Circumsized or not?

I, too, am glad you chose to take this path. After all, if, when he's old enough to decide for himself, he chooses to be circumcised, then he can do so, but choosing to be UN-circumcised would be an entirely different matter. After all, you can't un-cook a cake.

 

Exactly
Ultimately, despite how I feel about circumcision personally(I'm against it), I really felt it was not my decision to make

 

you just can't argue with logic.

 

Uncut - no complaints

 

Headline: "U.S. considers endorsing circumcision to fight HIV" The New York Times has reported today that "PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS ARE CONSIDERING ROUTINE, UNIVERSAL CIRCUMCISION FOR ALL BABY BOYS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES TO REDUCE THE SPREAD OF HIV, THE VIRUS THAT CAUSES AIDS." The basis for this shift by the Centers for Disease Control is Africa's success in reducing the spread of AIDS. However, circumcision does not reduce the risk of HIV for homosexual sex, and 79% of U.S. males are already circumcised (65% of newborns in 1999). One reason the circumcision rates have fallen is the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics has not endorsed routine circumcision. However, the Academy is revising its guidelines "in favor of a more encouraging policy stating that circumcision has health benefits beyond HIV prevention, like reducing urinary tract infections for baby boys".

 

Well, according to this AP story, the verdict's not in yet on that endorsement in the US. It's still in the works and will have public input.

Circumcision doesn't protect gays from AIDS virus

August 25th, 2009 By MIKE STOBBE , AP Medical Writer

(AP) -- Circumcision, which has helped prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa, doesn't help protect gay men from the virus, according to the largest U.S. study to look at the question.

The research, presented at a conference Tuesday, is expected to influence the government's first guidance on circumcision.

Circumcision "is not considered beneficial" in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.

(Maybe it should only be recommended for straight baby boys )

UNAIDS and other international health organizations promote circumcision, the cutting away of the foreskin, as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. There hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the United States.

For one thing, nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised - a much higher proportion than most other countries. Worldwide, the male circumcision rate is estimated at about 30 percent.

Also, while HIV spreads primarily through heterosexual sex in Africa and some other parts of the world, in the United States it has mainly infected gay men. Only about 4 percent of U.S. men are gay, according to preliminary CDC estimates released at the conference this week. But they account for more than half of the new HIV infections each year.

Previous research has suggested circumcision doesn't make a difference when anal sex is involved. The latest study, by CDC researchers, looked at nearly 4,900 men who had anal sex with an HIV-infected partner and found the infection rate, about 3.5 percent, was approximately the same whether the men were circumcised or not.

Government recommendations on circumcision are still being written and may not be final until next year, following public comment. CDC doctors and many experts believe there is a good argument for recommending that baby boys and heterosexual men at a higher risk for HIV be circumcised.

The definition of "high risk" is still being discussed, said Kilmarx, chief of the epidemiology branch in the CDC's HIV division.

Circumcision is a sensitive issue laden with cultural and religious meaning, particularly when babies are involved, Kilmarx acknowledged.

"It's seen by many as more than just as medical procedure," he said. It's possible the government would just recommend better education for doctors and parents about the procedure's benefits and risks, he added.

The prospect of the government promoting circumcision of infants has already drawn fire from an advocacy group called Intact America. The organization, based in Tarrytown, N.Y., parked a motorized billboard this week outside the hotel hosting the HIV conference, displaying the message: "Tell the CDC that circumcising babies doesn't prevent HIV."

"It's removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You're mutilating a child," said Georgeanne Chapin, the group's executive director.

 

Hey I'm a part of that group! lol Intact America I mean. I am on their Action Group and I made a donation about 2 weeks ago.

 

im circumsized

 

I'm not circumcised, I like my foreskin, and I've never had complaints.....



....so far.

 

Circumcised penis is cleaner, sexier, bigger & has good stamina.
Girls squirt with circumcised partners.

 

:icon_bs:

Tosh. All cocks are clean if you wash them and keep them clean. There's nothing unclean about not being circumcised. Sexier? Maybe, but that only depends on the people involved and what they find appealing. Bigger? How does chopping off some skin make it bigger?! That's rubbush. Why would removing the foreskin improve any sort of stamina? Who told you all this crap? And girls do not squirt with cut cocks any more than they do with uncut.

I take it since you're from India circumcision is pretty common practise. I personally love circumcised cock, but not because I think it's cleaner, bigger or I'll get a better fuck out of it. To me it is incredibly sexy. But, I think redardless of being circumcised or not, all cocks are sexy. It's a shame more girls (and guys!) don't see it this way.

 

in reality, the problem is not wether the cock is circumcised or not but wether some guy here wants to tell others HIS cock is better than theirs. and some girls connecting the quality of sex purely with the cock itself. :cheers2:

 

cleanliness is all about the user, not the parts cut off
bigger? - PARTS ARE CUT OFF, wtf are you talking about
sexier? that is your preference, persoanlly I think circ scars are disgusting
stamina - that's up to the person not the penis

 

yeah i was wondering what was meant by that too

 

Me & my daughters love circumcised customers.

 

its a good thing they cut my foreskin, cause with that extra 2inches of skin, id be able to suck my own dick or at least part of it. But then Id really go crazy, cause id only be 9inces away from licking my own NUTS....:willy_nilly:

 

Guys with foreskins should unite and rejoice!
It really is the sexiest thing when the penis is semi-erect and bouncy and the foreskin can be "adjusted" back to reveal as much of the helmet as you want. And jacking off by rubbing the foreskin up and down is a lot easier than doing it with a cut dick; many guys complain of soreness or pain doing so (this isn't universal, just on an individual basis). A tight pair of shaven balls completes the picture of satisfaction for me. Cut or uncut though doesn't really matter: the person within is where your focus should be secondary to sexual/sensual pleasure.

 

Cutted, why don't you speak up, instead of quoting from the biggest Jewish newspaper in the World (which I also consider the best, but do understand their journalistic DNA!) 450,000 circumcised men died in the Great Death of the '80s & '90s in the US. Yet you insist we intact guys are a danger to society. Nonsense and downright unethical of you.

 

orison.. :smilielol5:


I seriously don't think i could be with a guy thats not circumsized..
All of that extra skin? Gross.