whosonthebench
Well-Known Member
Have you got four skins? y'know skins, four of them?
og and some fork handles.
og and some fork handles.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Have you got a foreskin?
- Thread starter Swales lives
- Start date
whp.blue
Well-Known Member
this is how it starts
anyone answering no will
be asked to a star of david by their user name
for the record I have two
anyone answering no will
be asked to a star of david by their user name
for the record I have two
scenecreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 3,503
What bothers me is the arrogance and smug sense of superiority shown by both sides of the argument
Some smug twat who likes to quote evolution in every argument asked for clinical studies?
Here you go-
"A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal finds that uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) than circumcised boys, a condition that could lead to kidney damage and scarring if left untreated. The risk of infection was higher in uncircumcised boys regardless of how much of their urethral opening was visible.
In order to determine the risks of infection for circumcised and uncircumcised boys, researchers at McGill University in Montreal looked at 393 boys who visited the emergency department of Montreal Children’s Hospital with symptoms of UTI. Of these boys, 309 were uncircumcised — the urethral opening was visible in 40 boys and partially visible or not visible in 269 — and 84 boys were circumcised.
About 20% of the boys had a UTI, and both groups of uncircumcised boys were at increased risk. Overall, researchers calculated that the risk of infection was 88% lower in the circumcised boys.
Previous studies have suggested that uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of urinary tract infection because bacteria may build up under the foreskin and enter the urinary tract. The team wanted to see whether that higher risk held for all uncircumcised boys, even those whose urethral openings (where urine comes out) were visible. “We thought that incomplete foreskin retractability with a poorly visible urethral [opening] may be associated with increased risk of urinary tract infection,” wrote the study authors, led by Dr. Sasha Dubrovsky. “However, we found no difference in risk with degree of visibility of the urethral opening.”
The biggest concern over UTIs in children is that they can cause damage and scarring to the kidneys, according to WebMD; over time, repeated scarring can cause long-term damage, including problems with kidney function and even kidney failure — complications for which infants and young children may be at greater risk. That’s why detecting and treating UTIs in babies and children is crucial; because symptoms in such young patients may be vague, however, that’s not always easy.
“[W]e suggest that clinicians should consider circumcision status alone, not the degree of urethral visibility, when stratifying risk for boys presenting to the emergency department with symptoms or signs suggesting a urinary tract infection,” conclude the authors.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/study-uncircumcised-boys-have-a-higher-risk-of-uti/#ixzz20BP6S6iQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/s ... z20BP6S6iQ</a>
Some smug twat who likes to quote evolution in every argument asked for clinical studies?
Here you go-
"A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal finds that uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) than circumcised boys, a condition that could lead to kidney damage and scarring if left untreated. The risk of infection was higher in uncircumcised boys regardless of how much of their urethral opening was visible.
In order to determine the risks of infection for circumcised and uncircumcised boys, researchers at McGill University in Montreal looked at 393 boys who visited the emergency department of Montreal Children’s Hospital with symptoms of UTI. Of these boys, 309 were uncircumcised — the urethral opening was visible in 40 boys and partially visible or not visible in 269 — and 84 boys were circumcised.
About 20% of the boys had a UTI, and both groups of uncircumcised boys were at increased risk. Overall, researchers calculated that the risk of infection was 88% lower in the circumcised boys.
Previous studies have suggested that uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of urinary tract infection because bacteria may build up under the foreskin and enter the urinary tract. The team wanted to see whether that higher risk held for all uncircumcised boys, even those whose urethral openings (where urine comes out) were visible. “We thought that incomplete foreskin retractability with a poorly visible urethral [opening] may be associated with increased risk of urinary tract infection,” wrote the study authors, led by Dr. Sasha Dubrovsky. “However, we found no difference in risk with degree of visibility of the urethral opening.”
The biggest concern over UTIs in children is that they can cause damage and scarring to the kidneys, according to WebMD; over time, repeated scarring can cause long-term damage, including problems with kidney function and even kidney failure — complications for which infants and young children may be at greater risk. That’s why detecting and treating UTIs in babies and children is crucial; because symptoms in such young patients may be vague, however, that’s not always easy.
“[W]e suggest that clinicians should consider circumcision status alone, not the degree of urethral visibility, when stratifying risk for boys presenting to the emergency department with symptoms or signs suggesting a urinary tract infection,” conclude the authors.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/study-uncircumcised-boys-have-a-higher-risk-of-uti/#ixzz20BP6S6iQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/s ... z20BP6S6iQ</a>
Cellarite
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 25,989
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I have one, although I did suffer a little Joy Division with it some years ago.
pendlebury blue
Well-Known Member
Sometimes
the goats backside
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 4,897
prairiemoon said:What bothers me is the arrogance and smug sense of superiority shown by both sides of the argument
Some smug twat who likes to quote evolution in every argument asked for clinical studies?
Here you go-
"A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal finds that uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) than circumcised boys, a condition that could lead to kidney damage and scarring if left untreated. The risk of infection was higher in uncircumcised boys regardless of how much of their urethral opening was visible.
In order to determine the risks of infection for circumcised and uncircumcised boys, researchers at McGill University in Montreal looked at 393 boys who visited the emergency department of Montreal Children’s Hospital with symptoms of UTI. Of these boys, 309 were uncircumcised — the urethral opening was visible in 40 boys and partially visible or not visible in 269 — and 84 boys were circumcised.
About 20% of the boys had a UTI, and both groups of uncircumcised boys were at increased risk. Overall, researchers calculated that the risk of infection was 88% lower in the circumcised boys.
Previous studies have suggested that uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of urinary tract infection because bacteria may build up under the foreskin and enter the urinary tract. The team wanted to see whether that higher risk held for all uncircumcised boys, even those whose urethral openings (where urine comes out) were visible. “We thought that incomplete foreskin retractability with a poorly visible urethral [opening] may be associated with increased risk of urinary tract infection,” wrote the study authors, led by Dr. Sasha Dubrovsky. “However, we found no difference in risk with degree of visibility of the urethral opening.”
The biggest concern over UTIs in children is that they can cause damage and scarring to the kidneys, according to WebMD; over time, repeated scarring can cause long-term damage, including problems with kidney function and even kidney failure — complications for which infants and young children may be at greater risk. That’s why detecting and treating UTIs in babies and children is crucial; because symptoms in such young patients may be vague, however, that’s not always easy.
“[W]e suggest that clinicians should consider circumcision status alone, not the degree of urethral visibility, when stratifying risk for boys presenting to the emergency department with symptoms or signs suggesting a urinary tract infection,” conclude the authors.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/study-uncircumcised-boys-have-a-higher-risk-of-uti/#ixzz20BP6S6iQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/s ... z20BP6S6iQ</a>
So in other words......... wash it and you will be alright grrrrrrrrrrrr effing soding studies for study sake
Crouchinho
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 7,307
- Location
- Toronto, bye bye blighty
- Team supported
- Tottenham Hotspur
Yes. I made my son keep his too.
Why should it be removed unless you're a religious nutter.
Aslong as you clean it before it builds up of wensleydale cheese its fine.
Why should it be removed unless you're a religious nutter.
Aslong as you clean it before it builds up of wensleydale cheese its fine.
daveduke67
Well-Known Member
Is this a question or a want ad?
BulgarianPride
Well-Known Member
corky1970 said:i feel sorry for the ones that dont have foreskins, what do you use to quickly hold your jizz in when you get caught having a wank ?
Damn, my patent pending invention has now been made obsolete.