Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
The reverse was found in some reports I read. Incidence of Aids was higher in circumcised men, possibly because they thought they were safe.
Link please, if you want me to believe that.
It has always been accepted as far as I am aware that circumcised men are less susceptible because of the difficulties of cleaning under the foreskin and also because tearing of the foreskin during vigorous sexual acts allows mixing of infected blood and thus the potential dangerous consequences of contracting AIDS.
It has always been accepted as far as I am aware that circumcised men are less susceptible because of the difficulties of cleaning under the foreskin and also because tearing of the foreskin during vigorous sexual acts allows mixing of infected blood and thus the potential dangerous consequences of contracting AIDS.
I'm not fussed enough to go find it again. You'd think circumcised men would have less sex, though they would probably be at it longer when they do get it up, so that may negate the abstinence.
I'm not fussed enough to go find it again. You'd think circumcised men would have less sex, though they would probably be at it longer when they do get it up, so that may negate the abstinence.
Well, I'm thus pretty sure that your link never existed except in the minds of the uncircumcised.
Comment