|
#1
24th January 2008, 07:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
-- I've found another posting entitled: 'Help for a massage boy ... .' interesting as most - but not all - of the TH. boyz whom I have met have 'skins. that pull-back quite easily. Even those whose 'skins. are tight initially will be retractable with a bit of gentle att'n. after a while in many cases.
-- Y'day.,(23rd.), I was at 'BABYLON SAUNA.' and sunning myself by the pool. On the opposite side, and in the shade, were three TH. pretty boyz - tall and lanky creatures with next to no figures at all, just their pretty and rather empty-looking faces; however, one of them was shewing a package of wch. any man might be proud. - Later-on a gp. of them, incl. the above three, entered the Jacuzzi and sat-down nr. me. After a while, observing that a couple of them were shewing erections, I moved over and those two allowed me to play with them for a brief while: both are a good 6".LOA. and their 'skins were tight around their well-developed glandes with no signs of being able to be retracted. The others were all snooty and would allow this elderly farang to touch them - not my loss! - Later, one of the two took the adjacent shower to the one that I was using - his **** was flaccid at that time, but he allowed me to play with it and to smoke it for a few all too short moments. -- This morning I mentioned the above to an elderly and American acquaintance who opined that they would face problems in later life. - He mentioned that when he was in the US. Army, serving-in JP. after WW2., every week the men living-in bks. would have to line-up at the feet of their bunks so that the 'Pecker checker.' could say: 'OK., men, drop your drawers.' prior to his inspection; those who were unc'cised. would be ordered: 'Milk it.' so that their glandes could be checked. - I mentioned that I thought that in the US. Army after WW2. - with its prevalence of VD., despite the intro. of P'cillin. - all men who needed it were c'cised. on enlistment as a matter of routine and as an simple form of prophylaxis? Apparently my supposition was untrue. -- bibi. --       |
|
#2
24th March 2008, 01:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
-- In today's 'BKK.Post.' is a very summarised rpt. quoting research by Dickson et al in NZ. and based on just 499 men born between 1972-73..
- Reportedly c'cision. does not appear to shield men from all types of STDs. common in developed countries: 23.4%. of c'cised. men rptd. some type of STD., while 23.5%. of uncirc'd. men rptd. some types of STD.. - Most common forms of STD. noted were: Chlamydia, Genital Herpes & G'tal. Warts. - further info.: http://www.news-medical.net/?id=36534 - source: 'Jnl. of Paediatrics.' for Mar '08.. -- bibi.. -- |
|
#4
24th March 2008, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Studies to date on circumcision and hiv transmission have been mostly if not all done in Africa, and specifically on the penile-vaginal route of HIV transmission.
For pretty extensive bibliography, see: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/ http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm Obviously circumcision is not going to be correlate to HIV infection via receptive unprotected penile-anal intercourse but would be correlate otherwise. Another interesting observation I have made, after long, intense and close-up inspection of the Thai penis, is that there seems to be a high incidence of frenulum breve or phimosis. But I live in America where there are not (sadly) very many uncut guys, so perhaps my sample statistics is skewed. |
|
#5
24th March 2008, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
- My long time and exhaustive, (Query - exhausting? Printer's Devil.), researches have indicated that for many THs. the 'skin. is retracted enough already that even when flaccid the tip of the glans is visible and when proudly erect there is no problem over a full retraction. - Usual disclaimer: I write as a non-medical person -- bibi.. -- |
|
#7
26th March 2008, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
26th March 2008, 07:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Consequently, the rate of un-circumcised male suffering from AIDS, Gonorrhea, Syphilis and other VD's should be much higher than among circumcised males. Since it is the same, and any difference can be explained by other reasons, it is a myth.
|
|
#9
26th March 2008, 07:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It appears that the American Centers for Disease Control is propagating a "myth" then:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm |
|
#11
26th March 2008, 07:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No one said that being circumcised prevented the spread of HIV. What is being said is that there has been a preponderance of studies showing that circumcised men show a lower rate of infection from vaginal sex than uncircumcised men do.
Where does religion enter into it? |
|
#12
26th March 2008, 09:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Easy. RC: don't like condoms. Period. Prots: promoted circumsizing to prevent masturbation (1900s - now 'medically more save') muslims: been doing it for centuries. Combine the three, and you get an UN initiative to promote circumsizing to prevent AIDS.
|
|
#14
26th March 2008, 11:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Apology accepted
 http://www.iavi.org/viewfile.cfm?fid=47760 http://www.harare.unesco.org/newslet...caids4_07.html |
|
#15
27th March 2008, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
-- I believe that certain studies have shewn - by report - that Jewish women are LESS likely to suffer fron Cervical Cancer than non-Jewish women; this has been attributed to the fact that their husbands are c'cised..
- The above is 2nd. hand info. for wch. I cannot quote any references - and so accept it cum grano salis! -- I write as a non-medical person. -- bibi.. -- |
Linear Mode
