Vasically, the higher risks of STD infection are probable in that there is a way tor ationalize why that could possibly happen. But the studies done were all conflicting, some showing that risk was reduced with circumcision and others showing that risk wasn't reduced. Either way, the consensus is that in the field of risk, behavioral risk is far more significant than being circumcised.
Also, urniary tract infections for boys are very low (about 1%) and for circumcised boys, it's .19% and .12%, which isn't enough between 1% (since 1% is already low) for the procedure to be done, in my opinion.
And with the rate of penile disfigurement/destruction being 2% (i.e. 2 out of every 100 boys circumcised), I'd say that it's not worth it.
BTW I was circumsized at eight years old and very much forced into doing it and remember the pain very well (although was put under for the actual op). No discussion with me whatsoever, it was "this is what you WILL do".
Calling circumcision "mutilation" is a bit too dramatic. I'm circumcised and my penis isn't mutilated. I don't mind that my parents had me circumcised. I just don't see what all the drama is about. Some of you act like it's the most horrible thing in the world.:rolleyes: I like cocks cut, or uncut, it makes no difference...|
Circumcising adult men may cut risk of AIDS
Updated Wed. Dec. 13 2006 3:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Circumcising adult men may cut in half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse, the U.S. government announced Wednesday, as it shut down two studies in Africa testing the link.
The National Institutes of Health closed the studies in Kenya and Uganda early, when safety monitors took a look at initial results this week and spotted the protection. The studies' uncircumcised men are being offered the chance to undergo the procedure.
The link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was noted as long ago as the late 1980s. The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60 per cent.
Still, many AIDS specialists had been awaiting the NIH's results as a final confirmation.
"Male circumcision can lower both an individual's risk of infection, and hopefully the rate of HIV spread through the community," said AIDS expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
But it's not perfect protection, Fauci stressed. Men who become circumcised must not quit using condoms nor take other risks -- and circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through anal sex or injection drug use, he noted.
"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De Cock of the World Health Organization.
Male circumcision is common at birth in the United States. But in sub-Saharan Africa, home to more than half of the world's almost 40 million HIV-infected people, there are large swaths of populations where male circumcision is rare.
The WHO plans an international meeting early next year to discuss the studies' results and how to translate them into policies that promote safe male circumcision -- done by trained health workers with sterile equipment -- while teaching men that it won't make them invulnerable.
Why would male circumcision play a role? Cells in the foreskin of the penis are particularly susceptible to the HIV virus, Fauci explained. Also, the foreskin is more fragile than the tougher skin surrounding it, providing a surface that the virus could penetrate more easily.
Researchers enrolled 2,784 HIV-negative men in Kisumu, Kenya, and 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, into the studies. Some were circumcised; others were just monitored.
Over two years, 22 of the circumcised Kenyans became infected with HIV compared with 47 uncircumcised men, a 53 per cent reduction. In Uganda, 22 circumcised men became infected vs. 43 of the uncircumcised, a 48 per cent reduction.
The researchers are offering all of the studies' uncircumcised men the chance to undergo the procedure, and 80 per cent of the uncircumcised Ugandans already have agreed, said lead researcher Ronald Gray of Johns Hopkins University.
Side effects were rare, including some mostly mild infections that were easily treated. The rate of side effects was comparable to those seen in circumcised U.S. infants, said Robert Bailey of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who led the Kenyan trial.
So the moral of the story is that I need to shag more men who were born in Africa.
(with condoms, of course)
Commentary in another study has stated that we shouldn't wait to find out if this is true and just offer it anyway so that if it is, many people need not contract HIV.
Nevertheless, I think it's important to mention the researchers and the studies that have shown that circumcision does not change contraction rates sinificantly or at all and mention that how people practice sex has a larger impact on contraction rates than their foreskin status.
You guys are looking at it wrong, David is a Christian and Madonna is Kabbalah. She wants to convert him to her religion and circumcision marks the formal entry into the Jewish community. Thats the problem.
QUestion: Do you twats believe everything you read??? LOL.
oh yeah! and WHO CARES.
I think mine is Ray Of Light. Such a timeless Masterpiece.
I think this one has been done a few times before, but it's Christmas - so good will and spirit and all that- I'll answer again:D
Like A Prayer
my favourite would have to be LIKE A PRAYER. reminds me of my early teenage years! :D
The only barbaric thing about circumcision is the fact that it happens without the person's consent.
The ACTUAL PROCEDURE is not fucking barbaric, and it is not mutilation. We can still jerk off. We can still pleasure women/men. We still feel pleasure. We still feel enough pleasure to cum. OUR PENISES STILL FUNCTION NORMALLY.
Honestly nutjobs who feel 'robbed' just over exaggerate every single thing and throw pointless hissy fits.
But, let's be realistic here. Circumcision DOES result in some loss of sensation, because of the constantly exposed glans. If you keep one car in the garage, and another outside, of course the one outside is gonna have more wear and tear. If you want to get a sensitive glans, get a Your-Skin Cone.
So in reality. The procedure itself isn't HORRIBLE GHASTLY OMIGOSH DESTROYING TEH PEENZORZ, doing it on babies for no fucking reason at all is the stupid part.
1. American Life
Don't own not a one, so i wouldn't know.
As far as singles, Ray Of Light had the best, so i guess that one. lol
That's a lark. Especially since the procedure has a rate of disfigurement of 2 per 100 cases. That's 2 boys out of every one hundred circumcised who either have it disfigured or in the worst case, destroyed. As well, while it's true that male circumcision doesn't remove all sensation, neither does female circumcision, where they remove the clitoris and all other external genitalia. And I'm sure the jurey is out on that one as being a barbaric and terrible procedure.
I think the current medical institution has demosntrated that in the realm of circumcision, it's not a procedure done well. Inexperienced surgeons or students are given circumcisions to do after only watching the procedure be done isntead of being within the procedure.
Surgeons oftentime remove to little or too much forsekin. And only up until recently, the procedure was done with no anesthetic, since they believed that babies didn't remember pain or even felt pain. That sounds like it's barbaric to me, or if that's too strong of language, it's unnecessary and unsound.
And that's where the point comes down to now. The procedure is unnecessary. Medicalized or not, the procedure is so 'common' that hospitals automatically sign newborns up for the procedure and parents have to make a statement telling them not to perform it. That's rediculous, since it's not a necessary procedure, sometimes even just being done to increase the bill. It just leaves parents to either make the deicison because of inane concepts of 'normalcy' or out of pure aesthetic, both are, IMO, not decisions they are allowed to make about the body of their son.
And it's kind of underhanded for Madonna to adopt this child, whose background is Christian and culturally does not believe in circumcision, make claims that she won't change him, and then announce that she plans to circumcize him inorder to raise him in Kabbalah.
i don't know her albums other than ray of light. that is really good.
since i like the morning wood song, id say that album too.
as well as the one with the evita song don't cry for me argentina since i love that song.
I liked all of the tracks on all of the albums up until Music, then I started to get really picky since her music style changed dramatically (to my ear anyway). I don't know why, but I always had an affinity for her Bedtime Stories album.
whatever album that Don't Tell Me song is from. the one with the cowboy video.
You should ask top five though.
No. 1 is "Like A Prayer", no. 2 is "True Blue". And everything after sucked.
her Farewell and Goodbye album
i might buy it
I like it all, but "Like A Prayer" is her best work IMHO.
Have you got it? What did you think?
Don't have it; Saw it as old roommates had it
didn't think it was all that then and besides who really wants to see Vanilla Ice's cock.
its only good for vanilla ice's cock
Yes, I have it (filed away in a cupboard as a collectors item)
Along side, signed Garry ablett (Snr) football jumper, lol's
Well, as a gay guy, I don't really think it as being sexy or anything like that, but I did like her 'energy', and somehow I liked it that she did it as a publicity stunt. It did get the world talking.
Yeah, have a copy and it is more of a memory for something that happened along her career path, and not because I was aroused by it. : )
Madonna has gone on record as stating that the whole reason she did the "Sex" book was to show that she could do something that would shock the masses and work everyone into a stew. And for those of us who were around when the "Sex" book came out in 1992, the media frenzy that exploded at the time is an indicator that she certainly succeeded in meeting her goal.
Unfortunately, the media hype over the book was so overblown that the artistic merit of it -- as well as that of her concurrently released album "Erotica" (one of the most brilliant of her career) -- got completely overshadowed. Taken for what it is -- and not for the "shocking" curiosity that the media molded it into -- the "Sex" book stands as a very well-done, ironic, funny and -- yes -- sexy photographic essay. Madonna was in her prime at the time, and when she is 80 and her tatas are swinging around her waist, she will be able to open up that book and remember what a hot piece of ass she was back in her heydey.
And, yes, I am a proud owner of one of the only 1 million copies of the book that was published. I paid $50 for it, and today it's easily worth about $500, and appreciating in value all the time. So for those of you who also own a copy of it, hold onto it and take good care of it because it may your ticket to the good life when you reach retirement age!
u can download it off torrentreactor. i did.
it was kinda grose, well thats me looking at it in 2006 aged 19. maybe it was something at the time in 1993 that made the book more allureing?
ALBUM RELEASE DATE: November 13, 2007
ALBUM NAME: 'M' (currently)
WORKING WITH: Timbaland and Brian Eno
Music website NME.com are reporting what Stuart Price has said about him working on Madonna's new album.
Stuart said on TV entertainment channel E! that Madonna's album has a 'new sound' and that they have worked with some 'top producers that are in fashion right now'.
He also added that the new album will be out this year!
Madonna puts out the word and many different producers send her demos. in the end she decides what will be the final project. It's too early to tell.
i bet she cringes at it now
Plz dont turn madonna into RNB Lord Almighty we have enough of that rubbish as it is
Although I love many of her tracks in Confession, I seriously need a sentimental slash GIANT BALLAD from her soon.
I remember hearing it from her, I think in Letterman, that all have done something in their past that they are not proud of. They were talking about the book, and that period. It was her 'words' when she became a mother.
Madonna is well known for changing course on the direction of her albums as she's recording them. After the release of "Erotica" in 1992, she and producer Shep Pettibone wrote an entire line-up of Spinner's type retro songs that were to become her next album -- but then she dumped Pettibone and went on to work with a plethora of noted R&B producers for the album that became "Bedtime Stories."
Likewise, following the release of "Ray Of Light," she and producer William Orbit planned to release a companion album featuring more hardcore, tripped out electronica that they recorded during the "Ray of Light" sessions, but that never happened either.
Given that Stuart Price is fresh off of producing the "Confessions" album, which turned out to be one of the most critically acclaimed albums of Madonna's career, as well as directing her record-breaking "Confessions" tour, it is probably safe to say that he will be heavily involved in the production of the new album as well, no matter who Madonna decides to collaborate with on it. Madonna has always been very savvy when it comes to picking top-notch producers, and she'll likely stick with Price until she's milked him of all his creative merit.
Madonna has actually been making R&B music for YEARS. Unlike some artists Madonna has used the R&B sound since the beginning of her career. Its not really a gimmick or trick being used by Madonna. I think she really likes all forms of music and is just trying to move into a new direction. When Madonna first came out in 1982 with the hit club single "Everybody" the NYC music scene thought she was black. And the Sire records owner was shocked when he found out Madonna was white. Madonna has used R&B music for years. Especially the 1994 album Bedtimes stories Madonna worked with Babyface he gave Madonna her last no.1 ballad hit "Take A Bow." Dallas Austin produced "Secret" , Nelle Hooper, gave Madonna a softer sound a more feminine and vulnerable sound. And it worked.
I was thinking just yesterday about the possibility of Madonna working with Tim. That's crazy. I know she usally doesn't like to do what everybody else is doing, but in recent years she really seems to have pushed her ego aside. I think, if nothing else, it should be interesting
She has this problem with songwriters earning the royalty. I hope she gets over this soon, and let some really good ones to write for her great songs. I know she pens many hits of her own, or co-pen, but there can be some writers out there who can write great ones on their own, and be rejected because she is not the co-writer.
Whatever it is, I can't wait for new materials from her.
I have often wondered about some of these divas. How many of them really are involved in the song writing? Look at Beyonce with the song Listen she didn't contribute much to the song yet she still got a songwriting credit? I know Mariah Carey is VERY INVOLVED with her songs she writes or cowriters all of them. Mariah has been to court and won cases where people claim she didn't write her songs. But out of all the divas I would say Mariah is perhaps one of the smartest she's smart enough to know when you WRITE your own songs you get serious amount of cash in songwriting royalties. I suspect Madonna and Janet Jackson maybe have a deal where they get song writing royalties.I heard that Celine Dion has a deal where even though she doesn't write her songs that songwriters have to give her a certain percentage of the song writing royalty.
Tim is played out. he's like the town whore, everyone got a ride. But the album will be hawt!