U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2008, 02:36 PM
 
3,413 posts, read 6,308,339 times
Reputation: 1409

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
This is not college lady, I'm not going to cite my finding for you. Google and 10 seconds of research and you will find these findings, 100% accurate!

The HIV statement in my original post is not a myth. Do you know why women are 30 times more likely to catch HIV from a single exposure then a man is? Because their vagina is a giant mucus membrane. Mucus membranes in this area of the reproduction system are lined with what we call receptor white blood cells. So when a man ejaculates inside the vagina and these protector receptor cells find HIV in there, they go, "oh boy, we better do something about this." As with all infective viruses, the white blood cells grab the foreign virus and carry it back to the lymph nodes where it can be gobbled up. This is great for the flu or cold virus, but with HIV, it turns out to be a big mistake. Got it so far? Now the HIV is inside the lymph nodes and quickly reproduces and attaches itself to cells inside the lymph nodes. This is how women become so easily infected from straight, female to male sex.

How does this relate to male circumcision? When a male is not circumcised his penis has essentially (*although a much smaller area) the same mucus membrane area, under the folds. These too, just like the female vagina are lined with white, defensive receptor cells ready to combat foreign virus. Man has sex with an infected female and the same scenario listed above happens. When he is circumcised, that mucus membrane area is gone and so are the chances for infection. The only way a male who is circumcised can ecome infected is through the urethra or cut on the penis.

There is your fact! It is no myth, decades of scientific study will back it.

To your other dispute, you need to read my post again. You are agreeing with me without even being aware of it. A circumcised penis is MUCH more sensitive, thus you are more likely to suffer from premature-ejaculation., lack of control. Something most sexually active women very much dislike in their men.
...and why were they circumcising babies before we ever heard of HIV...I forget...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2008, 02:51 PM
 
Location: NoVa
2,037 posts, read 2,773,741 times
Reputation: 2780
Quote:
Originally Posted by laysayfair View Post
...and why were they circumcising babies before we ever heard of HIV...I forget...?
EXACTLY!!
I think this is also a culture thing because I noticed that other than Muslim and Jewish men, the US is probably the only western country that embraced male circ. The rest of the world, like someone mentioned above, men are doing fine (health-wise or sexually) with their foreskin intact. Personally, a bad lay is a bad lay, with or without your foreskin intact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:00 PM
 
2,484 posts, read 7,893,113 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
This is not college lady, I'm not going to cite my finding for you. Google and 10 seconds of research and you will find these findings, 100% accurate!

The HIV statement in my original post is not a myth. Do you know why women are 30 times more likely to catch HIV from a single exposure then a man is? Because their vagina is a giant mucus membrane. Mucus membranes in this area of the reproduction system are lined with what we call receptor white blood cells. So when a man ejaculates inside the vagina and these protector receptor cells find HIV in there, they go, "oh boy, we better do something about this." As with all infective viruses, the white blood cells grab the foreign virus and carry it back to the lymph nodes where it can be gobbled up. This is great for the flu or cold virus, but with HIV, it turns out to be a big mistake. Got it so far? Now the HIV is inside the lymph nodes and quickly reproduces and attaches itself to cells inside the lymph nodes. This is how women become so easily infected from straight, female to male sex.

How does this relate to male circumcision? When a male is not circumcised his penis has essentially (*although a much smaller area) the same mucus membrane area, under the folds. These too, just like the female vagina are lined with white, defensive receptor cells ready to combat foreign virus. Man has sex with an infected female and the same scenario listed above happens. When he is circumcised, that mucus membrane area is gone and so are the chances for infection. The only way a male who is circumcised can ecome infected is through the urethra or cut on the penis.

There is your fact! It is no myth, decades of scientific study will back it.

To your other dispute, you need to read my post again. You are agreeing with me without even being aware of it. A circumcised penis is MUCH more sensitive, thus you are more likely to suffer from premature-ejaculation., lack of control. Something most sexually active women very much dislike in their men.
The reason I question your sources is because I already HAVE done the research and all the "sources" that I see that agree with you are, quite frankly, all bogus and biased. So I wanted to see where you were getting information that was so convincing.

And once again, by your logic, we are circumcising boys because we want them to avoid HIV? How about instilling values into our boys to avoid being promiscuous? That logic is flawed from the root. Decades of scientific research also backed smoking...in fact, Marlboro was the cigarettte promoted by doctors! (in the 50's).

NEW scientific research by the NIH as well as the WHO indicate circumcision is both unnecessary and potentially traumatic to male infants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:01 PM
 
1,570 posts, read 1,598,513 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
This is not college lady, I'm not going to cite my finding for you. Google and 10 seconds of research and you will find these findings, 100% accurate!

The HIV statement in my original post is not a myth. Do you know why women are 30 times more likely to catch HIV from a single exposure then a man is? Because their vagina is a giant mucus membrane. Mucus membranes in this area of the reproduction system are lined with what we call receptor white blood cells. So when a man ejaculates inside the vagina and these protector receptor cells find HIV in there, they go, "oh boy, we better do something about this." As with all infective viruses, the white blood cells grab the foreign virus and carry it back to the lymph nodes where it can be gobbled up. This is great for the flu or cold virus, but with HIV, it turns out to be a big mistake. Got it so far? Now the HIV is inside the lymph nodes and quickly reproduces and attaches itself to cells inside the lymph nodes. This is how women become so easily infected from straight, female to male sex.

How does this relate to male circumcision? When a male is not circumcised his penis has essentially (*although a much smaller area) the same mucus membrane area, under the folds. These too, just like the female vagina are lined with white, defensive receptor cells ready to combat foreign virus. Man has sex with an infected female and the same scenario listed above happens. When he is circumcised, that mucus membrane area is gone and so are the chances for infection. The only way a male who is circumcised can ecome infected is through the urethra or cut on the penis.

There is your fact! It is no myth, decades of scientific study will back it.

To your other dispute, you need to read my post again. You are agreeing with me without even being aware of it. A circumcised penis is MUCH more sensitive, thus you are more likely to suffer from premature-ejaculation., lack of control. Something most sexually active women very much dislike in their men.
If you are that concerned about HIV than wear a latex condom. they are nearly 100% protective if you use them right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:03 PM
 
1,570 posts, read 1,598,513 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
This is not college lady, I'm not going to cite my finding for you. Google and 10 seconds of research and you will find these findings, 100% accurate!

The HIV statement in my original post is not a myth. Do you know why women are 30 times more likely to catch HIV from a single exposure then a man is? Because their vagina is a giant mucus membrane. Mucus membranes in this area of the reproduction system are lined with what we call receptor white blood cells. So when a man ejaculates inside the vagina and these protector receptor cells find HIV in there, they go, "oh boy, we better do something about this." As with all infective viruses, the white blood cells grab the foreign virus and carry it back to the lymph nodes where it can be gobbled up. This is great for the flu or cold virus, but with HIV, it turns out to be a big mistake. Got it so far? Now the HIV is inside the lymph nodes and quickly reproduces and attaches itself to cells inside the lymph nodes. This is how women become so easily infected from straight, female to male sex.

How does this relate to male circumcision? When a male is not circumcised his penis has essentially (*although a much smaller area) the same mucus membrane area, under the folds. These too, just like the female vagina are lined with white, defensive receptor cells ready to combat foreign virus. Man has sex with an infected female and the same scenario listed above happens. When he is circumcised, that mucus membrane area is gone and so are the chances for infection. The only way a male who is circumcised can ecome infected is through the urethra or cut on the penis.

There is your fact! It is no myth, decades of scientific study will back it.

To your other dispute, you need to read my post again. You are agreeing with me without even being aware of it. A circumcised penis is MUCH more sensitive, thus you are more likely to suffer from premature-ejaculation., lack of control. Something most sexually active women very much dislike in their men.
Than wear a condom!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:09 PM
 
655 posts, read 695,997 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60-minutes-II View Post
If you are that concerned about HIV than wear a latex condom. they are nearly 100% protective if you use them right.
Good grief the ignorance is abliss. How does your statement have ANYTHING to do with my post? did I ever mention I AM CONCERNED ABOUT HIV? Showing the risk in great detail and you come back with this response?

I've had sex with the same woman for over 20 years. I am not concerned about HIV personally. However, most youth, your young sons, are not using condoms and women are the fastest group of newly infected by a rate of almost 2-1 worldwide.

Last edited by travelmate38; 06-23-2008 at 03:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:11 PM
 
655 posts, read 695,997 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmerkyGrl View Post
The reason I question your sources is because I already HAVE done the research and all the "sources" that I see that agree with you are, quite frankly, all bogus and biased. So I wanted to see where you were getting information that was so convincing.

And once again, by your logic, we are circumcising boys because we want them to avoid HIV? How about instilling values into our boys to avoid being promiscuous? That logic is flawed from the root. Decades of scientific research also backed smoking...in fact, Marlboro was the cigarettte promoted by doctors! (in the 50's).

NEW scientific research by the NIH as well as the WHO indicate circumcision is both unnecessary and potentially traumatic to male infants.
No offense intended, but I broke it down scientifically in as easy to understand fashion as I could. An intact penis is clearly more risk for HIV, then one circumcised. This is not even remotely a debatable issue. Really it is not. If you did not read my post slowly and word for word, then I guess this matter is a closed topic. And for the record, I could careless who gets sliced and who does not. I was only attempting to show the strong points to the opposing side.

I suupose you will next dispute that women are at a higher risk in hetrosexual intercourse, then the male is?

Stats you can lookup yourself. All are based on the assumption the risk includes an infected partner.

Chances per incident that a circumcised male will become infected during intercourse with an infected female. 1-3100
Chances that a non circumcised male will become infected during intercourse with an infected female. 1-1600
Chances that a female will become infected during intercourse with an infected male.....................................1-380
Chances that a male will become infected during penile anal intercourse (man on top) with infected partner.......1-300
Chances that a male wiill become infected during anal intercourse, (man on bottom) with infected partner 1-90 (highest risk)
Chances that sharing a dirty needle will result in infection......................................... ................................1-250
Chances that an insertive partner, (person being performed on) during oral sex ............................................1-1,000,000
Oral sex giver, with ejaculation in mouth............................................. .................................................. ..1-4000

You get the idea. Look these stats up and see for yourself.

Nuff said!

AND YES, YOUNG PEOPLE, USE A CONDOM!

Last edited by travelmate38; 06-23-2008 at 03:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:12 PM
 
2,484 posts, read 7,893,113 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
Good grief the ignorance is abliss. How does your statement have ANYTHING to do with my post? did I ever mention I AM CONCERNED ABOUT HIV? Showing the risk in great detail and you come back with this response?

I've had sex with the same woman for over 20 years. I am not concerned about HIV personally. However, most youth, your young sons, are not using condoms.
You, my friend, are the one missing the point. The point here is that circumcision for our male infants simply for the purpose of avoiding HIV is the long, tedious, unnecessary solution to an easy problem. Therefore, circumcision should not be done. That was your original argument, wasn't it?

Quote:
You are 75% more likely to catch HIV with a foreskin intact penis. This is because their are gland /mucos membranes, receptors and receptor cells inside the foreskin. I know, I know, your baby will never engage in risky behavior, but.........you never know. You know what they say about being married to the preacher. See the decade long African study done on the subject. The infection rate among African males circumcised, versus those who were not was less then half.

You can and will catch yeast type infections in that area, that you will never catch being circumcised. If the woman you are intimate with has a little yeast overgrowth, you will have it too. If you;re circumcised, it is never a problem.

You are far less likely to suffer from pre-mature ejaculation being circumcised. This is because the foreskin causes much great stimulation to the sensative area of the penis during intercourse. Remember it was designed to get a job done, making babies. Foreskin actually makes you C*M much faster!

And in surveys, 88% of women found a circumcised penis more attractive then one not. Guys, you're more likely to get oral sex with a circucised penis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:14 PM
 
2,484 posts, read 7,893,113 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
No offense intended, but I broke it down scientifically in as easy to understand fashion as I could. An intact penis is clearly more risk for HIV, then one circumcised. This is not even remotely a debatable issue. Really it is not. If you did not read my post slowly and word for word, then I guess this matter is a closed topic. And for the record, I could careless who gets sliced and who does not. I was only attempting to show the strong points to the opposing side.
While it is a true an intact penis is clearly at more risk for HIV, that is not a REASON why circumcision should be done. By your logic:

Having teeth is clearly more risk for cavities
Having a colon is clearly more risk for colon cancer
Being alive is clearly more risk for getting HIV and cancer....

...therefore we should just all kill ourselves? No. No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:33 PM
 
655 posts, read 695,997 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmerkyGrl View Post
While it is a true an intact penis is clearly at more risk for HIV, that is not a REASON why circumcision should be done. By your logic:

Having teeth is clearly more risk for cavities
Having a colon is clearly more risk for colon cancer
Being alive is clearly more risk for getting HIV and cancer....

...therefore we should just all kill ourselves? No. No.
You're actually making my laugh now. I like your end response. Sincerely I do, why? Because it is true! Life does pose a risk that you might die. I'm not really sure why I even responded to this topic in the first place. I worked with severely disturbed youth for years. Many had addiction problems and STDs, including HIV. I had to do lessons on infection and how they happen and do not happen. This is why I felt compelled to respond. Big mistake, I now see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top