All Mormons are uncut!!! youve been warned
david edwards
obsessed I just assumed they were all cut like jews and muslims. I'm
in the UK this year where most guys are uncut & dont wash too often so
I just go with Americans when I can find them and I found this
amazingly cute Mormon who was talking all this religious shit till I
suggested he come back to my flat for a blow job. So he goes in the
bathroom and walks out naked with a hardon and horrible friggin
foreskin hanging off the end of it! He walks right up to me & pulls
it back and the stink nearly made me throw up!!! jeez its so gross.
I tried to be polite and got him outta there but he said all mormons
are uncut, they don't believe in circ. Afterward I checked it out
and it's true, they don't cut. So there's one more reason not to
waste time listening to their religion crap no matter how cute they
are.
casam...@yahoo.com
That is news to me. I thought practically all white men in the USA
are circumcised. I have lived in Tangier most of my life and we do
not get any Christian missionaries here. I have no experience of
them. (Are Mormons actually Christian? I am not sure how they are
categorized.) All Moroccan men are circumcised which apparently s a
big draw for European sex tourists. They used to be a damn nuisance
in Tangier, always leching at the local boys on the beach and in the
medina, but they mostly go to Marrakech and Agadir now. Moroccan rent
boys dislike uncircumcised penises and usually will not fellate them
which gets the Euro sex tourists very upset --- they start arguments,
refuse to pay, and so on. They should show more respect for the local
culture. If they want circumcised boys/men so much they should
encourage circumcision in their own cultures
ben
> That is news to me. I thought practically all white men in the USA
> are circumcised. I have lived in Tangier most of my life and we do
> not get any Christian missionaries here. I have no experience of
> them. (Are Mormons actually Christian? I am not sure how they are
> categorized.) All Moroccan men are circumcised which apparently s a
> big draw for European sex tourists. They used to be a damn nuisance
> in Tangier, always leching at the local boys on the beach and in the
> medina, but they mostly go to Marrakech and Agadir now. Moroccan rent
> boys dislike uncircumcised penises and usually will not fellate them
> which gets the Euro sex tourists very upset --- they start arguments,
> refuse to pay, and so on. They should show more respect for the local
> culture. If they want circumcised boys/men so much they should
> encourage circumcision in their own cultures
Also i thought all white men from america are circumcised. The
europeans are not, they come to lebanon looking for sex with their
foreskins. Muslims will not have sex with them and the druze also
will not. Except for maybe a very few? but i have not heard of
that. In lebanon most christians are circumcised especially
maronites, not so much armenians. It is needed to ask first to be
sure if it is a christian to be sure they are clean.
whyte...@yahoo.com
Quite a geography lesson here! Let me make my contribution. In South
Africa some tribes circumcise but some do not. The biggest tribe are
the Xhosa and they circumcise but the second biggest the Zulu don't.
We have a big muslim population, mostly from what's now Malaysia and
Pakistan originally, and of course they circumcise. Among the whites
the Afrikaners generally don't circumcise but the English usually
do. The govt is promoting circumcision now against AIDS which is a
huge problem in South Africa especially among the Zulu. Also there
are lot of illegal immigrants from other African countries who are not
circumcised and that makes the AIDS problem a lot worse. The Zulu
used to circumcise until crazy king Shaka forbade it but there is a
big move now to return to that tradition. The Xhosa circumcise when
they are about 18 and it's often done in dirty conditions which leads
to infections and even death sometimes. It's illegal to circumcise
like that but the govt has a long way to go make sure it's done in
hospitals in proper conditions. The aim is to have the whole
population circumcised eventually but I don't think that will be
possible, however desirable.
Jim Haynes
requirement for circumcision; but parents are free to circumcise or not
circumcise as they see fit. So it depends very much on where in the world
they live.
whyte...@yahoo.com
I saw an interesting documentary on TV last night about circumcision
in Turkey. Apparently it is done around puberty and everybody makes
a big fuss of the boy. He is given a special costume for the event
and there is a great feast of friends and relatives. After the
circumcision he is presented for the applause of the community so it
is a big achievement for him and a matter of great pride for him and
his family. He isn't really considered a man until he is
circumcised. This ritual seems to follow the idea somebody else
wrote about here, that if the boy keeps his foreskin long enough, he
will be able to compare before and after and know he is much better
off when he is circumcised. I can understand that but I still think
it's best to do it much earlier when there's less chance of
complications from surgery. Boys in the documentary didn't seem to
mind it much though!
none
>who are not
>circumcised and that makes the AIDS problem a lot worse.
Can you please elaborate how non-circ makes AIDS problem any worse?
You have exactly the same propability of getting infected either way.
Jake Waskett
Actually, the probability of HIV infection is roughly doubled among
uncircumcised males. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, the
CDC's factsheet is probably a good place to start: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
none
wrote:
Speculative and plausible at best. I've read many studies on the
subject and the only guaranteed reduction of any infectious disease
during intercourse/anal sex is by using condoms. Skin to skin contact
is all the same, it doesn't matter if the skin is
soft/hard/porous/calloused.
You should read on the methods how to prevent the spread of infectious
diseases. Simple google search will give you hours of material to go
through. In all the medical instructions that I've read, I've never
seen a requirement for male nursing staff to get circumcised so that
they can safely be in contact with people who have HIV.
Jake Waskett
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:35:21 GMT, Jake Waskett <ja...@waskett.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:48:44 -0700, none wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:06:32 -0700 (PDT), whyte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>who are not
>>>>circumcised and that makes the AIDS problem a lot worse.
>>>
>>> Can you please elaborate how non-circ makes AIDS problem any worse?
>>> You have exactly the same propability of getting infected either way.
>>
>>Actually, the probability of HIV infection is roughly doubled among
>>uncircumcised males. If you want to educate yourself on the subject,
>>the CDC's factsheet is probably a good place to start:
>>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/ resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
>
> Speculative and plausible at best. I've read many studies on the subject
> and the only guaranteed reduction of any infectious disease during
> intercourse/anal sex is by using condoms. Skin to skin contact is all
> the same, it doesn't matter if the skin is soft/hard/porous/calloused.
Condoms are more effective, when they are used, but it is a matter of
degree. Condoms are about 80-90% effective, while circumcision is about
60% effective. (The combination, of course, would be more effective.)
> You should read on the methods how to prevent the spread of infectious
> diseases. Simple google search will give you hours of material to go
> through. In all the medical instructions that I've read, I've never seen
> a requirement for male nursing staff to get circumcised so that they can
> safely be in contact with people who have HIV.
Male nursing staff do not (one would hope) have sexual intercourse with
their patients, do they?
none
wrote:
>Condoms are more effective, when they are used, but it is a matter of
>degree. Condoms are about 80-90% effective, while circumcision is about
>60% effective. (The combination, of course, would be more effective.)
I want you, and any other pro-circ'er, to go to any
European/Asian/South American countries and try to enforce a mass
circumcision to all male population and see how far will you get with
it. Just under a pretence that it will be 60% effective against AIDS.
I really do want a direct, factual report how many men can you
convince to go through this useless cosmetic operation.
I won't even suggest USA or Africa, for obvious reasons.
Jake Waskett
"Obvious" presumably meaning that you're aware that circumcision
campaigns are already in effect in Africa, and have met with considerable
success, so you wish to exclude that geographical region. Correct?
Timothy Curran
you please elaborate how non-circ makes AIDS problem any worse?
> You have exactly the same propability of getting infected either way.
You are an idiot. How can anybody be so ignorant.
none
wrote:
No, because most African countries are ruled by dictators or military
and even elected "democratic" governments there largely ignore
individual rights violations.
And I do consider any entity, government, health "official", neighbor,
family member or parent enforcing an operation to an infant a
violation of said infan'ts personal rights.
As much and on par with women's right to choose for an abortion, men
need to have an equal option and choise they can do themselves, if
they want to be circumcised.
none
I want you to do three tests, by yourself. Find an HIV infected person
and rub against the tip of his penis, unprotected, first with the back
of your hand, next with the tip of your own penis and the last with
your tongue. Each of these done one week apart, with full blood tests
before and in between and after the test. Please report me which one
got you infected first.
David Z
news:746s175eb5bfsi21a...@4ax.com...
Like I said. He's not just ignorant. He's defiantly ignorant.
Jake Waskett
> Like I said. He's not just ignorant. He's defiantly ignorant.
*sarcasm mode on*
Gosh, that's unusual.
*off*
David Z
news:mMxTp.30247$Ll1....@newsfe24.ams2...
Not sure what your point is here.
My point is this. The difference between being ignorant and defiantly
ignorant is that when someone is ignorant, they have a chance of become
enlightened. When someone is defiantly ignorant, they have already been
presented with the knowledge required to become enlightened, but they CHOOSE
not to accept it.
In other words, you're wasting your time with knowledge and logic on this
guy. His problem goes much deeper.
windinghighway
> >who are not
> >circumcised and that makes the AIDS problem a lot worse.
>
> Can you please elaborate how non-circ makes AIDS problem any worse?
> You have exactly the same propability of getting infected either way.
You claim to be familiar with the literature but seem ignorant of more
than 40 studies and three randomized controlled trials that have
proved beyond doubt that foreskins contribute to the spread of HIV.
If you are so sure of your facts and so steeped in the literature, can
you provide just ONE scientific study that backs up your definitive
statement:
> You have exactly the same probability of getting infected either way.
Dont hold your breath, folks.
windinghighway
> I want you, and any other pro-circ'er, to go to any
> European/Asian/South American countries and try to enforce a mass
> circumcision to all male population and see how far will you get with
> it. Just under a pretence that it will be 60% effective against AIDS.
The HIV rates there are not high enough yet to justify such an
approach. The WHO only recommends it for countries with very high
rates, and these are all among the uncircumcised parts of Africa. In
those countries, surveys have shown that men are favorably disposed
to circumcision and many governments are expanding circumcision
programs as means of cutting the HIV rate. If you were as familiar
with the literature as you pretend to be, you would know this.
windinghighway
> >Actually, the probability of HIV infection is roughly doubled among
> >uncircumcised males. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, the
> >CDC's factsheet is probably a good place to start:http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
> >resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
>
> Speculative and plausible at best.
Speculative? You are totally ignorant of science There have been
three RCT studies that have confirmed the evidence from over 40 other
studies in different parts of the world. You don't accept it for the
simple reason that you dont want to accept it, and you are too
intellectually dishonest to admit it.
I've read many studies on the
> subject and the only guaranteed reduction of any infectious disease
> during intercourse/anal sex is by using condoms. Skin to skin contact
> is all the same, it doesn't matter if the skin is
> soft/hard/porous/calloused.
If you had really read all these studies, which clearly you haven't,
you would know that the foreskin provides a warm, moist environment
for pathogens to thrive, and that the HIV virus can directly infect
the langerhans cells on the inside of the foreskin. So skin to skin
contact is NOT all the same.
>
> In all the medical instructions that I've read, I've never
> seen a requirement for male nursing staff to get circumcised so that
> they can safely be in contact with people who have HIV.
Sorry to bring you this news, but you really are an imbecile.
windinghighway
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 05:56:52 -0700 (PDT), Timothy Curran
>
None of these would be likely to get him infected in three weeks, or
even a year for that matter. But you dont know anything about
statistical probabilities of HIV infection, do you?
The blood tests would prove nothing even if he did get infected,
because the tests can't pick up infection within a week or attribute
it to any event spaced that closely. But you don't know anything
about HIV tests, do you?
Even if your little experiment could yield a result, it would mean
nothing because you can't draw any conclusions from a sample of one.
But you don't know anything about the scientific method, do you?
Even if your experiment could yield a result, it wouldnt tell us
anything about the relative susceptibility of foreskinned or
circumcised men, because that variable is not present in your
experiment. But you dont have a clue about the logic of experimental
research, do you?
But we dont need your experiment anyway, because we have a wealth of
data of different kinds that conclusively prove that foreskins
contribute to the spread of HIV. But you dont know anything about
that research, do you?
For somebody who claims to have read widely in the literature you are
remarkably ignorant, or ineffably stupid, or just a flat out liar.
None
As misguided and profanely wrongly used excuse to carry out
mass-surgeries in countries where people might not know any better,
due to lack of education and hygieny standards. Instead of providing
proper education about safe sex and condoms.
How do you rationalize the extreme high rate of HIV/AIDS infections in
USA and the highest rate of circumcisions, which seems to do nothing
to stop the spead of any STD's here?
None
<winding...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 2:20 am, none <n...@ya.bus> wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:35:21 GMT, Jake Waskett <j...@waskett.org>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Actually, the probability of HIV infection is roughly doubled among
>> >uncircumcised males. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, the
>> >CDC's factsheet is probably a good place to start:http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
>> >resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
>
>>
>> Speculative and plausible at best.
>
>Speculative? You are totally ignorant of science There have been
>three RCT studies that have confirmed the evidence from over 40 other
>studies in different parts of the world. You don't accept it for the
>simple reason that you dont want to accept it, and you are too
>intellectually dishonest to admit it.
Direct quote from http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/garenne-2.pdf
"No evidence of an overall protective effect of male circumcision was
found for the countries studied"
All the studies I've yet to see have no concrete proof, all are
speculations due the complexity of populations. And we really do not
have to go any further than the good old USA to find a long term
running test. Circumcisions here have done nothiing to stop or reduce
the spread of any STD's. We have currently the 4th largest male
population living with HIV/AIDS. And that is in a modern,
industrialized country, with the very latest medical technology and
knowledge readily available.
Care to elaborate to me again how circumcision is effective to prevent
the spread STD's?
> I've read many studies on the
>> subject and the only guaranteed reduction of any infectious disease
>> during intercourse/anal sex is by using condoms. Skin to skin contact
>> is all the same, it doesn't matter if the skin is
>> soft/hard/porous/calloused.
>
>If you had really read all these studies, which clearly you haven't,
>you would know that the foreskin provides a warm, moist environment
>for pathogens to thrive, and that the HIV virus can directly infect
>the langerhans cells on the inside of the foreskin. So skin to skin
>contact is NOT all the same.
And the best course is to cut off that offending piece of skin? A
condoms in not an option?
Never mind the child's basic human rights.. parents always know much
better what's good for their offspring.
>> In all the medical instructions that I've read, I've never
>> seen a requirement for male nursing staff to get circumcised so that
>> they can safely be in contact with people who have HIV.
>
>Sorry to bring you this news, but you really are an imbecile.
Hey, you managed to find a word with more than two cyllables!
None
An idiot with more than two braincells. Which you seem to be lacking.
None
Right.
According to the latest numbers by the Kaiser Family Foundation, USA
is #4 in the world with men living with HIV/AIDS.
http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=5
And with the highest number in the world of performed circumcisions, I
fail to see any correlation how that useless surgery has prevented any
spread of any STD's in all of the 52 states.
I dont need to quote some studies done in much poorer, 3rd world
countries. I prefer a long time study performed in the most
industrialized country, where medical care is the best in the world as
well as hygiene standards followed.
To me these factual numbers are actually pointing out that
circumcision helps the spread of HIV/AIDS. Or am I missing something?
Anyone?
None
Let me set you straight on one record. Defiantly ignorant to listen or
believe those who are misguided and blind on their old-fashioned,
outdated and herd-following menthality.
None
<winding...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jul 13, 6:18 pm, none <n...@ya.bus> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 05:56:52 -0700 (PDT), Timothy Curran
>>
>> <timcurra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 6, 3:48 pm, none <n...@ya.bus> wrote:
>>
>> >you please elaborate how non-circ makes AIDS problem any worse?
>> >> You have exactly the same propability of getting infected either way.
>>
>
>> >You are an idiot. How can anybody be so ignorant.
>
>>
>> I want you to do three tests, by yourself. Find an HIV infected person
>> and rub against the tip of his penis, unprotected, first with the back
>> of your hand, next with the tip of your own penis and the last with
>> your tongue. Each of these done one week apart, with full blood tests
>> before and in between and after the test. Please report me which one
>> got you infected first.
>
>None of these would be likely to get him infected in three weeks, or
>even a year for that matter. But you dont know anything about
>statistical probabilities of HIV infection, do you?
>
>The blood tests would prove nothing even if he did get infected,
>because the tests can't pick up infection within a week or attribute
>it to any event spaced that closely. But you don't know anything
>about HIV tests, do you?
I did post that in purpose of pissing some ignorant people off, and it
clearly worked. All sarcasm aside, I know very well that kind of
experiment wouldn't conclude anything of proof. But it was funny!
>Even if your little experiment could yield a result, it would mean
>nothing because you can't draw any conclusions from a sample of one.
>But you don't know anything about the scientific method, do you?
Actually yes, I've studied math and passed all the way to the
post-graduate level. And if you failed on such a simple calculus, a
study of one has a result rate of 100%, just so you know.
>Even if your experiment could yield a result, it wouldnt tell us
>anything about the relative susceptibility of foreskinned or
>circumcised men, because that variable is not present in your
>experiment. But you dont have a clue about the logic of experimental
>research, do you?
See the problem of experimental research is that it is experimental.
Both the study and the methods used are experimental. Therefore, the
resutls are experimental. Oh wait.. I stepped into the realm of logic
and those two are not parallel.
>But we dont need your experiment anyway, because we have a wealth of
>data of different kinds that conclusively prove that foreskins
>contribute to the spread of HIV. But you dont know anything about
>that research, do you?
Would you please enlighten me how the profusely large number of
missing foreskins in the USA has contributed to the large male
populations being infected with HIV? The last time I checked, we are
very close to leading the charts.
>For somebody who claims to have read widely in the literature you are
>remarkably ignorant, or ineffably stupid, or just a flat out liar.
Just ignorant to stupidity. Liar, never.
Jake Waskett
>>Speculative? You are totally ignorant of science There have been
>>three RCT studies that have confirmed the evidence from over 40 other
>>studies in different parts of the world. You don't accept it for the
>>simple reason that you dont want to accept it, and you are too
>>intellectually dishonest to admit it.
>
> Direct quote from http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/garenne-2.pdf
>
> "No evidence of an overall protective effect of male circumcision was
> found for the countries studied"
It's not reasonable to expect *every* study to find the correct results.
If studies were perfect, there would be no need for multiple studies, or
better-designed studies, etc. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the
majority (about 80%) of observational studies and all of the experimental
studies have found a protective effect.
> All the studies I've yet to see have no concrete proof, all are
> speculations due the complexity of populations.
Why on earth are you making such sweeping claims about studies which, by
your own admission, you haven't read?
> And we really do not
> have to go any further than the good old USA to find a long term running
> test. Circumcisions here have done nothiing to stop or reduce the spread
> of any STD's. We have currently the 4th largest male population living
> with HIV/AIDS. And that is in a modern, industrialized country, with the
> very latest medical technology and knowledge readily available.
Since I've already addressed this silliness in the "what is the best age
for circumcision" thread I won't waste further time on it.
>>If you had really read all these studies, which clearly you haven't, you
>>would know that the foreskin provides a warm, moist environment for
>>pathogens to thrive, and that the HIV virus can directly infect the
>>langerhans cells on the inside of the foreskin. So skin to skin
>>contact is NOT all the same.
>
> And the best course is to cut off that offending piece of skin? A
> condoms in not an option?
Actually, both circumcision and condoms are most effective.
>>Sorry to bring you this news, but you really are an imbecile.
>
> Hey, you managed to find a word with more than two cyllables!
Do you perchance mean "syllables"?
Jake Waskett
I don't disagree, David, but I think that "None" is fairly typical of
anti-circers.
Jake Waskett
You've really pulverising this particular dead horse, aren't you?
none
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:45:39 -0700, None wrote:
Or did I finally find an proof that you can not contradict or downplay
to make it sound like there is a slightest "chance" for an argument?
I am not holding my breath on your or wingdinghigway's misguided
causes.
Jake Waskett
>>You've really pulverising this particular dead horse, aren't you?
>
> Or did I finally find an proof that you can not contradict or downplay
> to make it sound like there is a slightest "chance" for an argument?
>
> I am not holding my breath on your or wingdinghigway's misguided causes.
I've already shown why it's invalid, in the "what is the best age for
circumcision" thread.
vegas...@hotmail.com
Personally I think the best age for circumcision is around adolescence
which is how it was usually done in most of the world in the past.
That way the boy can compare his penis before and after and knows he
is better off without all these silly arguments about what he is
missing. In countries where it still still done like this e.g. South
Pacific Islands, Turkey, Philippines, there is common consensus
that circumcision is a very good thing. Men in those countries know
what they are talking about.
Most people in the US who oppose circumcision probably have no
experience with a foreskin so they do not know what they are talking
about or what a nuisance and embarrassment it is.
Jake Waskett
television interview to millions of men?
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:54:26 -0700, M.M. wrote:
> Odd that you only mention very hot, humid countries and say how much
> those people like being cut. Have you ever asked one? Have you seen
> anyone interviewed about it? I expect you have not. I have, on
> Philippine Television. Those who had it forcably done to them were not
> that happy with it. They had just as well have been left alone.
>
> The school system REQUIRES circumcision before entering the 7th grade.
> It is NOT that they like it. It is LEGALLY REQUIRED! Hard to imagine!!
>
> Do TRY to educate yourself on a subject before opening throwing out (up)
> on the Usenet. It only makes sense (which RIC does not).
>
> A Realist
vegas...@hotmail.com
> Odd that you only mention very hot, humid countries and say how much
> those people like being cut. Have you ever asked one? Have you seen
> anyone interviewed about it? I expect you have not. I have, on
> Philippine Television. Those who had it forcably done to them were not
> that happy with it. They had just as well have been left alone.
If they dont like it, why do they keep doing it then? Maybe the
person you saw on TV was not representative. Did you ever consider
that?
>
> The school system REQUIRES circumcision before entering the 7th grade.
> It is NOT that they like it. It is LEGALLY REQUIRED! Hard to imagine!!
It's hard to imagine because it's not true. There is no legal
requirement for circumcision in the Philippines. You have your facts
wrong.
>
> Do TRY to educate yourself on a subject before opening throwing out (up)
> on the Usenet.
You should take your own advice, mister.
mar...@amcoonline.net
> I never had sex with a mormon butI they are so clean cut & health
> obsessed I just assumed they were all cut like jews and muslims. I'm
> in the UK this year where most guys are uncut & dont wash too often so
> I just go with Americans when I can find them and I found this
> amazingly cute Mormon who was talking all this religious shit till I
> suggested he come back to my flat for a blow job. So he goes in the
> bathroom and walks out naked with a hardon and horrible friggin
> foreskin hanging off the end of it! He walks right up to me & pulls
> it back and the stink nearly made me throw up!!! jeez its so gross.
> I tried to be polite and got him outta there but he said all mormons
> are uncut, they don't believe in circ. Afterward I checked it out
> and it's true, they don't cut. So there's one more reason not to
> waste time listening to their religion crap no matter how cute they
> are.
NOT ALL UNCIRCUMCISED MEN ARE DIRTY, I´M UNCIRCUMCISED AND ALWAYS KEEP MY PENIS CLEAN... IT'S A QUESTION OF PERSONAL HYGIENE...
vincen...@outlook.com
How can you "always keep it clean" when your foreskin collects piss all day long?
And bacteria breed in there.
Not to mention SMEGMA ugh.
By the way a lot of mormons are circumcised. Not the fundamentalist polygamous ones who follow old rules. But in modern places like Salt Lake City a lot are circumcised.
pierreb...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:48:44 -0700, none wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:06:32 -0700 (PDT), whyte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>who are not
> >>circumcised and that makes the AIDS problem a lot worse.
> >
> > Can you please elaborate how non-circ makes AIDS problem any worse? You
> > have exactly the same propability of getting infected either way.
>
> uncircumcised males. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, the
> CDC's factsheet is probably a good place to start: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
> resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Oliver
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2011 5:35:21 PM UTC-4, Jake Waskett wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:48:44 -0700, none wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> > Actually, the probability of HIV infection is roughly doubled among
>
> > uncircumcised males. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, the
>
> > CDC's factsheet is probably a good place to start: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
>
> > resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
>
>
>
> This is absurd.
> Using this logic, there should be a very low count of HIV in the USA, where 80% (?) of men are cut. But, >n fact, the rate of HIV is quite high.
No, it's not. The US rate is below the world average. Also a lot of HIV in the US isn't sexually transmitted, it's transmitted by dirty needles among drug users. White heterosexuals in the US are a mostly circumcised group and they have one of the lowest rates in the world.
>> The only true prevention for HIV is a condom.
>Cutting off a part of your body to ward off a possible infection is the most insane medical response I >have seen in ages.
>Your ears need cleaning too...do you chop them off to prevent infection?
larry.s...@gmail.com
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 5:35:21 PM UTC-4, Jake Waskett wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:48:44 -0700, none wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>who are not
> >>circumcised and that makes the AIDS problem a lot worse.
> >
> > Can you please elaborate how non-circ makes AIDS problem any worse? You
> > have exactly the same propability of getting infected either way.
>
Murat
The probability of infection is much greater among uncircumcised males but this does not mean that uncircumcised males everywhere will have the same infection rate. Some may have lower rates and some may have higher rates but on average they have much greater infection rate because the virus can directly infect Langherhans cells in the foreskin.
jackpi...@gmail.com
Murat
> If this is true about Japan, then some other factor(s) overwhelm the effect of circumcision status. Why have part of one's penis cut off when less destructive prophylactics are more effective? Of course, and not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of men and women choose not to have their genitalia surgically reduced.
>
Male circumcision has been shown to be effective in greatly reducing the chances of acquiring the disease. World Health Organization recommends it in conjunction with, not as a substitute for, "other prophylactics". No other prophylactic has proved effective which is why there is an epidemic! About 35 million people have HIV presently, with a further 2 million becoming infected each year. Wishing that billions of people in the worst affected countries will suddenly have the money for condoms and will suddenly start using them every time they have sex, will not make it so, Mr Jack.
jackpi...@gmail.com
jackpi...@gmail.com
jackpi...@gmail.com
David Edwards
> By the way a lot of mormons are circumcised. Not the fundamentalist polygamous ones who follow old rules. But in modern places like Salt Lake City a lot are circumcised.
Casaman
oogl...@gmail.com
"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.ʺ
It means they are not bound by Old Covenant', but also circumcision is not forbidden. I researched all this and the Mormon Church has no official rule because many Mormons of Utah are circumcised. The Church does not want to get in that argument. Plenty Mormons get circumcised later than birth in hospital because there are many clinics in Utah that have it for boy and man for "cosmetic surgery" or against "diseases."
dickj...@gmail.com
michael...@gmail.com
> On Friday, October 3, 2014 11:12:00 PM UTC-4, pierreb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2011 5:35:21 PM UTC-4, Jake Waskett wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:48:44 -0700, none wrote:
> >
>
> > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:06:32 -0700 (PDT), whytepe...o.com wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> >
> > > Actually, the probability of HIV infection is roughly doubled among
> >
> > > uncircumcised males. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, the
> >
> > > CDC's factsheet is probably a good place to start: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
> >
> > > resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > This is absurd.
>
> It's not absurd, it's fact proved by many scientific studies in many countries. Check your facts.
>
> > Using this logic, there should be a very low count of HIV in the USA, where 80% (?) of men are cut. But, >n fact, the rate of HIV is quite high.
>
> No, it's not. The US rate is below the world average. Also a lot of HIV in the US isn't sexually transmitted, it's transmitted by dirty needles among drug users. White heterosexuals in the US are a mostly circumcised group and they have one of the lowest rates in the world.
>
parke...@yahoo.co.uk
19cyn...@gmail.com
Mehdi
On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:48:23 AM UTC+7, 19cyn...@gmail.com wrote:
> Omg i relate to your comments. I devorced my x husband due to his obnoxious uncouth ill mannered narcissist beliefts. He was uncircumcised and the first man i had sex with. I grossed out how it smelled smegma is a total discusting issue if you going to approach forplay or sex u need to hav good hygene. My husband did not to this day i cant stand to think i wasted 12 yrs regreting ever. Be with him. Fovever cut or forget that soooo nasty eeeeeeeeeeew
guidoam...@gmail.com
ttrut...@gmail.com
Darrin T
> The Mormons have expanded rapidly in South America. The HQ is still in the US but most of the 15 million members live in South America and a few other places. Circumcision has apparently not been popular in South America since the Spanish invaded and messed everythng up. So I'm thinking that no matter what happens with white lads in Salt Lake City most Mormons will be uncircumcised for the indefnite future!>>
craigle...@gmail.com
Wakka
> I had one, yes he was a missionary. I also assumed all mormons were cut. He wasn't and OMG what a stinker. He pulled that nasty skin back and it was a smell like sewage or mildew. I threw him out right there.
