BJC
Apprentice
We Own The Night
Posts: 301
|
Post by BJC on Jun 19, 2005 19:47:30 GMT
Oh yea baby ... I love me some penis talk. .... .. I did not just say that I've seen better Actually that is not true. Well it is, but not entirely. There are medical studies that prove circumcision lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs AS WELL AS medical studies that prove un-circumcised lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs. I swear that is true. There are also conflicting reports/studies that prove the cleanliness factor. Some reports state un-circumcised is better at keeping out various bacteria, as well as preventing urinary tract infection, while other reports state the same about circumcised. (Sad when we can't get an actually medical standard on this, but this is true.) Actually, it has to do with the foreskin. I was watching a whole thing on it. Nice confession there, buddyboy ;D
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 19, 2005 21:17:27 GMT
Actually, it has to do with the foreskin. I was watching a whole thing on it. Um, yea, I know. I have seen the reports. The reason why "they" say un-circumcised is more apt to HIV is do to the amount of nerve endings in the foreskin. With that, it is more susceptible to tearing (even slightly) hence allowing the transmission more easily. I have also seen the other report were "they" say it helps prevent the transmission do to the extra ... um .. covering it provides. Again, these reports are by doctors, it is just funny how they can't say which one is better. (Other than doctor A who is circumcised saying it is better/safer, and Doctor B who is not, saying that his is better/safer )
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 19, 2005 21:21:37 GMT
I swear Perry, you always did live on the "cutting edge" of everything we ever talked about! he he. Says the man with the "Mr Furious" avatar Man how that fits. Did I tell you I am a Rev. Moon follower now .... hahahaha ... just kidding don't shoot
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jun 19, 2005 23:24:44 GMT
erm, has anyone considered that the reason that circumcision exists is simply because it makes the penis easier to keep clean when there is limited water around and thus less prone to infection? After all the religions that practice circumcision all originate from dry arid conditions where water is at a premium.
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jun 22, 2005 0:06:56 GMT
None of Michelangelo's figures in his paintings are circumcised. I know it's irreleveant to the topic at hand, but thought I'd comment. It's especially interesting since Michelangelo apparently didn't follow Genesis XVII which suggested that the covenant between God and Abraham included the command that every male child be circumcised and characters such as David and Noah and his sons would have been subjected to this ritual. I don't think it was ignorance on Michelangelo's part, he was well versed in the New Testament. Maybe, as a believer in "beauty is the way to God" Neo-Platonism, Michelangelo just thought uncircumcised penises were prettier? Anyway, I digress. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by metokhaesh on Jun 22, 2005 17:10:47 GMT
Michelangelo sculpted David exactly as he should have appeared following an infant "Milah" circumcision. His glans are basically covered, with only the glans tip showing.
Hand it over to Michelangelo and the details.
Metok ha'esh
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jun 22, 2005 17:27:22 GMT
I was talking mostly about the Sistine ceiling, not David, though. ;-) Feel welcome to participate in my Michelangelo thread, by the way, metokhaesh.
|
|
|
Post by metokhaesh on Jun 22, 2005 17:30:53 GMT
Sorry Phil, my bad, okay, and thank you. Metok ha'esh
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jun 22, 2005 17:44:11 GMT
It's cool, metok ha'esh - I didn't really take in account that Michelangelo's sculpture would have been mentioned as an exception so I can understand where you misunderstood my post.
|
|