View Single Post
  #8  
Old August 4th, 2004, 01:36 PM
Sneaky2006's Avatar
Sneaky2006 Sneaky2006 is offline
banned user
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
If the risk is real then where ARE all these diseased men that still have their foreskins?
I am not sure, but it seems like you mean we think there is some uncircumcised penis disease... Which there is not. When I say there's disease involved with not being circumcised, it's more or less STD's and bacteria from urine that is my concern. Which is why my son is circumcised and why I don't regret it. I don't consider it mutilation.


Quote:
sorry heidiho but i think you are mistaken. I think this is an "old wive's tale"
Actually it's not really an old wives tale...
Here is a quote from the WebMD site...
Another reason parents have their sons circumcised is that circumcision lessens the chance of urinary tract infection in the first year of life. Also, later in life, a circumcised male has a lower chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease than an uncircumcised male does.


Quote:
I have had this converstaion with a quite few of my good foreskin intact male friends.
Do your friends wash themselves each time they pee? I highly doubt it and that's not sanitary (and gross).

So, there's my 2 cents.
Reply With Quote