HOME CIRCUMCISION GOES WRONG

Fudzy said:
I assume you lost your at your Bar Mitzvah?
Click to expand...

Nope, still have my au naturelle John Thomas in all it's natural native glory.
I'm not Jewish either by the way.
(BTW, your comment displays epic ignorance of Jewish culture and customs ... but that's not very surprising now is it?) :D
Jewish males are not circumcised at their Bar Mitzvah's they have it done eight days after birth.... see and even I knew that... Dutchman that I am.
 
Garyvdh said:
Nope, still have my au naturelle John Thomas in all it's natural native glory.
I'm not Jewish either by the way.
(BTW, your comment displays epic ignorance of Jewish culture and customs ... but that's not very surprising now is it?) :D
Jewish males are not circumcised at their Bar Mitzvah's they have it done eight days after birth.... see and even I knew that... Dutchman that I am.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm sure you mentioned in another thread that you were Jewish.

Thanks for enlightening me as to the customs, I see now that it is performed at the Brit milah.
 
Fudzy said:
There are health benefits to being circumcised aren't there?
Click to expand...
pull back the skin when having a bath or shower & wash there. Do that at least once a day.

& make sure you shake it properly after urinating.

Having no foreskin could make it easier to clean. Just remember to wash it properly.

No benifits for having it removed.
 
Fudzy said:
Seems like it reduces the chances of HIV transmission. That's good enough reason to have done.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
Click to expand...

No.

If you have sex with an HIV+ person, you're going to get HIV, regardless of whether you are cut or uncut. Those kind of things mislead people horrinbly, you get people who think they won't get HIV because they are cut..
 
Rosaudio said:
No.

If you have sex with an HIV+ person, you're going to get HIV, regardless of whether you are cut or uncut. Those kind of things mislead people horrinbly, you get people who think they won't get HIV because they are cut..
Click to expand...

Well I hadn't really thought about it before but doing a bit of Googling seems to indicate that circumsised chaps stand a lot less chance of being infected.

http://aids.about.com/od/hivprevention/a/circumcision.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2009/niaid-25.htm
 
Garyvdh said:
Reducing the risk from 90% down to 60% is still not a very good rationale! :eek:

Would you still play Russian Roulette with me if I took half the bullets out of the chambers?
Click to expand...

Well mistakes do happen, I'd rather stand a 60% chance of getting HIV than a 90%.

Just a disclaimer at this point. I'm neither circumcised nor sleeping around (happily married) so I'm not personally concerned with this info.
 
Fudzy said:
Well mistakes do happen, I'd rather stand a 60% chance of getting HIV than a 90%.

Just a disclaimer at this point. I'm neither circumcised nor sleeping around (happily married) so I'm not personally concerned with this info.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself though, is circumcision an effective way of preventing the transmission of AIDS during sex?

Yes accidents happen but it's better to make sure they dont :p
 
Rosaudio said:
Ask yourself though, is circumcision an effective way of preventing the transmission of AIDS during sex?
Click to expand...

From woman to man it plays a role I think, the other way round, don't think so.

It would be incredibly stupid to think that circumcision is a method of safe sex (certainly won't stop babies). Think that's probably why all the reports say it 'reduces the chances' not 'eliminates the chances'.
 
Fudzy said:
Seems like it reduces the chances of HIV transmission. That's good enough reason to have done.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
Click to expand...

No not at all.

There is a chance that it reduces that chance to contract HIV...

So basically a guy has to

1. Have sex with someone who has HIV (if you knowingly do this then yea... we don't need you.)
2. Does not wear a condom, or (the person deserves to get HIV)
3. The condom breaks (low, low chance)

And remember, two guys can have sex with the same person. One of these men is circumcised while the other is not. The person they both have sex with has HIV. There is a chance that the uncircumcised man does not contract HIV while the circumcised one does.

You should also note that it is not uncommon for circumcised men to suffer from blistering or chaffing of the glans. This is as a result of "dry masturbating" or friction against clothing, etc. Which can be completely avoided by avoiding circumcision.
 
Fudzy said:
Seems like it reduces the chances of HIV transmission. That's good enough reason to have done.
Click to expand...

Really? That is a good enough reason to not consult the individual that is having the irreversible procedure done?!?

Is the child going to be having sex before he is old enough to make his own decision on this? (hint: if the answer to this question is "no" then it is not a good enough reason to have it done because once again you could just wait for the child to be old enough to make his own choice with absolutely no negative impact on the child)
 
Fudzy said:
Well mistakes do happen, I'd rather stand a 60% chance of getting HIV than a 90%.
Click to expand...

Mistakes 'happen'? How do you mistakenly put your P in a woman's V? Accidentally trip and fall while she is lying down and you both happen to be naked?
 
Tick said:
Mistakes 'happen'? How do you mistakenly put your P in a woman's V? Accidentally trip and fall while she is lying down and you both happen to be naked?
Click to expand...

No I'm referring to broken condoms or not use of condoms at all.
 
Keeper said:
he was?


anyway, mutilating your child's genitals is sick, when can we move past this barbaric religious beliefs already?
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Unless the skin is too tight as a baby....there simply is no reason to do this. This is simply child mutilation in my eyes....I dont care if your holy book says you must do it. You are cutting a piece of your baby's body off for no good reason.
 
Fudzy said:
Well mistakes do happen, I'd rather stand a 60% chance of getting HIV than a 90%.
Click to expand...

The actual study was a 1.9% difference over 18 months (because the infection rates were so low over 18 months, 1.2% vs 3.1% sounds better for their agenda expressed as 60%). And the studies' conclusions are not borne out by real-world figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X