:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Hahahaha!!!:1orglaugh

Dumb stereotype. Unless they do not shower of course.

non smelly, reporting for duty

These cheap skates would chop themselves for a tax break and a free trip to Israel.

The men I have been with that are natural are far more sensitive because the tip isn't rubbing against material all day. Otherwise, yes, especially if you are having protected sex, from a woman's perspective, a hard penis is a hard penis.

The whole hygiene issue that is brought up it moot to me because I am never going to sleep with a guy that doesn't wash himself properly no matter how much skin he has on his body.

Quite the contrary. Uncut men have built in french ticklers, essentially. It's a completely different sensation than with cut men. That is, of course, if you are not using a barrier/condom.

Editing to add: There is no medical indication for circumcision. There is no benefit like a reduced risk of STD/STIs, reduced need to clean (you still have to clean your pecker, even if you are cut), and so forth.

Of course, because when people have a baby obviously the main thing that's on their mind is how to improve junior's sex life. :upsidedow

It's done purely for one reason only: $$$$

:thumbsup

uncut and would never give it up

It's funny how Americans think being circumcised is better for their hygiene, yet nobody has a bidet in their bathrooms.


http://thelobbyconspiracy.files.word...1970_bidet.jpg

I can only guess that you have no clue what prehistoric means.

Because we shower multiple time a day, not once a week.:1orglaugh

it is not replacement for cleaning the body. it is for cleaning your private parts after you take a crap or pee. Do you take a shower after every dump you take?

You're fucking clueless as to what this is for, aren't you?

I am not circumcised, but wish I had been at birth.

I grew up with phismosis (An extremely tight foreskin) and by the time I was old enough to realise it, I didnt want to go through the circumcision process as an adult, as the phismosis already caused hyper sensitivity which would have been unbearable after a circ.

Needless to say, I have since managed to get it normal via process of (VERY PAINFUL) stretching exercises, but it took a number of years of my adult life to become 'normal' and lose the hyper sensitivity.

Therefore I wish that I had be done at birth, when I knew nothing about it.

Prob too much information, but you DID ask :)

I have one in my condo. I could not live without it now. I don't know why they are not popular in the US. It is indispensable for good hygene.

Much more than circumcision.

What does washing your feet have to do with the price of fish?

It's for washing your nasty ass.

Well no wonder no one knows what it is then...

I mean, come on... Who ACTUALLY WASHES thier ass??? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:helpme

GFY Fucking cracks me up!

These things are actually quite popular outside of the US. Kinda like the metric system.

Wait a minute. You mean it's not a drinking fountain???

Fat people sweat a lot and NEED to shower multiple times a day

Nope, and proud of it

I'm fucking with yah :thumbsup

I'm actually from the UK and have travelled extensively in Europe, more often than not, staying in higher end accommodation.

But you're right though. During my 8 Years in the US I didn't see a single bidet...

Hahaha! :1orglaugh

Not true. After circumcision your sensitivity fades away in couple weeks, most of the time while your penis is still in bandages etc etc. And during those first couple weeks you'll sometimes touch it and you say "ouch". Dental caries treatment is worse in terms of pain.

I use one, saves money on paper ;)

There are some very real and verified health benefits to getting circumcised.

Lack of circumcision:

? Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.

? Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

? One in ~400?900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).

? Higher risk of prostate cancer (50?100% higher in uncircumcised men)

? Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10?50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

? Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.

? Increases by 2?4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.

? Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

? In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called ?Gardnerella?), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).
Getting circumcised will result in:

? Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

? Improved hygiene.

? Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.

? Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.

? Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.

? Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.

? More favorable hygiene for the man?s sexual partner.

? Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.

? More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.

http://www.circinfo.net/images/wiswe...sprevented.jpg

I have yet to see a poll where women who had been with both circumcised and uncircumcised, preferred uncircumcision. All the results I've seen lie between 70-85% of women who had been with both, prefer a circumcised penis.

But True for me...

I'm talking about years ago - I'm nearly 44 now. Back in my late teens the internet (For Information) and also possibly medical tequniques were not the same as they are now.

Possibly a mental block at my end as well... But to say 'Not True' is extremely dismissive to people like me, who wished they had been cut at birth. :2 cents:

Use your left hand... Same paper saving...

Woah. Talk about defensive. I thought circumcision reduced sensitivity. :1orglaugh Reality is, as stated above, it happens for one reason only: $$$$$

How do you know if thats not true if you were not cut? You just ASSUME it would be unbearable pain while actually its nothing. Yes its painful if you touch your uncovered penis head now, but its not a big deal after you get it cut. And I know that first hand because I did it when I was adult for the same reason as you wanted to do that. Its nothing painful, and its no problem to do that in your 44. Many people do. If you ever travel east to mainland Europe I could hook you up with great doctor, procedure is simple and cost about 250Eur in private clinic.

OK, we are at cross purposes. I no longer have the problem, as I did stretching exercises, over a 3 and a half year period.

What I was trying to say though, that it was an inconvenience for me, that would NEVER had been an issue, had I been done at birth...

I agree that its "inconvenience", but its not as big as you sound it to be (there is no unbearable pain etc). If I had to do it again that would be like "ok, no problem, just couple visits to the doctor and no sex for few weeks". What I am trying to say that circumization is was easier than 3 years of stretching and stuff. I mean if someone is reading who wanted to do it and was afraid I would say - there is nothing to be afraid of, its not painful or "very sensitive" or anything like that.

not true

I have an acquaintance who decided to get circumsized about 12 years ago. He still has a sensitivity problem after all that time. At the beginning it was more pronounced and it lasted several years where after erections or ejaculating he couldn't touch where the cut was. Most of the time it was a problem even after having a simple erection.

Strange. I had some pain issues during first 3 days after the operation, but nothing major. I even had some erections and bleeding but it was tolerable. And I had no problems after few weeks, literally none pain or sensitivity issues. It was just as natural born penis, just better looking (and of course not so sensitive on the head). And I have to add that I am pretty sensitive to pain in general, so its not like my body tolerates more than usual or something like that. Now I read something and I have to say that your friend's case is the exception and definitely not the rule.

Uncircumcised people are generally happy with the way things are.

Circumcised people are generally happy with the way things are.

All that matters is that people want to touch your dick and if they do, you're golden.

fixed :winkwink: