I watched something a while ago, and while this information is probably not accurate (I am just remembering what i read, and considering my memory is soooo crap)
I think it was to do with the transmission of an STD in africa. One village, who circumsised the boys at an early age, had a LOT lower transmission rate of this virus, when compared to the village one mile (or something) up the road. They worked out it was something to do with the cells in the foreskin, harbouring this virus, whereas the circumsised village had barely any reports of this virus. Wish i could remember what it was I watched now. Cant even remember the virus, or the figures.
Was it an overview programme of BBC coverage of sexual issues through the decades? Or something like that. Maybe Panorama?
The research mentioned in that programme looked at two neighbouring regions in SE Africa with vastly different rates of AIDS. The areas matched up closely with circumcision practices. They compared it with an area in west African which also had circumcision and lower rates.
General cleanliness isn't the explanation for why. It has to do with a higher concentration of a particular type of white blood cell in the foreskin. They're called Langerhans cells and they grab antigens in order to activate the immune system. Because the foreskin is prone to tearing, it's very likely that the cells will come into contact with the HIV antigen during unprotected sex with a carrier and take the HIV into the body. And of course HIV prevents the immune system from fighting it off effectively.
There are also studies which indicate lower rates of cervical cancer amongst women whose partners are circumcised.
I watched something a while ago, and while this information is probably not accurate (I am just remembering what i read, and considering my memory is soooo crap)
I think it was to do with the transmission of an STD in africa. One village, who circumsised the boys at an early age, had a LOT lower transmission rate of this virus, when compared to the village one mile (or something) up the road. They worked out it was something to do with the cells in the foreskin, harbouring this virus, whereas the circumsised village had barely any reports of this virus. Wish i could remember what it was I watched now. Cant even remember the virus, or the figures.
Anyway, my preference is uncut. I have experienced a circumsised guy, and I found it awkward to give him handjobs, I always felt I was going to hurt him as there was nothing to "slide" with. :S My partner is going to be circumsises soon, due to phimosis. I guess I will have to get used to it, as will be obviously!
It is HIV and your memory is execellent. The maps were over lapped for cut tribes and hiv infected tribes and they nearly perfectly matched. How ever this is due to poor sanitation and poor personal hygiene. Allso if you could see how they do circumcision in these area's you would not wish it on your dog. Its as bad as Female circumcision in Somalia. Iam of my band wagon know and we are talking about modern western countries where we have a choice
Surely the hygiene and sanitation would be the same in each village? (It wasnt like one village was clean and the other dirty) yet the only differences were cut and uncut. Meaning it was specifially caused by foreskin vs no foreskin, rather than clean or dirty. Although, I am no expert and can barely remember the film so I am not exactly sure. (I am not arguing that having a foreskin is dirty btw, they can be equally as clean as a circumcised penis and as mentioned, I prefer uncut, but honestly, if i loved the guy I would not care either way) but yeh, that video popped into my head when I read this thread. I don't agree with circumcising babies and for any other reason than it has to be done for health reasons, but I also agree with you that people should have a choice and do what they want.
Or the virus was already in the other village to start with and because the villages didn't have cross village sex. That is unless everyone was fully tested before hand.
I've only ever had one circumcised partner and I didn't like it! But then again, I don't like change.... So it was prob because it was new to me and I was nervous about how to ' play' with it lol
I watched something a while ago, and while this information is probably not accurate (I am just remembering what i read, and considering my memory is soooo crap)
I think it was to do with the transmission of an STD in africa. One village, who circumsised the boys at an early age, had a LOT lower transmission rate of this virus, when compared to the village one mile (or something) up the road. They worked out it was something to do with the cells in the foreskin, harbouring this virus, whereas the circumsised village had barely any reports of this virus. Wish i could remember what it was I watched now. Cant even remember the virus, or the figures.
Was it an overview programme of BBC coverage of sexual issues through the decades? Or something like that. Maybe Panorama?
The research mentioned in that programme looked at two neighbouring regions in SE Africa with vastly different rates of AIDS. The areas matched up closely with circumcision practices. They compared it with an area in west African which also had circumcision and lower rates.
General cleanliness isn't the explanation for why. It has to do with a higher concentration of a particular type of white blood cell in the foreskin. They're called Langerhans cells and they grab antigens in order to activate the immune system. Because the foreskin is prone to tearing, it's very likely that the cells will come into contact with the HIV antigen during unprotected sex with a carrier and take the HIV into the body. And of course HIV prevents the immune system from fighting it off effectively.
There are also studies which indicate lower rates of cervical cancer amongst women whose partners are circumcised.
Yes! That was the one I watched. xx Thanks for the imput. I could not remember half of what you did! lol xx
I have a foreskin and I don't believe just because I have one makes me any less hygienic then some who has no foreskin. I wash regularly and make sure I'm always clean.
I think the test they done in Africa is a pointless one aswell. It's almost seeming like it's saying, get a circumcism as it will lower your chances of getting HIV.
I have a foreskin and I don't believe just because I have one makes me any less hygienic then some who has no foreskin.
I wash regularly and make sure I'm always clean.
I think the test they done in Africa is a pointless one aswell.
It's almost seeming like it's saying, get a circumcism as it will lower your chances of getting HIV.
The study was not trying to say that men with foreskins are dirty. There is obviously nothing "dirty" about the foreskin, it is a normal part of the body and if you keep clean, you keep clean. Rose explained the program much better than I did. It is due to the foreskin being able to tear and .....what Rose said basically. It seemed to be very true in the studies they did. (Of course, it was just one program and I can't say it is or not, i just watched the program lol.)
Having a circumcision seemed to indeed suggest a lowered chance of transmisson of HIV in those areas. but those countries don't practice safe sex either, there is a chance of transmisson of STDs whether you have foreskin or not, male or female...etc etc, if you dont practise safe sex. x
I have a foreskin and I don't believe just because I have one makes me any less hygienic then some who has no foreskin.
I wash regularly and make sure I'm always clean.
I think the test they done in Africa is a pointless one aswell.
It's almost seeming like it's saying, get a circumcism as it will lower your chances of getting HIV.
The study was not trying to say that men with foreskins are dirty. There is obviously nothing "dirty" about the foreskin, it is a normal part of the body and if you keep clean, you keep clean. Rose explained the program much better than I did. It is due to the foreskin being able to tear and .....what Rose said basically. It seemed to be very true in the studies they did. (Of course, it was just one program and I can't say it is or not, i just watched the program lol.)
Having a circumcision seemed to indeed suggest a lowered chance of transmisson of HIV in those areas. but those countries don't practice safe sex either, there is a chance of transmisson of STDs whether you have foreskin or not, male or female...etc etc, if you dont practise safe sex. x
Hey guy's bring it back it is meant to be a pref, thread . Because of my rant we've gone off thread
me I like my fore skin just feels good , young boys dont get a choice and we should let them choose for them selves, unless medicaly they need one.
I remember a programme that was on BBC 2 I think some years back where they were talking about foreskins in America. A lot of them were horrified to know that people have foreskins and just thought it was dirty. Personally I think it's like anything. You keep clean and hygienic then you will have nothing to worry about.
I remember a programme that was on BBC 2 I think some years back where they were talking about foreskins in America. A lot of them were horrified to know that people have foreskins and just thought it was dirty.
Personally I think it's like anything. You keep clean and hygienic then you will have nothing to worry about.
I think I saw that! I was quite shocked! I guess it's a case of "what you get used to" as in America most guys have it done, so an uncut one is the unusual. Whereas here it is more the opposite way around.
I much prefer them to have foreskin as i find it easier to masterbate them. Does anyone else have trouble trying to write things without being crude? Lol :)
I remember a programme that was on BBC 2 I think some years back where they were talking about foreskins in America. A lot of them were horrified to know that people have foreskins and just thought it was dirty.
Personally I think it's like anything. You keep clean and hygienic then you will have nothing to worry about.
I think I saw that! I was quite shocked! I guess it's a case of "what you get used to" as in America most guys have it done, so an uncut one is the unusual. Whereas here it is more the opposite way around.
I think it may have been a programme when these blokes were buying these life like dolls. Literally spending thousands on them.
Sorry going off topic here
I have heard that in some countries ( like america) that unless you are cut as they put i,t then they will not have intercoarse with you.
How much of that is talk? A fair number of men state in the shaved/natural threads here that they'll only have oral with a woman if she's bare down there. If they liked someone well enough though, would they really limit themselves that way?
From the sounds of that programme, they seemed to have wandered into (or sought out) an area where people didn't have a lot of variety. One pleasant encounter might be all that's needed to change a mind.
My preference? Whatever's attached to a really great guy.
I have heard that in some countries ( like america) that unless you are cut as they put i,t then they will not have intercoarse with you.
How much of that is talk? A fair number of men state in the shaved/natural threads here that they'll only have oral with a woman if she's bare down there. If they liked someone well enough though, would they really limit themselves that way?
From the sounds of that programme, they seemed to have wandered into (or sought out) an area where people didn't have a lot of variety. One pleasant encounter might be all that's needed to change a mind.
My preference? Whatever's attached to a really great guy.
Thanks for your opinion and you are welcome to have themI actually worked on a nato base and have 1st hand experience of being told on 3 seperate occasions by American ladies.
I've had both, in my limited experience. i can't really say i've noticed any difference in my pleasure but as others wanking was difficult without a foreskin.
Is it really a big deal? I'm uncut - it's not really the norm in Europe to cut if not for religious beliefs or health issues (like foreskin too tight). Once you get hard, or have sex, it rolls back anyway.
