dickscusion <--lol ( not dirty )

LOL!!!!!!!!! It would be very awkward to ask someone that. Or be asked for that matter lol

 

I am not circumcised, and, as for other guys, I don't care whether they are cut or uncut--as long as they have something down there haha!!

 

Hmm...What exacty you meant by "something"??

I'm confused:icon_mrgr

 

Wow, that was very......insinuate

 

And you would be wrong, which is why anecdotal evidence is not a good thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Circumcision_since_1950

 

You making me blush....:icon_redf :icon_redf :icon_redf

 

Guess what Joey, I don't like arguing back and forth with you, it's so draining and just not very appealing. I grew up in the northeast United States, all of my male friends are cut (they're from all backgrounds...muslim, jewish, christian, athiest) and yes, most children are cut.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-536X.1984.tb00796.x

This is the caption I read from google that attracted me to the page...

"New Hampshire 514. 73.8. New Jersey. 1117. 91.1. New Mexico ... What percent of baby boys currently born in. your hospital are circumcised? ..."

If you would notice, the two mentioned states are over 70%, which is a majority, last time I checked. The article also gives statistics.

 

http://www.circs.org/reviews/rates/usa.html

Maybe I was wrong about Canada, rates are still extremely high, but are falling. What can say? I guess, I'm still right?

Wikepedia, are you for real? There is no review of that, people can say whatever they want and pull from any source they want.

 

i'm cut. It doesn't really matter if my guy was or wasn't

 

That article is dated 1984, so is 23 years out of date. It is likely that much of the information is no longer accurate.

Relying on such outdated information is not helpful and could be regarded as misleading.

This one only shows rates up to 1999 so is 8 years out of date.

It is possible to find articles online to support just about any view. However when looking for information, please try to select articles that are reasonably recent and are from credible sources.

 

Exactly. I'm sure most of us share that view, as long as his personal hygiene is OK. :icon_wink

Do we really need to continue this discussion any further? I can't see it achieving anything useful.

 

I'm circumcised and I would never have chosen to be cut if it hadn't been because of medical necessity.

The sensitivity of your dick decreases immensely when you get cut.

 

Paul, I know when they were published, that's why I selected them. I wanted articles that related to periods when most of the people on this site were born. So, I'm sorry you didn't see what I was trying to get at, but maybe you should have thought it out more clearly.

 

I really don't understand any of it at all. Since i don't have one i really don't know what it would look like either way. and i don't really have preferance seeing as i am a lesbian... :rolleyes:

 

Ya I am circumsized and would want my boyfriend to be the same, lucky for me I have a boyfriend who is so I scored lol

 

Jersey: you were originally using the sources to backup your statement:

So yes, your sources were outdated. While you did say:

This statement was oddly out of place, as you had previously implied that you were referring to current day babies. I'm just letting you know how it seemed like you were referring to modern day babies, regardless of whether you meant to or not - so please understand where any confusion has come from.

----

Regardless, please keep this thread on topic; if it goes too far off the rails I'll just lock it. It is a discussion on whether or not you are circumsized and prefer circumsized partners.

Myself? I am uncircumsized and it doesn't bother me whether or not my partner is. I'll admit that my "first time" with a cut boy was daunting and I wasn't really sure how to approach it, however there's really not that much difference when it comes to your partner being cut.

 

Maybe I'm not folllowing what you're saying Dave. I know what I said, that most babies in Canada and America are circumsized. I used those, what you call outdated sources, to prove that most of the people in our age range, 8- to late twenties, are circumsized. It backed up my statement that I don't know anyone who isn't cut, which is still true, I don't. Since the numbers were so high, and didn't show much fluxuation, I thought that kind of proved that most people are still circumsized. I'll admit it, not very well thought out. But either way, I don't think my statement was out of place. And joey's source still proved most American babies, in 2003 I believe, were circumsized. I was wrong about Canadian babies, and admit it because I was wrong and I'll eat my humble pie. Maybe when I look back at it I should have looked for some Canadian statistics that would have proved me wrong, but I guess I really wasn't thinking about the exact number of cut modern day babies, just people in our age range.

And I don't want to talk about it anymore either, because, honestly, who cares? I don't want to argue with someone over something like this, because it's not going to get anyone anywhere. I was proved partially wrong, admitted it, and it's now over. Why someone thought they needed to pounce on me for my opinion, that was partially wrong, in the first place over something that is so insignificant is just as unhelpful as me trying to defend an inaccurate statement, though.

 

Thread closed. :bang: