fire ?
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article247...injures-88.html
Sound similar, a few months ago, killing 43 in a nightclub in Shenzen.
-
I think your approach is causing some of the responses! You continually make assumptions about the other posters and their reasons for posting. Is this just to annoy people and keep your 'battering ram' methodology moving? Are you aware of the potential damage you could inflict? Try telling a male who is struggling to come to terms with using a condom he has less chance of catching AIDS because he is circumcised. Condom free sex here we come!!! It is fine to deliver scientific evidence. The evidence does not always take into account the delivery and reaction to the general public.
The battering ram can be effective is getting all points of a discussion out in the open very quickly.
To be honest, the results of the tests have been far more compelling that is let on. However, you must consider :
a/Condoms make money, you sell loads of them, its a near perfect sales item. Money from this goes into research, and so, in terms of HIV, more condom use is better.
b/Condoms stop unwanted pregnancies, circumcision does not - so its better to promote condom use, and of course see item a/
c/Condoms stop STD's, circumcision does not - so its better to promote condom use, and of course see item a/
d/ Condom use will prevent "morphing" of diseases, resulting if far less "new strains" - so its better to promote condom use, and of course see item a/
So although the results are "compelling" it is just not in anyones interest to promote this too much, and its why the CDC/WHO/UN will always prefer promoting condom use (even though they are "flawed" and not offer 100% protection).
The point of the matter is though, people are not being made aware of this, do you have any suggestions as to why this is so ?
Apart from the reasons I post in post 2 as to why, do you have any other suggestons as to why this is informaiton is not being spread in places, lets say, like Thailand.
-
It isn't medically proven at all. Some studies in Africa have supported the theory (it remains just that) but there's not nearly enough evidence to call it medically proven.
Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Is There Really Enough of the Right Kind of Evidence?
Well I go with 3 organisations :
CDC
WHO
UN
As opposed to some older write up by some doctor somewhere who might be writing his "thoughts" as part of the reasins in post 2. All of these reports are latest info.........not 2006 like the one quoted above.
CDC :
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
WHO :
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
UN :
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_...ndations_en.pdf
-
Some interesting, very emotional responses to a purely scientific issue. I guess some people's attachment to their "hoodies" is very intense.
The thread is serving its purpose and that is to highlight the "resistance" to circumcision IN SPITE OF all the medical evidence to support its protection against HIV transmission into males from normal vaginal sex.
It is very clear to see that most "uncut" men are very very defensive of their postion and hate the fact that its been medically proven "cut" men are much less likely to catch HIV through normal penis to vagina sex, as the HIV receptors in the foreskin have been cut off.
In the most this can be put down to probably the "scare factor" that they do not want to be seen as a "higher risk" group and therefore become "less wanted".
This is quite easy to understand, however people should have free access to the information, and make their own minds up about their children. All "new to be" potential parents in Thailand should be told of this, and they can make a decision to not do it, or do it.
Ask most Thai's about this and they are completely in the dark about the FACT that it is a very effective part of the prevention of the spread of HIV from woman to man through vaginal sex.
-
My dear, if you spent as much time as I did in San Francisco in the 1980's and 90's I'd think you'd be less confident in your circumcision theories. I buried many a circumcized friend, a victim of the AIDS epidemic. I highly suspect that when babies born today are of sexual age that AIDS will not be among the top killers. Now malaria and cholera, I'm afraid they will be around for awhile.
Again you are off on the wrong route.
Nobody is claiming any effectiveness of this for "gay sex" or "anal sex between man and woman".
The effective area of this is the reduction, by a large amount, of reducing the transfer to a male through normal vaginal sex.
This is the topic, as clearly laid out in the posts.
-
I was de-hooded in 1958. I just think that telling poor Africans and Asians that if they cut off their foreskin or perform clitorectomies they won't get AIDS is a very poor idea based on very shoddy science.
DO NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS
MALE CIRCUMCISION.
Do not bring female circumcision into this, this is very wrong, and does nothing.
And who are you to go against the WHO and UN and say its "shoddy science". - LOL
-
There will always be those of the Judeo-Christo-Islam persuasion who feel that some sort of genital mutilation in the service of the Lord will somehow prevent HIV transmission. Just use common sense!
Sorry, its medically proven and accepted by the WHO and UN.
Should we therefore say, "there will always be those uncut who after knowing that being cut can reduce the chance of getting HIV will try their very best to debunk it, even in the face of overwhelming medical evidence due to the reasons in post 2 on this thread".
LOL
-
I suppose at the end of the day the question should be put to a particular group.
Find the uncircumcised men who proclaim to have had "just that one time with a prositute and yes I do not wear a condom", or the uncircumcised men who "had sex with a girl just that one time with no condomc" and say to them :
"Well chaps, you now have HIV and are going to die from it. Did you know that if you were circumcised you likely now would not have it, a very good chance you would never have caught it, and so you would be HIV free and not going to die.
What are you views now on circumcision ?"
I wonder what they would say ?????
-
Using circumcision as a (flawed) prevention can actually be more risk filled than always using condoms as the male will act with a flawed sense of security that just isn't there.
Well, it could be construed from your comment here by inserting "flawed" that you think it is useless. Condoms are also "flawed" and yet you promote them without a care in the world of mentioning "flawed".
Anyway, we now have even you "admitting" that circumcision can greatly reduce the chances of infection for a man having normal vaginal sex with a women.
Thats good to have that "extracted" from you.
-
GARBAGE.
Transmitted by blood.
Wake TF up.
Sad to see a response like this.
When the WHO (thats the World Health Orgainisation) and the UN (thats the United Nations) agree's with the medical findings that circumcision greatly reduces the chances of male infection from normal vaginal sex - you get some Internet hero who thinks they know better and that the world medical community is wrong.
LOL - see post 2 - the three reasons why this news is NOT SPREAD around the world in the way IT SHOULD BE.
-
Look at the dates.
2007 and 2008.
WHO and UN "approve" of it. There are more and more compelling reports to back it up. Why did the WHO approve of it ? Why does the UN agree with it ?
The issue is per post 2...........misinformation being spread due to 3 reasons...............Religion, Misinformation, Peer Pressure.
-
Its all misinformation.
Many tourists have paid for flights and hotels in advance, and so with this all being pre-paid they are coming as planned.
The real drop off in tourists should be seen from end January onwards, where people who would normally be booking end of year have not made their bookings and going elsewhere.
As everyone is aware, the Christmas and New Year period is busy and must be "pre-booked" therefore you would expect tourist numbers to be the same now as last year given its all "upfront and booked months in advance".
The 20% down figure (likely means 40% to 50%) means some have cancelled. The problem going forward will be the lack of bookings before and after this present "peak time".
One only has to look around the two airports.........you can SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES that Tourism is down massively.
-
Since you cannot and will not use honest arguments nor sources in a debate I find it very boring to counter your obious flawed points.
You claim that babies cannot have reduced masturbation experience since they have never done it before they underwent the procedure. Apart from that you fail to realise that not every religion cut it at birth and therefor we HAVE comparision data from before and after even in kids, your argument is like inane.
It's like I would proclaim that we should cut off all penises at the root. When you claim it isn't fair since it would reduce your sexual experience I proclaim that you cannot use that as an argument as children will have no frame of reference and therefor we should do it.
You can only counter other peoples points with calling them 'lies', even when medical science supports them. I call it sad.
And here, my dear friend, you have posted a LIE. You claim that 'circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman' [sic]. No, it doesn't. There are medical studies that circumcision can reduce the chance, but far from eliminating it.
"The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV."
They clearly always state that the procedure IS NOT an act of prevention and should ALWAYS be used in combination with other methods. Preferrrably those that are safer to begin with, as condoms are.
Using circumcision as a (flawed) prevention can actually be more risk filled than always using condoms as the male will act with a flawed sense of security that just isn't there.
One question...what is your position on usage of condoms?
And my opposition with circumcision is those cases it is forced upon a child. It's an abuse on their rights. You, being a proponent of the religion as you are, are ofcourse not concearned about peoples rights being trampled on.
Firstly - I did not say "eliminate", I said as is correct, "virtually eliminates" which means, if you understand English, that it eliminates to a high degree although not entirely.
Secondly - condoms should be used by all - however - this is often not the case due to "male ego" - "female request" - "alcohol" - "not having them handy at the time" - many other reasons.
You are wrong as you attempt to deny that circumcision is a good protection against HIV, you attempts to portray it in any bad light possible, by the use of incorrect data, debunkable studies etc.. is pathetic.
The WHO has approved it as has the UN as an "effective means to reduce HIV spreading".
So if the World Health Organistaion and the UN KNOW ITS PROVEN - why do you try to fight it ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm (WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan)
Are you worried women will no longer want men who are not cut ???????? LOL
Thailand should embark on a campaign for circumcision and education of women about it, its the only way to give some protection to the women from men who refuse to use condoms.
-
PROOF :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/12227
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top...1690372,00.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/133875.php
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=44354
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm
-
It is clinically proven to nearly prevent male infection from normal vaginal sex with females.
FACT.
PROVEN.
-
As far as I am aware, the reasons this is not "broadcast from the rooftops" around the world are :
1/ Religious. Although all Jews and Muslims are invariably circumcised, Christianity never called for it, and so over the years it has been made into a religious tool, which is quite stupid as it started in fact over 4000 years ago by the ancient Egyptions and predates all religions.
2/ Misinformation, a lot of people spout misinformation about reduced sexual feelings, performance etc... this is all debunkable.
3/ Peer pressure. Too many uncircumcised men out there will fight this new evidence to the death, simply as they are uncut and do not want to be classed into a "high risk category". If all working girls became aware that an uncut man was far more likely to have HIV than a circumcised man, then the chances are they would all prefer to be with circumcised men, and things like "no condom for oral sex" would become a thing of the past for any man not circumcised.
There are more.
Anyway, its a proven fact now that with the removal of the foreskin and therefore the HIV receptors which form part of it, the risk of catching HIV is massively reduced........so why in Thailand is there minimal awareness of this ? and no action plan to get it introduced ?
Discuss.
-
Given the extreme lack of awareness that circumcision greatly reduces the potential of male HIV infection, and thefore by reducing male infection reducing the infection rates of females, why oh why is circumcision not become more popular in Thailand ?
I quote from the BMJ, and there are massive amounts of proven clinical evidence to support this, just do a google search. :
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck
How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
Robert Szabo, medical resident a, Roger V Short, professor b.
Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Wellington Road, Melbourne 3168, Australia,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, 132 Grattan Street, Melbourne 3053, Australia
Correspondence to: R V Short
In his otherwise excellent review of the AIDS epidemic in the 21st century, Fauci presented no new strategies for preventingthe spread of the disease.1 He made no mention of male circumcision,yet there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significantprotection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two toeight times less likely to become infected with HIV.2 Furthermore,circumcision also protects against other sexually transmittedinfections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, 3 4 and sincepeople who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to fivetimes more likely to become infected with HIV,5 circumcisionmay be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of theprotective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couplesin Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the womanwas HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infectionsoccurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time.Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensiveinstruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (whichwere continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms,and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmissionof HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientificattention onto the foreskin. Why does its removal reduce a man'ssusceptibility to HIV infection? <a href="http://" target="_blank"></a>
Summary points
The majority of men who are HIV positive have been infected through the penis
There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men
The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man
Male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in all countries with a high prevalence of infection
The development of HIV receptor blockers, which could be applied to the penis or vagina before intercourse, might provide a new form of HIV prevention
.
-
Circumcised men are theoretically more likely to get infected with the HIV virus because the head area of the penis which is usally covered by the foreskin is not covered by normal skin and is easily teared or cut. Having said this I would not go as far to say that in reality a circumcised male is more likely to become infected than a un-circumcised man.
However for example if you made a tiny tear in the same place on two men, one was circumcised and the other not than I would say it would be slightly more likely for the circumcised man to become infected if both men were to have sex with the same women who is HIV positive at different times of the same day but the same day. This is due to the openess of the wound. However HIV can just as easily travel through the urethra.
Sorry but that is nonsense.
Have you had an erection ? On an erect penis the foreskin goes back and the head (organ) sticks out and looks remarkably just like a circumcised one.
It is medically proven that the the foreskin is "AN HIV RECEPTOR". meaninng it attracts and takes in HIV virus if it is exposed to it. No need for cuts or anything, its like a magnet.
I quote from the BMJ report :
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck
Summary points
The majority of men who are HIV positive have been infected through the penis
There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men
The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man
Male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in all countries with a high prevalence of infection
The development of HIV receptor blockers, which could be applied to the penis or vagina before intercourse, might provide a new form of HIV prevention
.
-
No, I used the Catholic Encyclopedia as its old, and therefore not subject to the latest corruptions of politics and religion, although yes itself has been subjected to the corruptions of prior religious zealots.
No, you are a liar, based on the fact there is no evidence, and can be no evidence to conclude that circumcision of a baby is detrimental effects in any way their ability to enjoy masturbation or sex. Quite simply their can be no evidence as there is no possible comparison.
You are suggesting that for an adult, who is used to using their foreskin for masturbation, then to have it removed will feel strange and lower their pleasure. This is not an argument or proof of anything apart from those used to masturbating with their foreskin as part of the process, will have to get used to a whole new way of doing it without it.
HOWEVER, this is a change of ways of doing it, as opposed to the pleasure acheived from it.
Similar, if a woman only has sex in the missionary position, and is later forced to do it in a different position and does not like it, then she could be surveyed as "study proof" that some women find missionary the best. It means nothing and you are simply another one of these people who takes misinformation and uses it to misinfom. THere are lots of studies that show smoking is good for you in some way, do you beleive these and project smoking is good full stop ?
There is no medical or clinical or survery proof that circumcision of a baby has any effect on their ability to masturbate or enjoy sex later in life. That is FACT. That is NOT DISPUTABLE. Lets not confuse the issue with adults who have pre-determined ways of doing things and then must undergo change.........babies.
A high percentage of the worlds population are all circumcised (all Muslims and Jews and many non-Muslim and non-Jew) and they all enjoy masturbation and sex, and if you want to get clinical its actually reported in the lastest surverys of 2007 and 2008 that it can "enhance sexual pleasure" !!!!!!! So if you want to quote anything now, make it 2008 studies only, as that is the latest. Nothing pre "Kreiger" please.
"In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[75] Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[87] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."[88]"
Now, getting back ON TOPIC.
It is FACT that circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman through normal vaginal sex. Thats FACT.
A condom can be forgotten, someone is too tired to go out and buy one, too drunk to remember to use one, the girl does not want one to be used and a million and one reasons why its not a good system. Circumcision will virtually elimnate the chances of the male picking up HIV from an infected girl, add on a condom on top if you want, but your basics are good.
As I said this is why we are having this discussion, too many people have had their minds brainwashed with misinformation that circumcision is bad, evil, not good etc..... and this is why, even now when its PROVEN to virtually PREVENT male infection from an infected female through normal vaginal sex, there is no great rush of people to get babies circumcised.
That I am afraid is due to the misinformaton about it, put about by Jew and Miuslim haters, who do not want to see their belief (mostly Christian) to be seen to be "incorrect" for not requesting them as parents to circumcise their child.
I didn't know that christian religions forbade circumcision. I would be willing to bet that most people in the USA are circumcised since the hospitals did it at birth with the reason being to prevent infection if not kept clean properly. My family is christian and i was circumcised at birth. I think the hospitals ask the parents what their preference is now but when i was born i think it was done automatically.
Are you sure that it prevents HIV infection or only reduces the chances ??? Have there been any studies done on the number of hetero sexual HIV transmissions or lack of transmissions in circumcised or non circumcised men ???
Christianity does not forbid it, down the wrong track there. The religious issue is that when they set up Christianity in around 200AD they did not, like the Jews and later Muslims, make it mandatory for all to be circumcised.
Not an issue, until now when they find that circumcision greatly reduces the chances of getting infected.
Studies to prove it...........many many many and its not denied.......the trouble is they do not tell people about it.
One link here :
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck
And i quote from that :
How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
Robert Szabo, medical resident a, Roger V Short, professor b.
a Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Wellington Road, Melbourne 3168, Australia, b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, 132 Grattan Street, Melbourne 3053, Australia
Correspondence to: R V Short
In his otherwise excellent review of the AIDS epidemic in the 21st century, Fauci presented no new strategies for preventingthe spread of the disease.1 He made no mention of male circumcision,yet there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significantprotection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two toeight times less likely to become infected with HIV.2 Furthermore,circumcision also protects against other sexually transmittedinfections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, 3 4 and sincepeople who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to fivetimes more likely to become infected with HIV,5 circumcisionmay be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of theprotective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couplesin Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the womanwas HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infectionsoccurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time.Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensiveinstruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (whichwere continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms,and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmissionof HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientificattention onto the foreskin. ......................
-
No, I used the Catholic Encyclopedia as its old, and therefore not subject to the latest corruptions of politics and religion, although yes itself has been subjected to the corruptions of prior religious zealots.
No, you are a liar, based on the fact there is no evidence, and can be no evidence to conclude that circumcision of a baby is detrimental effects in any way their ability to enjoy masturbation or sex. Quite simply their can be no evidence as there is no possible comparison.
You are suggesting that for an adult, who is used to using their foreskin for masturbation, then to have it removed will feel strange and lower their pleasure. This is not an argument or proof of anything apart from those used to masturbating with their foreskin as part of the process, will have to get used to a whole new way of doing it without it.
HOWEVER, this is a change of ways of doing it, as opposed to the pleasure acheived from it.
Similar, if a woman only has sex in the missionary position, and is later forced to do it in a different position and does not like it, then she could be surveyed as "study proof" that some women find missionary the best. It means nothing and you are simply another one of these people who takes misinformation and uses it to misinfom. THere are lots of studies that show smoking is good for you in some way, do you beleive these and project smoking is good full stop ?
There is no medical or clinical or survery proof that circumcision of a baby has any effect on their ability to masturbate or enjoy sex later in life. That is FACT. That is NOT DISPUTABLE. Lets not confuse the issue with adults who have pre-determined ways of doing things and then must undergo change.........babies.
A high percentage of the worlds population are all circumcised (all Muslims and Jews and many non-Muslim and non-Jew) and they all enjoy masturbation and sex, and if you want to get clinical its actually reported in the lastest surverys of 2007 and 2008 that it can "enhance sexual pleasure" !!!!!!! So if you want to quote anything now, make it 2008 studies only, as that is the latest. Nothing pre "Kreiger" please.
"In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[75] Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[87] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."[88]"
Now, getting back ON TOPIC.
It is FACT that circumcision virtually eliminates the males chances of picking up HIV from an infected woman through normal vaginal sex. Thats FACT.
A condom can be forgotten, someone is too tired to go out and buy one, too drunk to remember to use one, the girl does not want one to be used and a million and one reasons why its not a good system. Circumcision will virtually elimnate the chances of the male picking up HIV from an infected girl, add on a condom on top if you want, but your basics are good.
As I said this is why we are having this discussion, too many people have had their minds brainwashed with misinformation that circumcision is bad, evil, not good etc..... and this is why, even now when its PROVEN to virtually PREVENT male infection from an infected female through normal vaginal sex, there is no great rush of people to get babies circumcised.
That I am afraid is due to the misinformaton about it, put about by Jew and Miuslim haters, who do not want to see their belief (mostly Christian) to be seen to be "incorrect" for not requesting them as parents to circumcise their child.
-
TAWP, you have already blatently lied.
By saying quote "the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality"
That is a total and utter lie. Circumcision does not effect in any way a boys ability to masturbate and have sex.
So now you have "lied and lost" you revert to now its just a "barbarian act".
So cutting of comething that can transmit HIV to its owner, that can be the cause of disease through unproper cleaning, that can carry disease through unproper cleaning, and that when its off you have a massive reduction in any chance of picking up HIV, and it makes no difference to your sexual ability, enjoyment or whatever.........now.........given that, all you can say is its "barbarian".
LOL - stereotypical nonsense.
You called me a lier without posting any counter-proof? That is very nice.
It IS a proven fact (by admission) that circumcision reduces a boys ability to masturbate and that is a very important reason to do it. I suggest you read papers on this, or, if you are the more TV-watching 'dude', watch episode 1 of Season 3 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit (Showtime) for a nice line-up including an admission by a Rabbi on the purpose of it.
Your claim that it isn't affected IS however a lie that NO science will attest to. Heck, even in some cases (for medical reasons with a to narrow foreskin) it will be an increase in sexual ability (as this is a medical surgery performed on adults it goes outside the abuse on infants, it is consensual) - how you can claim there is NO affect what so ever is insane. Why don't you prove some stats, figures, medical papers? I can give you a start: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...508378/PDFSTART (48% reported a decrease in masturbatory please, 8% reported an increase.)
Now add to this that modern science luckely can perform this with less risk (even as such, kids dies yearly world wide from this procedure) than 3000 years ago. And you can come and claim that it didn't affect your ability to masturbate then...
Listen, if you are going to be a proponent,be it. But don't call me a lier when medical science clearly shows me to be right. There IS a change.
And no-matter what you feel, for me a non-medical procedure on an infant IS barbaric. You can do whatever you want to your kids.
Its very easy to call someone who lies a liar.
So lets start with the history of it, its cleanliness.............not to prevent masturbation or stop pleasure.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm
So now we that "cleaned up" lets get on to your other points.
Firstly, boys with a foreskin will get used to the feeling of it when masturbating, so if you remove it they will feel different. They are used to the feeling of the foreskin on the organ.
Boys who have been circumcised will get used to the feeling of rubbing the organ directly, as opposed to with the foreskin.
Hence boys/men who have it removed will obviously feel very different....................doh....is that not easy to understand.
Most of the arguments about it are from those who are uncut, who like to try to portray being cut as something bad, evil, mutilation or whatever........cause they are not. This is why there are lots of misleading articles about all sorts of nonsense, it was all to stop fun, to stop sex, etc.......... As ever, misinformation acts to misinform.
Again, this is a prime example of why, even though its proven to drastiacally reduce chances of catching HIV, its not mainstream media. I thank you TAWP, your responses show a prime example of the sterotypical nonsense that abounds in society today, based on pure misinformation.
Too many uncut who want to proclaim cutting is a barbarian act, evil etc.....detrimential to pleasure etc..
Religious undertones cause the Chrisitans do not practise it (but Jews and Muslims do).
LOL
Male Circumcision and HIV
in Health and Medicine
Posted
I find it laughable that you should link to a year 2000 article.........
When the real research into this subject began in 2005, and all 2007 and 2008 reports, sponsered and confirmed by the CDC, WHO and UN all confirm it does assist in protection against HIV transmission to male from female.
How can so many people preach is all disproven and quote old articles and no articles, when all the worlds foremost disease control specialists (the CDC, WHO and UN) all confirm that it does act as preventation in transmission to male from infected female.
If you are unable to keep up with the latest research (2007/2008) from the top specialists in the world, then what else can you say, people have other agenda's for the pushing of their medically proven (2007/2008) incorrect assertion that circumcision makes no difference.
LOL- and yes, I put a thread up in the Health section simply as its remarkable so many truly biased, and unaccepting of confirmed medical evidence from 2007/2008 people there are.
If you want to protect teenage girls, then stop the men getting infected is one route, and with all solutions, it needs a multiple route approach.
People really need to get over their bias and stigma and strange feelings towards circumcision and get it made popular in Thailand. Its medically proven that it assists in preventing the transfer of HIV from female to male in vaginal sex.......PROVEN........by 2007/08 CDC/WHO/UN reports.