Topic: Cut vs Uncut
ActuallyNotWalterForOnce !Dk8bTF23A6 started this discussion 12 years ago #35,773
It's been a while...
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #490,320
Intact > restored >>> loose cut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tight mutilation.
ActuallyNotWalterForOnce !Dk8bTF23A6 (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 24 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #490,323
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 49 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #490,324
Anonymous C double-posted this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #490,326
@previous (C)
Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn't know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone's uncle. Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change.
Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn't know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone's uncle. Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #490,327
@490,323 (ActuallyNotWalterForOnce !Dk8bTF23A6)That is what they used to do back in the day. The tight cuts are mutilation, and they can create problems like not having enough skin to have a painless erection (God is punishing you for thinking naughty thoughts!!!) and much much worse. Of course nowadays they've basically stopped that entirely and have gone back to a looser cut. Sometimes they don't even look cut at all.
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #490,328
@490,326 (C)
''Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)
Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.''
''Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)
Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.''
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #490,329
The floor is now lava.