Latest Comments

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • What is interesting is that almost no men that have a natural penis choose to cut the parts off. Only about 0.5% of males who are left intact at birth end up getting circumcised later in life.

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • @Taz, you are in denial. Of course cutting off parts of a baby boys pen is will make the kid and the man he will become have a smaller pen is. DUH. And yes there are studies that measure the loss...

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • Eric "scrunched up skin at the base of the glans"  WTF? OK, just admit that you do not know what you are talking about.

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • It may not change your ritual, but it does affect your pleasure and the mechanics of your member.

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • Eric, the glans has less total nerve endings than the parts called the foreskin and has unique fine touch and stretch senors. You would really like having them if you had your original natural penis.

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • The International Journal of Men’s Health has published the first study of its kind to look at the link between the early trauma of circumcision and the personality trait disorder alexithymia.

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • I am not a liberal and not an activist. However, there is NO justification for cutting off erogenous tissue from the body of a newborn. It is a very creepy thing to do to a baby. The long term harm to the man he will become is huge with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system.

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • Circumcision provides no protection against STDs in the developed nations. Evidence of this comes from the Laumann study (USA, 1997), based on over 30,000 American men, which showed no advantage to the circumcised group.

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • The real question for me is why is no one looking into the possibility (probability) the the 3 Africa studies were fixed. I mean that they really tried to get a result (the result was a 1.54% risk change -- a so called almost 60% relative reduction).

• Docs: Most vulnerable hurt if circumcision funding cut

  Tue Oct 4, 2011
  • These are cut men that so much want the pratcie to continue.