si-maro wrote:I'd never heard of docking.

si-maro wrote:I'd never heard of docking. Probably cos I've never had a foreskin. It sounds.... weird.

steve wrote:the mechanism is probably that the foreskin traps booty-juice, which then has more time to transmit the virus to the diz-hole.

so full of beans wrote:smegma

robertthefamilyghost wrote:i really can't fathom being more sensitive...even with my chopped weiner, at the slightest touch i'm ready to spray all over the place...

steve wrote:
I didn't mention (but now I have an excuse to) another Science News article that said a procedurally-significant number of boys had been infected with Herpes Siplex viruses during their circumcisions. The avenue of transmission being that some orthodox religious groups have the foreskin bitten off, rather than cut off. I'm sorry, I don't remember which religion "enjoys" this practice.

Andrew L. wrote:

steve wrote:Statistically it can be shown that, all else being equal, men with uncircumcised penises have a greater risk of contracting AIDS than people like me, who have been trimmed, and are display-caliber. The mechanism is probably that the foreskin traps booty-juice, which then has more time to transmit the virus to the diz-hole.

There’s not much point in responding to this w/o knowing if these stats are limited to the American demographic, etc. I suspect this "all else being equal" determinant rides rough shod over a lot of socio-economic, age, and regional factors. In any case, it seems like a very lame thing to give even cursory credence to.

HIV transmission has nothing to do with penile dewlap.

In discordant couples with HIV-negative men, no serconversions occurred in 50 circumcised men, whereas HIV acquisition was 16.7 per 100 py in uncircumcised men (P = 0.004).

Specifically, male circumcision reduced by 30 percent the likelihood that the female partner would become infected with the virus that causes AIDS, with 299 women contracting HIV from uncircumcised partners and only 44 women becoming infected by circumcised men.

matthew wrote:Hung and hewn here.

TO BE INTACT
by Michael Holm

What does it mean to be intact?
I know I'm intact when I can retract.
How do you know if you can retract?
I know I retract when I pull mine back.

What does it mean to circumcise?
It means to cut the little guys.
Why would you cut the little guys?
The doctors cut 'cuz they think it's wise.

Some people say it prevents disease.
A little cut puts their mind at ease.
But to hear him scream would make you freeze.
I wonder if its worth it - geez.

The doctor says to get it done.
Hey kid! You're not the only one.
A circumcised dad needs a circumcised son.
Now you will be an American.

I think I can wait for one year somehow.
But I'm still unsure if I'll sign right now.
The doctor begs me to do it now.
I tell the doctor, "Don't have a cow!"

I heard that the cut destroys the tip.
The most sensitive tip is destroyed with the snip.
So I think I will wait with that dreadful snip.
I will let my son choose if he wants the clip.

To circ or not to circ, that is this the question:
Whether 'tis medically better to suffer
The smegma and adhesions of intact foreskin,
Or to take a blade against potential troubles,
And by slicing, end them.
To cut, to circ --
No more, and by a circ to say we end
The cancer and the UTIs
That prepuce is heir to; 'tis a procedure
Routinely to be perform'd
To cut, to circ --
To circ, perchance to better nature -- ay, there's the rub
For in that act of cutting what reimbursement may come,
When we have slic'd off the end of the foil,
Must give us pause; there's the suspect
That this is surgery not necessary:
For who would bear the pain and risk of the knife,
Th' snipper's error, the clamp's flesh-crushing pressure,
Squirms with Velcro, cries with 11 blade the reply,
But that the dread of something different from dad,
Or the gym class shower from whose scorn
No teen recovers, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather whittle as we always have
Than leave well enough alone?
Thus tradition does make "circers" of us all.