Really? What year is he? (I'm technically a Junior this year but taking a year off due to financial. I am in the chem department but I might switch to computer science when I get back. That or computer graphics and design.)

He's a sophomore, studying a bit of chemistry actually. Apparently he's known throughout his dorm for cooking for everyone

They are also listed on TvTropes.org in the "Throw It In" page.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

What I'm getting from that article is one person's interpretation of a study. And especially at the end, he makes the claim that female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, which I will again stress, are not the same things.

[citation needed]

Here's two, one from the huff post, and one from the CDC

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/circumcision-penis-bacteria-hiv-risk_n_3091271.html

www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

They both reference studies that found that circumcised people were at a lower risk for STDs, among other things.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

What I'm getting from that article is one person's interpretation of a study. And especially at the end, he makes the claim that female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, which I will again stress, are not the same things.

But you're still not seeing the issue here. Even if the complications were ZERO, which they are not, you are still arguing in advocacy of chopping up the penis' of infant boys for no reason other than you want to.

You are saying "Boys do not deserve bodily integrity the same way the girls do"

I am saying that by saying "chopping up the penis' of infant boys" you are employing scare tactics on par with Fox News. Circumcision is not chopping up the penis. It's removing a piece of skin. And it's not because parents want to do it for aesthetics. There is research backing up the fact that there are medical benefits to having it removed.

[citation needed]

Here's two, one from the huff post, and one from the CDC

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/circumcision-penis-bacteria-hiv-risk_n_3091271.html

www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

They both reference studies that found that circumcised people were at a lower risk for STDs, among other things.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

What I'm getting from that article is one person's interpretation of a study. And especially at the end, he makes the claim that female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, which I will again stress, are not the same things.

What I am trying to convey to you is that there are far more circumcised men who have complications than reported because they all just think that what they have is "normal" when in reality it is not.

And while that may be, I can't peer into the minds of men in order to find out just how they feel about their penises, it still doesn't stop the fact that any sort of serious complications arising from circumcision aren't found in the majority of people (Or, at the very least, they usually have other causes, such as weight or genetics). Serious issues such as ED (The cases caused by circumcision), Buried Penis, or anything like that, are so drastically uncommon in the majority of people that they're negligible.

But you're still not seeing the issue here. Even if the complications were ZERO, which they are not, you are still arguing in advocacy of chopping up the penis' of infant boys for no reason other than you want to.

You are saying "Boys do not deserve bodily integrity the same way the girls do"

I am saying that by saying "chopping up the penis' of infant boys" you are employing scare tactics on par with Fox News. Circumcision is not chopping up the penis. It's removing a piece of skin. And it's not because parents want to do it for aesthetics. There is research backing up the fact that there are medical benefits to having it removed.

[citation needed]

Here's two, one from the huff post, and one from the CDC

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/circumcision-penis-bacteria-hiv-risk_n_3091271.html

www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

They both reference studies that found that circumcised people were at a lower risk for STDs, among other things.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

What I'm getting from that article is one person's interpretation of a study. And especially at the end, he makes the claim that female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, which I will again stress, are not the same things.

Well I am NOT a hairy guy. I can't grow a beard, I don't have arm hair, my underarm hair is spotty at best, I have no chest hair, the only thing marginally hairy on me is my legs and my wife can grow more hair on her legs than I can. I am not talking about hair at the base of the shaft, I mean directly on it, which is not natural for any man.

Currently I weigh 280lbs and I am 6'1. Slightly over weight, yes, but not enough to bury my entire penis inside of my pelvic bone. Also if you think I have a baby dick, I don't, I am not large to be sure but 6' long and 4' round is well within the scale of average.

The percentage of people who are pissed off? Smaller than it should be. Or do you mean the ones I know personally? Well in comparison to the amount of men that I have personally have met, they are a majority.

I, too, mean along my entire shaft. It isn't as unnatural as you seem to think.

If that's the case, then what I'm getting here, my impression of your argument, is this. You're comparable to someone coming out of quadruple bipass surgery, and suffering from a faulty suture, and rather than blaming the doctor, you're blaming the entire procedure itself.

I was asking out of all men that have been circumcised, what percentage do you believe the men you know who have problems with it represent. My guess is that out of all of the men that have been circumcised via western medical procedures, the percentage of men that have had life-altering complications is negligible at best.

What I am trying to convey to you is that there are far more circumcised men who have complications than reported because they all just think that what they have is "normal" when in reality it is not.

And while that may be, I can't peer into the minds of men in order to find out just how they feel about their penises, it still doesn't stop the fact that any sort of serious complications arising from circumcision aren't found in the majority of people (Or, at the very least, they usually have other causes, such as weight or genetics). Serious issues such as ED (The cases caused by circumcision), Buried Penis, or anything like that, are so drastically uncommon in the majority of people that they're negligible.

But you're still not seeing the issue here. Even if the complications were ZERO, which they are not, you are still arguing in advocacy of chopping up the penis' of infant boys for no reason other than you want to.

You are saying "Boys do not deserve bodily integrity the same way the girls do"

I am saying that by saying "chopping up the penis' of infant boys" you are employing scare tactics on par with Fox News. Circumcision is not chopping up the penis. It's removing a piece of skin. And it's not because parents want to do it for aesthetics. There is research backing up the fact that there are medical benefits to having it removed.

[citation needed]

Here's two, one from the huff post, and one from the CDC

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/circumcision-penis-bacteria-hiv-risk_n_3091271.html

www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

They both reference studies that found that circumcised people were at a lower risk for STDs, among other things.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

What I'm getting from that article is one person's interpretation of a study. And especially at the end, he makes the claim that female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, which I will again stress, are not the same things.

I'm so glad that we can finally put this issue to rest because you have a buddy who says I am wrong. Man what a waste of time listening to all the doctors and researchers. Fuck them, your buddy tells you I'm wrong, I should totally just listen to that guy.

Show me the reports of the doctors and researchers. Please.

Yes I have. Me.

I suffer from Buried Penis because of my circumcision. It is sometimes painful to wear certain kinds of pants, especially jeans, because of the way the exacerbate the condition. I have difficulty walking long distances, and it even makes going to the bathroom hard. I also have hair along the shaft of my penis, this is caused by the excess removal of skin on the penis and is painful while having sex sometimes. I also have an issue with sensitivity where while having sex I will feel no sexual gratification.

I personally know many other men who have similar issues because that's what happens when you suffer, you find people like yourself.

You might say that those "groups are biased" but that is only because you disagree with them. You never look at your own side of the argument and say "we only think this way because we are biased". Those "biased" people are not there just to fulfill an agenda, they are the people who are suffering from this. Those are the people who have been damaged and hurt and marginalized by assholes who think that it is a fucking good idea to CUT THE FUCKING PENIS' OF LITTLE FUCKING BOYS.

You are either PRO "Cut little boy penis" or ANTI "Cut little boy penis" there is no in between.

Well, I have hair along the shaft of my penis too, and let me tell you something... it's because I'm hairy guy, not because I'm circumcised. Let me ask you something before I make my next point, and it is important that you answer truthfully. How much do you weigh? And what percentage of people do you think your "group of men" represents?

Well I am NOT a hairy guy. I can't grow a beard, I don't have arm hair, my underarm hair is spotty at best, I have no chest hair, the only thing marginally hairy on me is my legs and my wife can grow more hair on her legs than I can. I am not talking about hair at the base of the shaft, I mean directly on it, which is not natural for any man.

Currently I weigh 280lbs and I am 6'1. Slightly over weight, yes, but not enough to bury my entire penis inside of my pelvic bone. Also if you think I have a baby dick, I don't, I am not large to be sure but 6' long and 4' round is well within the scale of average.

The percentage of people who are pissed off? Smaller than it should be. Or do you mean the ones I know personally? Well in comparison to the amount of men that I have personally have met, they are a majority.

I, too, mean along my entire shaft. It isn't as unnatural as you seem to think.

If that's the case, then what I'm getting here, my impression of your argument, is this. You're comparable to someone coming out of quadruple bipass surgery, and suffering from a faulty suture, and rather than blaming the doctor, you're blaming the entire procedure itself.

I was asking out of all men that have been circumcised, what percentage do you believe the men you know who have problems with it represent. My guess is that out of all of the men that have been circumcised via western medical procedures, the percentage of men that have had life-altering complications is negligible at best.

What I am trying to convey to you is that there are far more circumcised men who have complications than reported because they all just think that what they have is "normal" when in reality it is not.

And while that may be, I can't peer into the minds of men in order to find out just how they feel about their penises, it still doesn't stop the fact that any sort of serious complications arising from circumcision aren't found in the majority of people (Or, at the very least, they usually have other causes, such as weight or genetics). Serious issues such as ED (The cases caused by circumcision), Buried Penis, or anything like that, are so drastically uncommon in the majority of people that they're negligible.

But you're still not seeing the issue here. Even if the complications were ZERO, which they are not, you are still arguing in advocacy of chopping up the penis' of infant boys for no reason other than you want to.

You are saying "Boys do not deserve bodily integrity the same way the girls do"

I am saying that by saying "chopping up the penis' of infant boys" you are employing scare tactics on par with Fox News. Circumcision is not chopping up the penis. It's removing a piece of skin. And it's not because parents want to do it for aesthetics. There is research backing up the fact that there are medical benefits to having it removed.

[citation needed]

Here's two, one from the huff post, and one from the CDC

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/circumcision-penis-bacteria-hiv-risk_n_3091271.html

www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

They both reference studies that found that circumcised people were at a lower risk for STDs, among other things.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html

What I'm getting from that article is one person's interpretation of a study. And especially at the end, he makes the claim that female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, which I will again stress, are not the same things.

What you have described is not the only form of Male circumcision nor is that anywhere close to the ramifications of removing the foreskin. It does not leave the functions of the penis "one hundred percent intact". In fact the removal of the foreskin is to directly alter many of the functions of the glans. The head of a penis is supposed to be soft, moist and protected at all times. The foreskin has hormonal production and control capabilities. The foreskin is more sensitive than the rest of the entire penis put together. It is more sensitive than the clitoris.

Don't trying an defend your love for cutting up the penis' of infant boys.

Okay, I'm going to keep my composure and not resort to accusations. I would ask that you do the same. The post above speaks of male circumcision in the Unites States, Britain, etc., and in each of these countries, male circumcision is thus: The foreskin is removed in order to prevent possible health problems in the future. The foreskin alone is removed. Even in a Jewish Bris (AKA one of the oldest forms of circumcision), only the foreskin in removed. The biggest complaint I've heard from people without a foreskin is that it may or may not cause slight numbing due to less surface area containing nerves. The evolutionary need of a foreskin was to protect the penis from dirt and other assorted shit that could get onto a penis in day to day uncivilized life. It's not needed anymore, from a biological standpoint. The head of my penis is, in fact, soft, moist, and protected at all times, because I'm not running around exposing it the elements. The foreskin has no hormonal production, because it's a piece of skin. It might melatonin. That's about it. It won't make testosterone, or anything like that because it is not a gland. It's a piece of skin. And I've just come from speaking with a friend who is uncircumcised, and I asked him about this claim of yours that the foreskin is more sensitive than the rest of the penis. He says you're wrong. Fancy that.

I'm so glad that we can finally put this issue to rest because you have a buddy who says I am wrong. Man what a waste of time listening to all the doctors and researchers. Fuck them, your buddy tells you I'm wrong, I should totally just listen to that guy.

Show me the reports of the doctors and researchers. Please.

yeah but the content didn't

bitch, 1 and 2 also used bowties.

I said New Series

yeah but the content didn't

Finally a Whovian who watched the classics and isn't just bandwagon

Do I get a cookie now? (I guess jelly baby would be more apropriate but I just started the Pertwee epsides) it's a shame there isn't more of us, huh?

YES! YOU GET MY INTERNETS AS WELL! Yeah, it's a damn shame. I have to say, Tom Baker was probably my favorite Doctor :3

so far, I would say my favorite is Patrick Throughton (totally misspelled that name) but the episode where he regenerated wasn't in my folder where I had downloaded the epsiodes which I found weird cause acording to wikipedia those episodes still exist, maybe I'll look them up some day.

You should, haha, and yeah Patrick was awesome! It's been so long since I've watched the old Who. Time to queue it up on Netflix and marathon the hell out of it again :3

wish I could see the classics on Netflix
#Norwegianproblems
can't believe I used a hashtag on FJ.

anywho (see waht I did there) I looked up Throughtons regenration, that was incredibly sad actually.

Most of the regenerations are painful emotionally. At least in some way.

yeah, but Thorughton was forced into regenration that made it extra sad.

True, true.

you mean the 8th.

nope, "9th" Mcgann was 8 and Hurt was between 8 and 9

hurt is now the 9th, he regenerates into eccleston's doctor, who is now technically the 10th, etc.

sure. but of the doctors 13 regenerations, hurt is the ninth. there isnt any .5 in timelord regens. they get 13. hurt being the ninth, that makes capaldi the 13 regen.

He has 12 regens, not 13. There can be 13 doctors, not 14. But then River gave him a couple of regenerations, right? We should be good for a while.

Nope, capaldi is the 14th. The Doctor's hand counted.

doctorwhomedia.co.uk/

You'll have to make an account and stuff, but it's free and the quality is decent.