Premier Rock Forum

AlBStern wrote:
and not driving would be the simple answer to how to avoid being killed in a car accident. Seeing as how that might not always be practical, it's probably a good idea to wear a seatbelt. The fact that it won't save you 100% of the time shouldn't be the point.

When is it impractical to either wear a condom, or to refrain from having sex?

Adam CR wrote:

AlBStern wrote:
and not driving would be the simple answer to how to avoid being killed in a car accident. Seeing as how that might not always be practical, it's probably a good idea to wear a seatbelt. The fact that it won't save you 100% of the time shouldn't be the point.

When is it impractical to either wear a condom, or to refrain from having sex?

People aren't always thinking clearly when it comes to sex. Drugs, Alcohol, horniness, whatever.

Besides, condoms aren't 100% effective either. People use them because it decreases their chances of catching stds, getting pregnant etc.

What AlBStern means is that the Jew Bible says to cut around your penis to show everyone you are a Jew, and look what happens with the plagues and everything if you anger the G_d of the Jew Bible.

Nowadays, we so rarely show each other our penises that I'm not sure it matters. You could just say, "don't worry, I'm a jew." Or show them the Bulls tickets.

Personally, I am "against" circumcision as an unnecessary ritual involving penis mutilation, but when the Mohel actually bites-off the foreskin during the Bris, it crosses-over into the culinary arts, and the Jew cookbook is even better than the Jew bible.

And also when I see uncut penises (say in European grumble pictures from the 1970s), I'm glad mine is circumcised. In case I ever become a porn actor.

"Actor." Like they're acting. I love that. "Inside the Grumble Actor's Studio," now that would be a terriffic show.

Critical difference: Mark Hamill "acted" as though he was in a spaceship travelling through space. Peter North was just straight-up fucking. Peter North, though no smarter than Mark Hamill and even Canadian, was better in his movies because his job required no acting.

Peter North: Circumcised.
Mark Hamill: Nobody knows.

I guess we have to go with circumcising.

Earwicker wrote:

Adam CR wrote:

Also the ladies seem to prefer it.

That's a myth perpetuated by males who are seemingly unaware that the erect male member is pretty much identical whether snipped or not.

I'm sure there are some girls who don't care either way but those few I have 'known' have all said they prefer it because it is cleaner.
Sure they may be just saying it (though why they'd lie I don't know) but fella who started this thread said he had the unfortunate experience of a woman telling him she wasn't keen on his 'hood' so it's not just a myth.

It's just more... pretty or something like that. I think. I don't know, it's just a personal point of view. It seems to be softer, the shape more uniform... Ok I stop, I makes me feel horny.

I don't think we're getting to the point here.

A/B Stern when your parents got you snipped, I doubt it was for health reasons. more likely tradition. Traditionally, tradition is rarely questioned. What will you do if you father a son? Will you question that tradition?

when i have a son, i won't chop nothin off. he can do it himself if it helps him get laid.

i will say this:

I could find no compelling argument to do it to my 2 sons. So they are natural. I see no reason why superstiion should be a basis for a irreversable medically unneccesary procedure.

I do have to teach them to clean out the damn thing once in a while, though.

AlBStern wrote:
People aren't always thinking clearly when it comes to sex. Drugs, Alcohol, horniness, whatever.

Besides, condoms aren't 100% effective either. People use them because it decreases their chances of catching stds, getting pregnant etc.

Either people are serious about HIV or not. You can't in all seriousness argue on one hand that HIV is such a serious threat that you should have the tip of your cock surgically removed, and on the other suggest that unprotected sex with a person who might be HIV+ realistically unavoidable.

Well you can, but it would be silly.

the$inmusicisallmine wrote: I see no reason why superstiion should be a basis for a irreversable medically unneccesary procedure.

Adam CR wrote: Either people are serious about HIV or not. You can't in all seriousness argue on one hand that HIV is such a serious threat that you should have the tip of your cock surgically removed, and on the other suggest that unprotected sex with a person who might be HIV+ realistically unavoidable.

Well you can, but it would be silly.

I'm arguing that, based on the above linked article (from which I've posted a quote below), it would seem that those that have been circumsized have a lower chance of contracting HIV.

They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided.

Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.

So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners.

AlBStern wrote:I'm arguing that, based on the above linked article (from which I've posted a quote below), it would seem that those that have been circumcised have a lower chance of contracting HIV.

Assuming that it is true that snipping prevents HIV transmission (something which seems far from being universally accepted judging by my swift dredge around some online science journals):

1 The US should show a far lower transmission rate than Europe. Does it?

2 Unless molested, a male will typically first engage in intercourse in their teens when they can make a decision themselves. Why is it then desirable to snip in infancy?

Dindon Shazwan wrote:It's just more... pretty or something like that. I think. I don't know, it's just a personal point of view. It seems to be softer, the shape more uniform

Perhaps, but would you find the idea of operating on a female infant's genitalia so as to render it more aesthetically pleasing to her future lovers an acceptable notion?