Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
As a circumcized man I gotta say if the point was to weaken my member or diminish my sexual desire, thank god for that. If it were stronger I'd be in trouble. Or you know, everyone else would be in trouble.
It certainly doesn't diminish desire. It just makes satiating that desire completely much more difficult. Which of course is why porn consumption is so much higher in America than the rest of Western civilization.
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the people cannot be trusted to take necessary precautions, so society (in most cases a parent or parents) has the right to amputate half of an individual's penis without consent? Talk about fucking tyranny!
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the people cannot be trusted to take necessary precautions, so society (in most cases a parent or parents) has the right to amputate half of an individual's penis without consent? Talk about fucking tyranny!
Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything against their will? It wasn't I. You must be operating from Neverland.
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
OK then I agree with you that it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted diseases, but I think a five minute course in grade school on sexual education and how to keep a penis clean would be just as effective and since infants are not at risk for getting or giving sexually transmitted diseases because they do not have sex the cdc's recommendation for circumcising infants is absurd. even their rational that there is a lower incidence of infection and complications in incontinent infants than in adult male circumcisions only shows that men need to be educated about genital hygiene at least as well as mothers are and failure to do so is hardly justification for subjecting infants to the procedure who have had no previous experience with pain and can only feel profoundly hurt and violated.
If insurance companies are jacking up premiums based on whether a person is circumcised or not it is just another way they have found to rip people off.
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the people cannot be trusted to take necessary precautions, so society (in most cases a parent or parents) has the right to amputate half of an individual's penis without consent? Talk about fucking tyranny!
Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything against their will? It wasn't I. You must be operating from Neverland.
How is it that every time someone squeezes your head a foul and smelly pus oozes out?
What would one call that?
Dick cheese?
Good. You finally got my point. Actually, I was in my twenties before I had myself circumcised. I remember well those nights of heavy petting with some female that led me to secrete seminal fluids and have it stay on me for hours until I got her home and then got home myself. It was quite messy. It would also sometimes burn my skin. It was really bad back when I was 13-18 and even holding a girl close and kissing her would result in a hard-on with seminal fluids and heavy cheezing. I stayed a mess back then.
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the people cannot be trusted to take necessary precautions, so society (in most cases a parent or parents) has the right to amputate half of an individual's penis without consent? Talk about fucking tyranny!
Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything against their will? It wasn't I. You must be operating from Neverland.
Good. You finally got my point. Actually, I was in my twenties before I had myself circumcised. I remember well those nights of heavy petting with some female that led me to secrete seminal fluids and have it stay on me for hours until I got her home and then got home myself. It was quite messy. It would also sometimes burn my skin. It was really bad back when I was 13-18 and even holding a girl close and kissing her would result in a hard-on with seminal fluids and heavy cheezing. I stayed a mess back then.
well I'm glad you had the opportunity as an adult to address the problems experienced growing up by circumcising the foreskin of your penis but I still think your suffering during those years would have been reduced if not completely eliminated had you been exposed to some basic education about genital hygiene. You probably would have learned that many teenaged boys with circumcised penises secrete seminal fluids and get hard-ons too when teenage girls are intimately involved.
I guess when you accused me of being ashamed of being uncircumcised and spoke of a 'friend" who was embarrassed to be naked around circumcised boys it was a projection of your experiences.
all that info about heavy cheezing was a bit much to take with my morning cup of coffee, but thanks for sharing.
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the people cannot be trusted to take necessary precautions, so society (in most cases a parent or parents) has the right to amputate half of an individual's penis without consent? Talk about fucking tyranny!
Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything against their will? It wasn't I. You must be operating from Neverland.
Well, you did seem to be advocating infant circumcision, and without having had to deal with any of THOSE problems in your own life at that.
Hate to tell you this but my husband is circumcised and it has neither weakened or diminished anything. On the other hand his BFF, a Navy Vet who had a girl in every port was uncircumcised, had recurring infections and at the tender age of 22 had the foreskin of his little sailor snipped to solve the problem. Trust me when I say it's better to have this done as a baby."Judaism, however, is not entirely free of its heritage of repressive sexuality as is evident in Moses Maimonides' The Guide of the Perplexed; and the Code of Jewish Law (Chapter 150: Laws of Chastity; Chapter 151: the Sin of Discharging Semen in Vain). A brief quote from Maimonides is illustrative:
Similarly one of the intentions of the Law is purity and sanctification; I mean by this renouncing and avoiding sexual intercourse and causing it to be as infrequent as possible, as I shall make clear (III:8);
and
Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quite a state as possible.... The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision (III:49)."
Rabbi Nathan A. Barack and James W. Prescott Ph.D. Letter Exchange
Mine too.A large circumsized cock is much more aesthetically pleasing than a large uncircumcised cock, in my honest opinion.
Hate to tell you this but my husband is circumcised and it has neither weakened or diminished anything. On the other hand his BFF, a Navy Vet who had a girl in every port was uncircumcised, had recurring infections and at the tender age of 22 had the foreskin of his little sailor snipped to solve the problem. Trust me when I say it's better to have this done as a baby."Judaism, however, is not entirely free of its heritage of repressive sexuality as is evident in Moses Maimonides' The Guide of the Perplexed; and the Code of Jewish Law (Chapter 150: Laws of Chastity; Chapter 151: the Sin of Discharging Semen in Vain). A brief quote from Maimonides is illustrative:
Similarly one of the intentions of the Law is purity and sanctification; I mean by this renouncing and avoiding sexual intercourse and causing it to be as infrequent as possible, as I shall make clear (III:8);
and
Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quite a state as possible.... The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision (III:49)."
Rabbi Nathan A. Barack and James W. Prescott Ph.D. Letter Exchange
Hate to tell you this but my husband is circumcised and it has neither weakened or diminished anything. On the other hand his BFF, a Navy Vet who had a girl in every port was uncircumcised, had recurring infections and at the tender age of 22 had the foreskin of his little sailor snipped to solve the problem. Trust me when I say it's better to have this done as a baby.
Being off a few inches on a baby would up near the belly button or down on the legs . Being off a few inches on a grown man would get you down to the balls. What you are taking about isn't circumcision but mutilation .Hate to tell you this but my husband is circumcised and it has neither weakened or diminished anything. On the other hand his BFF, a Navy Vet who had a girl in every port was uncircumcised, had recurring infections and at the tender age of 22 had the foreskin of his little sailor snipped to solve the problem. Trust me when I say it's better to have this done as a baby.
Unless of course the practitioners are off by a few inches on their guesstimate of how much skin they need to leave, and then the erect penis will have to slowly, uncomfortably--over the course of several years--borrow coarse hairy skin from the scrotum and pubic region to cover the bottom third of the shaft, until finally a full erection is possible. Then it can only be seen as despicable savagery.
I am amazed at your seemingly ignorance and lack of basic common sense. Yes, circumcised males secrete seminal fluids. Duhhh . . . Ever wear any under shorts? You must not. Under shorts usually take care of any secretions from a circumcised penis. You really are something. Do you have any experience at all? You don't sound like you do.
I do realize I speak way above your pay grade here and what I say sounds like rocket science to you but the secretions stemming from sexual arousal leaking from an uncircumcised penis gets trapped within the foreskin while the secretions from a circumcised penis is usually wiped away by under clothing. I know this is so very hard for you to comprehend.
Being off a few inches on a baby would up near the belly button or down on the legs . Being off a few inches on a grown man would get you down to the balls. What you are taking about isn't circumcision but mutilation .Hate to tell you this but my husband is circumcised and it has neither weakened or diminished anything. On the other hand his BFF, a Navy Vet who had a girl in every port was uncircumcised, had recurring infections and at the tender age of 22 had the foreskin of his little sailor snipped to solve the problem. Trust me when I say it's better to have this done as a baby.
Unless of course the practitioners are off by a few inches on their guesstimate of how much skin they need to leave, and then the erect penis will have to slowly, uncomfortably--over the course of several years--borrow coarse hairy skin from the scrotum and pubic region to cover the bottom third of the shaft, until finally a full erection is possible. Then it can only be seen as despicable savagery.
I am amazed at your seemingly ignorance and lack of basic common sense. Yes, circumcised males secrete seminal fluids. Duhhh . . . Ever wear any under shorts? You must not. Under shorts usually take care of any secretions from a circumcised penis. You really are something. Do you have any experience at all? You don't sound like you do.
I do realize I speak way above your pay grade here and what I say sounds like rocket science to you but the secretions stemming from sexual arousal leaking from an uncircumcised penis gets trapped within the foreskin while the secretions from a circumcised penis is usually wiped away by under clothing. I know this is so very hard for you to comprehend.
LOL... no I don't wear underwear and the purpose of underwear is not to trap secretions leaking from the penis. That would be the purpose of a diaper. If I did have a leaky penis I would go to my doctor or a urologist.
Maybe if you weren't such a dirtbag you might have cleaned any seminal fluids 'trapped' under your foreskin before it became a burning rash. You ever hear of washing up after sex? Do you shower every other week?
Don't you clean up after taking a dump? If you weren't very thorough you would end up with a burning rash on your ass too. Do you wear underwear to catch leaky ass secretions or are you planning to have your ass circumcised?
The only think I find hard to comprehend is why you can't seem to grasp that your problem was never a problem of being uncircumcised, it was always a problem of the mind of the person who thinks that underwear is some sort of funky fix for being a slob.
Hate to tell you this but my husband is circumcised and it has neither weakened or diminished anything. On the other hand his BFF, a Navy Vet who had a girl in every port was uncircumcised, had recurring infections and at the tender age of 22 had the foreskin of his little sailor snipped to solve the problem. Trust me when I say it's better to have this done as a baby."Judaism, however, is not entirely free of its heritage of repressive sexuality as is evident in Moses Maimonides' The Guide of the Perplexed; and the Code of Jewish Law (Chapter 150: Laws of Chastity; Chapter 151: the Sin of Discharging Semen in Vain). A brief quote from Maimonides is illustrative:
Similarly one of the intentions of the Law is purity and sanctification; I mean by this renouncing and avoiding sexual intercourse and causing it to be as infrequent as possible, as I shall make clear (III:8);
and
Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quite a state as possible.... The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision (III:49)."
Rabbi Nathan A. Barack and James W. Prescott Ph.D. Letter Exchange
