![]() ![]() men who get cut for aesthetic reasons or because their wife/gf wants them to. phimosis are not part of a 'normal' sample group and never experienced the typical sensations of a normally functioning foreskin).i.e. Obviously there will be some variance, but one can still observe a meaningful difference between the 2 groups.ģ) Adult men who have been cut for NON MEDICAL reasons (this is important, because men who have medical issues with their foreskin e.g. If you sleep with a bunch of guys, and use similar technique, let's say how you suck dick, especially how you suck on the head, and you do it with 10 guys, 5 uncut and 5 cut, and you notice a differential in their reaction and sensitivity to the same technique/pressure/style etc, you get real world evidence of the greater sensitivity that the foreskin provides. since some of you anti-foreskin freaks appear to be a bit "limited" in comprehension, I'll try and reak it down for you. The people saying uncut has more sensation are:ġ) scientists who understand the concept of nerve endings in the foreskin and frenulum as well as the physics of copulation and what foreskin provides in terms of friction and lubrication andĢ) people (cut or uncut) who have slept with both cut and uncut men and have experienced the difference in partners' reactions. It's the CUT guys claiming they're "not missing anything" which simple logic will tell you, is impossible for them to know unless they were cut post-being sexually active. It's not the uncut guys saying there's less sensation for cut. How is it the uncut guys are so sure that there’s less sensations for cut guys? How can that even be compared by one person. Prevention of HIV is condoms and education-not circumcision. continued to skyrocket despite most men being cut here. who contracted HIV and died in the 1980s were circumcised-so not having a foreskin did not save them. The results were that being uncircumcised had no effect on contracting HIV for either partner. with male-to-male sex between intact men concerning HIV. As a follow-up, more controlled studies were done in the U.S. The studies were not about HIV-negative women with intact men, which of course would not have any affect. In addition and most importantly, the African studies were about HIV-positive WOMEN ONLY and their uncircumcised partners-but again, there were many factors and involved whether or not the men used condoms and then the studies were stopped prematurely so a proper result became difficult at best and impossible in many cases. Education and wearing condoms have also increased in Africa, which is why HIV had decreased in Africa in the years since. The studies in Africa were deeply flawed and concerned those also wearing condoms, health education versus those who lacked these things, etc. ![]() It's his body-it's his right to keep his foreskin. Advocating that males remain intact will not harm your community, children in your local school system or society as a whole. Leaving your son intact will cause nothing except more enjoyable sex for him and his partner. Being against vaccines is public health issue that could cause an epidemic or spread disease. ![]() There is no need for routine circumcision for either medical, cosmetic or religious reasons.īeing against circumcision is not comparable in the slightest to being against vaccines. This can be compared to operations as tonsils, appendix or even breasts, which are not routine operations simply because a person might need to have his tonsils removed later in life (another procedure which rightfully has fallen out of favor). If there is a medical reason to do it when the boy is under-aged, which is relatively rare, that decision can be made by the parents (and the boy if he's able), but a decision such as this can be made individually-not done as a routine procedure on newborns. But by the time the male is an adult, he would realize that his foreskin is an integral part of his penis and overwhelmingly wouldn't agree to have it cut off. If a male wants it done as an adult, that is up to him. There is no medical reason to do it on a newborn. No one has the right to cut off perfectly healthy tissue without the owner's consent. Leaving a male intact is about his own genital integrity. What's the big fucking deal about being circumcised? These anti-circ nuts are as looney as anti-vaxxers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |