Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never understood why american women find foreskin ugly and gross, but at the same time they fancy european and latin guys like nothing else. Its such a contradiction.
One question for american women. Do you feel kind of mad or sad your arent into uncircumcised? It limits your dating pool, you always have to worry if men is circumcised or not. If you love the swarthy type like italians it must be even more dissapointing, because over 90% of those are uncircumcised If they arent muslims. I would go mad If blonde women have something in their pants I find gross. Thank god im born as a man.
Considering for women in the US, "tall men" (this definition varies from woman to woman, but suffice to say, men who are taller than not are at an advantage) are more desirable, then goodness forbid if a woman only wants tall, circumcised men, or only tall uncircumcised men. Hopefully such women are at least a "9", or are BBB (brains, beauty, and body), because their dating pool gets even more limited
This thread to me is getting more crazy by the second.... now its on to dating pools.. jeezus christ... doing this to babies is barbaric , and taking away something they were given to protect them..Im quite shocked to be honest, as I only thought Jewish did this, my ignorance... I dont know if this is done as a fashion thing like cosmetic surgery or what now... how could anyone want to harm or hurt a baby in this way.... and heres me against babies or kids with pierced ears... its abuse..... and doing something to a human that they didnt ask for.... or require....Is there a list of Pro s for having a baby cut.. if there is can I know..
Given the sheer volume of immigration into the US and the high birth rates of some of those groups maybe it is only 32% now, but I would venture a guess that for non-immigrant household newborn white males that a high majority are still being circumcised. In some regards it is perhaps a clash of cultures. I for one hope that any grandsons I have do get circumcised. Others are free to do it their way.
So white americans are gonna die out. Why do you hope your grandson get circumcise. Would you get insecure and feel mutilated if not. Creepy.
I doubt that. Perhaps immigrant Hispanic populations given the cultural traditions of where they come from but non mainstream white America.
Even in the most circumcision-happy region, the NE, the rate has been below 70% for thirty years. In the west it's now below 30%. Anyone using the look like everyone else argument had better get with the program and leave their son alone.
Again, why sre you so offended by a practice so often linked to religion and cultural preference that you seek to use the power of an already-too-powerful government to ban it outright??
I was born in 1949, by which time newborn circumcision in ubanized society was just about universal, yet I "missed the cut"; I endured some locker-room bullying, investigated having the procedure as a teenager, (declined because of the hospitalization, general anaesthesis, and sutures) but, thankfully, decided against it when I entered college and learned I wasn't so unusual. I view it today as a subtle shaping force fr the individualism and love of autonomy that is centrsl to my personality -- one of the wisest decisions I ever made.
Because religion and cultural 'preference' are not a licence to torture babies and forever maim their sexual function. Hitting children is outlawed in many countries. Female genital cutting is outlawed in many countries (despite being peotective against UTIs). Children born intersex are no longer operated on at birth. The trend is towards allowing a person the dignity of deciding for themselves what they want their bodies to look like and function like.
Even in the most circumcision-happy region, the NE, the rate has been below 70% for thirty years. In the west it's now below 30%. Anyone using the look like everyone else argument had better get with the program and leave their son alone.
Whats funny is that Mario Lopez who is uncircumcised didnt want to circumcisze is son. His wife was for circumcision and everyone saidMario is controlling and dont respect his wife. Nobody talked anymore about than he dont look like his father if his son get circumcision. But if it were reversed, everyone would throw the he should look like his father argument around.
...Is there a list of Pro s for having a baby cut.. if there is can I know..
If there are genuine cases of infection (real ones, and not just foreshadowing).
There was a story about a French king whom out was painful for him to have sex that a circumcision would've fixed, but that dad only known when he was an adult.
What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
That’s right: 60% is the relative reduction in infection rates, comparing two very small percentages: a bit of arithmetic that generates a big-seeming number, yet one which–without also reporting the absolute risk reduction alongside–arguably misrepresents the results of the study. The absolute decrease in HIV infection between the treatment and control groups in these experiments was just 1.31%, which is likely to have no appreciable effect at the demographic level.
In this famous study the uncircumcised men also had 6 weeks more time to sleep with women and the doctors recommended the circumcised men after the op to use condoms. This study also didnt filter condome use or sexual partners of each group.
Its easy to fool the general public, thats why Trump is so popular despite his idiocy.
what this study has done and will do in the future is that circumcised men are more likely to abandon condoms, because they think they are immune or almost immune, women who sleep with circumcised men have a higher chance to contract hiv.
In Africia the circumcised men have a higher rate of hiv than the uncircumcised men because of this myth. The study was the biggest mistake and lie ever. But humans are easy to manipulate with inflantinary numbers.
Did americans never wondered why Europe has a lower hiv rate despite legal prostitution and sexually more open society? Europe has none of the problems pro circ people try to propagate. When scientists find a cure against all stds, pro circ people try to find new reasons to justify this practice.
Use a condom or dont sleep around if you dont want hiv, circumcised or not, if you dont use a condom you will get hiv some day.
Last edited by VillaD_Rock; 08-01-2016 at 01:11 AM..
Reason: If
The Oxford University blew so many holes in this study that it locked like swiss cheese.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
