How much pain will an adult feel from this gadget? Infants is one thing, an adult male has to experience a great deal of discomfort, if only for a little while.

From the pg 2: "

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:20 pm Researchers say male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection by up to 60 per cent. So far, 60,000 Kenyans ha

Hash (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:31 am ve been circumcised as part of HIV prevention.

"

Circumcision reduces the chances of AIDS? I thought AIDS was transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids? If that's true, then what difference does it make if you're circumcised or not? Sounds like the manufacturer is lying in order to sell this clamp. Wikepedia:

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

HIV is transmitted through direct contact of a mucous membrane or the bloodstream with a bodily fluid containing HIV, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid, and breast milk.

This transmission can involve anal, vaginal or oral sex, blood transfusion, contaminated hypodermic needles, exchange between mother and baby during pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeed

ing or other exposure to one of the above bodily fluids.

The virus can be retained under the foreskin and transmitted during sex - that is the rationale for circumcision - increased hygiene. The studies (funded by government money, much of it US, not corporate) bear out the findings of HIV transmission reduction. Cynicism is hardly warranted by repeated facts - it is usually just anger based upon ignorance; know your facts please. HIV is still a deadly disease and ought not be treated cavalierly.

From the pg 2: "

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:20 pm Researchers say male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection by up to 60 per cent. So far, 60,000 Kenyans ha

kristoff wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:20 pm

Hash (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:31 am ve been circumcised as part of HIV prevention.

"

Circumcision reduces the chances of AIDS? I thought AIDS was transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids? If that's true, then what difference does it make if you're circumcised or not? Sounds like the manufacturer is lying in order to sell this clamp. Wikepedia:

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

HIV is transmitted through direct contact of a mucous membrane or the bloodstream with a bodily fluid containing HIV, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid, and breast milk.

This transmission can involve anal, vaginal or oral sex, blood transfusion, contaminated hypodermic needles, exchange between mother and baby

during pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeed

ing or other exposure to one of the above bodily fluids.

If you'd ever bothered to look at one, you would know that the inner surface of a foreskin is a mucous membrane and therefore a means of transmitting HIV. Sorry if the facts turn a self-righteous rant into silliness.

Hash (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:16 pm How much pain will an adult feel from this gadget? Infants is one thing, an adult male has to experience a great deal of discomfort, if only for a little while.

I wore one for about week about 12 years ago. I did have the benefit of EMLA when the device was applied and ibuprofen to follow up. Over the course of wearing there were about a hundred little 4th-level shooting pinpricks as nerves died or separated at the crush line.

When the discussion turns to circumcision and the medical rationale for it, my hackles are raised by the zealots of the anti-circumcision Nazis. This handful of people have created a situation where scientific fact is not distributed as it will be met by massive amounts of ignorant hate from this group.

Fact, several scientific studies, at least on involving micro-electrodes attached to the penis, show that there is absolutely no difference in sensitivity between cut and uncut penises. This data has not been widely circulated because of intensive efforts to suppress it my the anti-circumcision forces.

Fact, every study done so far has indicated that the old theory that circumcision reduces transmission of HIV and venereal diseases is correct. With the epidemic of HPV being transmitted among the young people of the world, any effort to reduce the spread of this potentially life-threatening disease is essential. HPV is the most common cause of cervical cancer and has the ability to cause penile cancer for young men too. With the huge increase in this disease, the world will be faced with a large increase in premature deaths caused by these very unfortunate genital cancers.

Now a personal observation. In a very unscientific poll of my sexual partners and a couple of non-sexual female friends, I find the vast majority of them prefer cut partners. As my first wife said, "An uncircumcised dick is icky!"

I can now get off my soapbox as I have tried to allow the free exchange of information.

Speed

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Sun May 09, 2010 4:41 am Now a personal observation. In a very unscientific poll of my sexual partners and a couple of non-sexual female friends, I find the vast majority of them prefer cut partners. As my first wife said, "An uncircumcised dick is icky!"

I can now get off my soapbox as I have tried to allow the free exchange of information.

Well, that is quite a soapbox actually. No one disputes that removing the foreskin will be more sanitary and therefore could prevent some disease.

However, hacking off any part of the body for preventive reasons, especially without the consent of the person affected is pretty hard to justify. It is similar to the preventive hysterectomies -- sure the uterus has lots of potential problems, but just cutting it out is barbaric.

The reason some women don't like uncut penises is purely cultural. The same way I'm sure Egyptian men think female circumcision is preferable. You can't use a cultural opinion to prove the value of a cultural opinion.

Lastly, you have to admit that circumcision was invented by perverts. Just look at the Mohyel (not sure if I spelled it right) who actually suck the blood out of the baby's penis. Seriously, what sicko thought of that? And that is the orthodox way -- look it up.

Anyway, of course I won't argue against an adult making consensual decision to modify his own body, but there is no justification for doing it to children.

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Sun May 09, 2010 4:41 am When the discussion turns to circumcision and the medical rationale for it, my hackles are raised by the zealots of the anti-circumcision Nazis. This handful of people have created a situation where scientific fact is not distributed as it will be met by massive amounts of ignorant hate from this group.

Very strong words to characterise people who are advocating doing nothing to persons who can't give informed consent. By the time people are old enough to contract AIDS they are old enough to give medical consent; no need to circumcise children.

The Uganda and Kenya studies used to justify extensive use of circumcision are flawed in several ways, I'll mention two.

The studies were stopped early, they didn't run the planned duration. The researchers claim that the results were so good that there was no point following through any further. In any other scientific field this would completely disqualify the results. Stopping an experiment when you've got the results you wanted isn't science.

The statistics chosen to illustrate the results for popular consumption are misleading. A better illustration would be that 53 circumcisions are required to prevent one case of aids, and those 53 circumcision also fail to prevent one case. Condoms perform better.

This is all discussed at length by people who will doubtless be dismissed as anti-circumcision Nazis on this site http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html. Whatever evil motives you care to attribute to people who advocate nothing more than leaving children alone, the numbers speak for themselves.

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Sun May 09, 2010 4:41 am As my first wife said, "An uncircumcised dick is icky!"

Well, that certainly settles it for me, I take it all back.

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Sun May 09, 2010 4:41 am Fact, several scientific studies, at least on involving micro-electrodes attached to the penis, show that there is absolutely no difference in sensitivity between cut and uncut penises. This data has not been widely circulated because of intensive efforts to suppress it my the anti-circumcision forces.

Even more, super-secret findings suggest this is not a fact. Citing research that only you know about or that we can't all see to make our own judgment will not help you to establish your case. Prefacing a statement with the word 'fact' does not make that statement true. Where we are talking about performing medical procedures on non consenting individuals we need to set the bar quite high for standards of evidence.

Actual scientific studies are not being suppressed by some evil anti circumcision conspiracy.

The dishonesty of the circumcision advocates is best illustrated in two papers by Bleustein et al presented to the American Urological Association in 2003. They presented results comparing penile sensitivity between circumcised and intact men. Their methodology involved rolling back the foreskins of the latter group to exclude them from the test. They were thus not comparing like with like and perpetuating the myth that the interesting-looking engorged part of the penis is the organ of sensitivity and the rest just skin Quite the opposite is true, the foreskin is the organ of sensitivity and the other bit just a sophisticated means of guiding that organ to where the owner wishes it to go.

If you have done, thank you for reading this far.

Thank you Norcian, I could not have put it better myself. Here's a dried up glans, after 63 years of exposure.

http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=0812& ... _mar05.jpg

Thanks HairyHarry. Now for the control: where can we see a 63-year-old glans from an uncut penis?

Another potential flamewar. But I try to do my best to reply as pollite as possibe

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Sun May 09, 2010 4:41 am When the discussion turns to circumcision and the medical rationale for it, my hackles are raised by the zealots of the anti-circumcision Nazis. This handful of people have created a situation where scientific fact is not distributed as it will be met by massive amounts of ignorant hate from this group.

Fact, several scientific studies, at least on involving micro-electrodes attached to the penis, show that there is absolutely no difference in sensitivity between cut and uncut penises. This data has not been widely circulated because of intensive efforts to suppress it my the anti-circumcision forces.

First, I think that circumcision, especially child circumcision is very culture related thing.

Not only Nazis were against circumcision. We know that ancient Greek and Romans considered circumcised penis extremely ugly. Even so ugly that circumcised men didn't go to public baths. Bare glans was considered as an insult.

Second, I would like to see the fact of that scientific study that finds circumcised and uncircumcised penises are equally sensitive. To me this study sounds very much like an urban legend.

Of my personal experience, being circumcised twice as an adult, I know that sensitivities between circumcised and uncircumcised penis are very different. Even circumcision style makes a big difference in penis sensitivity.

When frenulum is gone, which I consider most sensitive spot in penis, there is no pleasurable feelings from it anymore. Numb!