Circumcision, anyone?

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:55 pm

I just came from OPERATION: CIRCUMCISION in our village where 80-90 boys from age 7-9 years were awaiting their FINAL DESTINATION. Of course, all were afraid of the tiny tuberculin needle with 2% Xylocaine I was going to inject into the skin of their penis. As I clamped with curved forceps the skin & stretching it so I could estimate where to clamp with straight forceps the imaginary spot where I will simply cut in half the penile skin. & Voila! These boys have passed the ritual of boyhood to whatever into manhood. The bleeding edges of the skin cut in half I sutured with a soluble ( chromic ) thread. I know many here are uncircumcised maybe because of fear in childhood or they think circumcision is a form of mutilation. The debate on this goes on & on. We are doing this to all Catholic Filipinos maybe due to religious connotations aside from hygienic purposes. We know for a fact that SMEGMA can cause in some studies certain cancers ( cervical ) in females who engage in sexual intercourse with uncircumcised males. By the way, I do not detach the foreskin of the penis. I just cut it in half & suture the edges. That`s all.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:13 am

Can we see some medical evidence that smegma causes cancer please?

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:17 am

Now here is the religious question: Was Adam in the Garden of Eden when he made love to Eve circumcised? That God banished Adam because of this? That it was unhygienic for Adam to copulate with Eve because of the presence of SMEGMA in Adam`s sex organ? Laugh if you will but God was very particular with sanitation. An unwashed penis before sexual intercourse irks God.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:21 am

rajakrsna;1392472 wrote: Now here is the religious question: Was Adam in the Garden of Eden when he made love to Eve circumcised? That God banished Adam because of this? That it was unhygienic for Adam to copulate with Eve because of the presence of SMEGMA in Adam`s sex organ? Laugh if you will but God was very particular with sanitation. An unwashed penis before sexual intercourse irks God.

An unwashed penis irks most women, neither God nor women are providing any MEDICAL evidence though!

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:22 am

Betty Boop;1392471 wrote: Can we see some medical evidence that smegma causes cancer please?

That was what our professors in OB-GYNE told us 3 decades ago. I do not know if the studies were true but it created a controversy that shook the religious leaders of the world. I believe the study was discontinued for political reasons. Women whose sexual partners were uncircumcised would panic if this was indeed true.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:31 am

Circumcision and Cancer

It was Ernest Wynder in 1954 who suggested that intact men's smegma caused cervical cancer in their partners. He later found that the women he'd asked had no idea whether their husbands were circumcised or not. Other studies were based on correlations: a population of Jewish women was compared with a population of gentile women. When gentile women with circumcised husbands were compared to gentile women with intact husbands, the correlation vanished.

Cancer

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:37 am

Sexually Transmitted Diseases: February 2012 - Volume 39 - Issue 2 - p 104-113 doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3182387abd

Male Circumcision and Genital Human Papillomavirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Albero, G, Castellsagué, Xavier, Giuliano, Anna R., Bosch, Francesc Xavier

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the principal cause of invasive cervical cancer. There is some evidence that male circumcision (MC) may protect against HPV infection and related disease in both men and women. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the association between MC and genital HPV infection indicators including genital warts.

Methods: A systematic search of Medline was conducted to identify all relevant studies from February 1971 to August 2010. Effect estimates were included in random effects models.

Results: A total of 21 studies with 8046 circumcised and 6336 uncircumcised men were included in the meta-analysis. MC was associated with a statistically significant reduced odds of genital HPV prevalence (odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.42–0.77). This association was also observed for genital high-risk HPV prevalence in 2 randomized controlled trials (odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.82). No associations were found between MC and genital HPV acquisition of new infections, genital HPV clearance, or genital warts.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows a robust inverse association between MC and genital HPV prevalence in men. However, more studies are needed to adequately assess the effect of MC on the acquisition and clearance of HPV infections. MC could be considered as an additional one-time preventative intervention likely to reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases both in men and women, particularly among those countries in which HPV vaccination programs and cervical screening are not available.

Cancer

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:31 am

rajakrsna;1392475 wrote: Circumcision and Cancer

It was Ernest Wynder in 1954 who suggested that intact men's smegma caused cervical cancer in their partners. He later found that the women he'd asked had no idea whether their husbands were circumcised or not. Other studies were based on correlations: a population of Jewish women was compared with a population of gentile women. When gentile women with circumcised husbands were compared to gentile women with intact husbands, the correlation vanished.

Cancer

How is that even possible?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:45 am

SnoozeAgain;1392481 wrote: How is that even possible?

:wah: eyes tightly shut obviously, hands by their sides, it is a really old study after all.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:48 am

Betty Boop;1392482 wrote: :wah: eyes tightly shut obviously, hands by their sides, it is a really old study after all.

How about this new one?

Sexually Transmitted Diseases: February 2012 - Volume 39 - Issue 2 - p 104-113 doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3182387abd

Male Circumcision and Genital Human Papillomavirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Albero, G, Castellsagué, Xavier, Giuliano, Anna R., Bosch, Francesc Xavier

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the principal cause of invasive cervical cancer. There is some evidence that male circumcision (MC) may protect against HPV infection and related disease in both men and women. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the association between MC and genital HPV infection indicators including genital warts.

Methods: A systematic search of Medline was conducted to identify all relevant studies from February 1971 to August 2010. Effect estimates were included in random effects models.

Results: A total of 21 studies with 8046 circumcised and 6336 uncircumcised men were included in the meta-analysis. MC was associated with a statistically significant reduced odds of genital HPV prevalence (odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.42–0.77). This association was also observed for genital high-risk HPV prevalence in 2 randomized controlled trials (odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.82). No associations were found between MC and genital HPV acquisition of new infections, genital HPV clearance, or genital warts.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows a robust inverse association between MC and genital HPV prevalence in men. However, more studies are needed to adequately assess the effect of MC on the acquisition and clearance of HPV infections. MC could be considered as an additional one-time preventative intervention likely to reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases both in men and women, particularly among those countries in which HPV vaccination programs and cervical screening are not available.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:06 am

rajakrsna;1392483 wrote: How about this new one?

Sexually Transmitted Diseases: February 2012 - Volume 39 - Issue 2 - p 104-113 doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3182387abd

Male Circumcision and Genital Human Papillomavirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Albero, G, Castellsagué, Xavier, Giuliano, Anna R., Bosch, Francesc Xavier

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the principal cause of invasive cervical cancer. There is some evidence that male circumcision (MC) may protect against HPV infection and related disease in both men and women. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the association between MC and genital HPV infection indicators including genital warts.

Methods: A systematic search of Medline was conducted to identify all relevant studies from February 1971 to August 2010. Effect estimates were included in random effects models.

Results: A total of 21 studies with 8046 circumcised and 6336 uncircumcised men were included in the meta-analysis. MC was associated with a statistically significant reduced odds of genital HPV prevalence (odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.42–0.77). This association was also observed for genital high-risk HPV prevalence in 2 randomized controlled trials (odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.82). No associations were found between MC and genital HPV acquisition of new infections, genital HPV clearance, or genital warts.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows a robust inverse association between MC and genital HPV prevalence in men. However, more studies are needed to adequately assess the effect of MC on the acquisition and clearance of HPV infections. MC could be considered as an additional one-time preventative intervention likely to reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases both in men and women, particularly among those countries in which HPV vaccination programs and cervical screening are not available.

Your evidence produces far too many, 'could', 'likely', 'might'. It's not medical evidence that I would rely on.

The Royal Dutch Medical Association stated in 2010: "There is currently not a single doctors' organisation that recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons."[4]

Medical analysis of circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your myth were indeed true and a definite link had been made by the medical experts then they would be recommending MC left, right and centre. They're not because there is no definitive evidence available.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:02 pm

Betty Boop;1392484 wrote: Your evidence produces far too many, 'could', 'likely', 'might'. It's not medical evidence that I would rely on.

The Royal Dutch Medical Association stated in 2010: "There is currently not a single doctors' organisation that recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons."[4]

Medical analysis of circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your myth were indeed true and a definite link had been made by the medical experts then they would be recommending MC left, right and centre. They're not because there is no definitive evidence available.

HPV ( HumanPapillomaVirus ) is the cause of genital warts. I `ve seen cases of uncircumcised men with this disease although there are also MCs with this kind of problem. But the prevalence or incidence is more on men who were uncircumcised. & we know for the fact that HPV is the cause of cervical cancer in women. Have you seen a patient with genital warts?

We don`t have a problem here regarding circumcision. Every Filipino boy maybe because of our religion are urged or cajoled to undergo circumcision every summer vacation. It`s already part of our culture. We call the uncircumcised, " PISOT". & we simply laugh at those who are "PISOT". The meaning of " PISOT" is coward or sissy.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:16 pm

rajakrsna;1392503 wrote:

We don`t have a problem here regarding circumcision. Every Filipino boy maybe because of our religion are urged or cajoled to undergo circumcision every summer vacation. It`s already part of our culture. We call the uncircumcised, " PISOT". & we simply laugh at those who are "PISOT". The meaning of " PISOT" is coward or sissy.

I was circumcised by my father at the age of 8. I circumcised my two boys at the age of 8. I am not an advocate of circumcision of infants but I am for circumcision of boys at the age 7-9. They are already aware of it ( pain ). But I say to them before I inject the needle into the skin of their penis that it hurts but the pain is only that of a bite of a red ant. & the rest they`ll just feel numb. :guitarist

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:03 pm

Uncut & proud of it. SMEGMA?? Result of poor hygiene. Totally unnecessary. Sex is really better for the uncut, but then the circumcised ones will never know that.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:35 am

Lon;1392510 wrote: Uncut & proud of it. SMEGMA?? Result of poor hygiene. Totally unnecessary. Sex is really better for the uncut, but then the circumcised ones will never know that.

I hope I wont be censored. But it`s the tongue not the uncut that does the work. :guitarist

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:56 am

I've read many studies that say just the opposite (as usual), that the male foreskin has performed a necessary anti-disease function for thousands of years that that circumcision is anti-evolutionary and anti-common sense.

Just sayin....

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:00 am

rajakrsna;1392514 wrote: I hope I wont be censored. But it`s the tongue not the uncut that does the work. :guitarist

Tell us something that we don't know. Uncut is another thing.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:04 am

Male circumsision is as barbaric and un necessary as is female circumcision. It's roots are founded on myth, erroneous medical justification and superstition and seems to only be endorsed by those already circumsized. Then it's too late to do anything about it.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:09 am

Lon;1392520 wrote: Male circumsision is as barbaric and un necessary as is female circumcision. It's roots are founded on myth, erroneous medical justification and superstition and seems to only be endorsed by those already circumsized. Then it's too late to do anything about it.

I'm with Lon, and it is known that circumcised men feel less sensation on their permanently exposed penis heads, sorry to be blunt.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:57 am

I did it for the looks..

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:26 pm

Betty Boop;1392527 wrote: sorry to be blunt.

LOL. Best. Pun. Ever.:wah:

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:53 pm

I guess circumcision was medically progressive for desert people who didn't bathe often or invest in personal hygiene. It was a healthy thing for the community. Now, for men who aren't desert rats & know to clean themselves I think it is not necessary anymore. But then we have to trust parents to teach their boys about smegma. That word always made me laugh. First heard it in high school.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue May 01, 2012 3:11 am

AnneBoleyn;1392547 wrote: I guess circumcision was medically progressive for desert people who didn't bathe often or invest in personal hygiene. It was a healthy thing for the community. Now, for men who aren't desert rats & know to clean themselves I think it is not necessary anymore. But then we have to trust parents to teach their boys about smegma. That word always made me laugh. First heard it in high school.

Being the mother of a teenage boy, I bet that that 'area' is the only bit that does get a thorough wash in the bath or shower :wah:

ml66uk · Post by **ml66uk** » Tue May 01, 2012 1:27 pm

It looks like I can't post the link, but a 2003 paper in the Israeli Medical Association Journal discusses circumcision and cervical cancer at length and says the following:

"Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing [23,24], there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role."

Women produce more smegma than men anyway and their parts are harder to keep clean, but we don't perform surgery on girls.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue May 01, 2012 1:30 pm

ml66uk;1392660 wrote: It looks like I can't post the link, but a 2003 paper in the Israeli Medical Association Journal discusses circumcision and cervical cancer at length and says the following:

"Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing [23,24], there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role."

Women produce more smegma than men anyway and their parts are harder to keep clean, but we don't perform surgery on girls.Thanks! Welcome to FG.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Tue May 01, 2012 2:36 pm

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Tue May 01, 2012 3:38 pm

There`s no mention in the above-video HPV( Humanpapillomavirus ) that causes genital warts common in uncircumcised penis & increase incidence of cervical cancer in women whose sex partners are infected with HPV.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 02, 2012 1:10 am

could I just say that the avarage philipino would have this guy for dinner .... take no notice of him ..I'm sorry that my region has spewed this being forth..

Even those in the highlands would discredit his views...and I"m confused ..did he write the OP from personal experience? because that's how I read it after him telling everyone that the avatar is of him and his daughter ...(a nurse). Can't say I have the privalage of knowing any incompetant doctors in the the asian regions. But this sounds barbaric ...or is that the point of the exercise? are the phillipines next on the the war agenda? ..... just sayin

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 02, 2012 1:20 am

AnneBoleyn;1392547 wrote: I guess circumcision was medically progressive for desert people who didn't bathe often or invest in personal hygiene. It was a healthy thing for the community. Now, for men who aren't desert rats & know to clean themselves I think it is not necessary anymore. But then we have to trust parents to teach their boys about smegma. That word always made me laugh. First heard it in high school.

none of my boys are circumcised...(and I was brought up strict roman catholic). and I taught them ..it's your dick and you can wash it as much as you want to . :yh_rotfl

I also know your genes ...do what ever you want with your hair .....you won't have it for long. Don't push me on this one ..I combed out dreadlocks the other day ...

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 02, 2012 1:24 am

Lon;1392520 wrote: Male circumsision is as barbaric and un necessary as is female circumcision. It's roots are founded on myth, erroneous medical justification and superstition and seems to only be endorsed by those already circumsized. Then it's too late to do anything about it.

Agreed... religion ...to each their own ...but now you're talking about my new born babe that's perfect....**** OFF!!! Sorry just a protective mum. Oh and I'm speaking generally btw

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed May 02, 2012 7:01 am

And now this thread has passed my "in good taste" barrier and I'm outta here.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed May 02, 2012 8:22 am

Saint_;1392713 wrote: And now this thread has passed my "in good taste" barrier and I'm outta here.

Was it me?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 02, 2012 9:09 am

Myth 1: Circumcised penis Is more penile hygiene and cleaner. A substance consists of oils, dead skin an antibody called smegma will accumulate beneath the foreskin of uncircumcised penis thus provide an Ideal environment for bacteria colonization. This condition will increase the risk of Infection, un-healthy and un-clean.

Fact 1: Smegma has been wrongly accused as unclean or dirty. In fact, It Is very clean. The antibodies In fresh smegma actually prevent bacteria colonization. It Is true when the accumulation of smegma went un-checked could be un-healthy but any penis that Is not properly washed Is at high risk of infection since dirt and bacteria can collect everywhere from your fore-skin, scrotum and your pubic hairs.

Myth 2: Foreskin does not have any significant function in our body but to provide away for gems causing UTI, HPV and HIV to easily invade our body thus circumcision serves as diseases prevention. It is minor surgery and not so painful.

Fact 2: The foreskin is a functional organ with a purpose, which is to protect the penis from bacterial infection, to provide lubrication during intercourse, and to enhance the sexual experience of the man.

The truth is that gems causing UTI, HPV, HIV and other diseases can be absorbed through membranes in our the penis, mo matter you are "foreskin captain" or "cut lieutenant". Another fact is that circumcision is very painful even when pain relief is administered to the patient; the penis is sore throughout the recovery time and prone to infection.

Myth 3: Circumcision effectively prevents UTI (urinary tract infection)

Fact 3: There is no reason to recommend circumcision to prevent potential or recurrent UTI, as there is no indicator that having a foreskin creates a greater incidence of urinary tract infection.

Although there are many studies conducted to prove it a significant increase of UTI rate among uncircumcised but there is not enough evidence for pediatric organizations and AAP to recommend routine infant circumcision.

Myth 4: Circumcision can reduce cervical cancer rates

Fact 4: The above statement probably derived from an article in New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 that claimed that circumcision reduced the risk of causing cervical cancer. Despite the study being flawed and the conclusions exaggerated, many still cite it as "proof" that circumcision can reduce cervical cancer rates.

That fact is most medical institutions such as American Cancer Society, The Cancer Research UK, The American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Paediatric Society do not link non-circumcision to cervical cancer.

Consider this fact: 91% of American men born in 1970 and 83% of American men born in 1980 were circumcised and U.S is considered to have very high rate of circumcision rate but strangely U.S is also reported as country with highest cervical cancer rates compared to countries with the lowest rates of circumcision like Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, the U.S.S.R., China, and Japan. It is obvious that circumcision rates do not affect the cervical cancer rates across the globe.

Myth 5: Circumcision may offer some protection against HIV for men.

Fact 5: You are equally at the same high risk of getting infected by HIV no matter you keep your skin intake or cut. There are many other factors may be involved in the likelihood of us to contract HIV. An even better way to protect oneself against HIV might be to practice safe sex than cutting your foreskin.

Myth 6: Circumcision is more aesthetic look

Fact 6: Hmm.... As to personal taste, I will let it to you to decide.

Myth 7: Circumcision provides better sexual experience, stronger erection and bigger penis

Fact 7: Come on...Don't be silly. You know it has nothing to do with it

Disabled World: Circumcised Penis Myths and Facts

Raj........... You are talking bollocks.. Literally !!!!

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed May 02, 2012 9:39 am

Ladies...

Which in your opinion has the best AESTETIC value? With or without turtle neck?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed May 02, 2012 9:46 am

YZGI;1392735 wrote: Ladies...

Which in your opinion has the best AESTETIC value? With or without turtle neck?

WITH, I've only seen one without, and it just looked odd :wah:

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 02, 2012 10:55 am

YZGI;1392735 wrote: Ladies...

Which in your opinion has the best AESTETIC value? With or without turtle neck?

it's not what you've got ...it's how you use it.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 02, 2012 2:35 pm

YZGI;1392735 wrote: Ladies...

Which in your opinion has the best AESTETIC value? With or without turtle neck?

What ?

What makes them breathless ?

Asthmatically speaking...............

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 02, 2012 2:42 pm

Bruv;1392757 wrote: What ?

What makes them breathless ?

Asthmatically speaking...............

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 03, 2012 8:11 pm

rajakrsna;1392508 wrote: I was circumcised by my father at the age of 8. I circumcised my two boys at the age of 8. I am not an advocate of circumcision of infants but I am for circumcision of boys at the age 7-9. They are already aware of it ( pain ). But I say to them before I inject the needle into the skin of their penis that it hurts but the pain is only that of a bite of a red ant. & the rest they`ll just feel numb. :guitarist

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 04, 2012 3:46 am

Was that coming down to the threads level, or raising the bar ?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri May 04, 2012 6:11 am

Back when I first joined FG in 2005, this thread would have caused an uproar with many members complaining loudly and bitterly that the poster was disgusting and the thread should be removed.

I like it better now. That old lady mentality used to piss me off.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri May 04, 2012 8:56 am

SnoozeAgain;1392892 wrote: Back when I first joined FG in 2005, this thread would have caused an uproar with many members complaining loudly and bitterly that the poster was disgusting and the thread should be removed.

I like it better now. That old lady mentality used to piss me off.
Why would this topic cause an uproar? I'm totally perplexed. And as late as '05? Downright strange. And removal of thread? Censorship.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri May 04, 2012 9:35 am

AnneBoleyn;1392907 wrote: Why would this topic cause an uproar? I'm totally perplexed. And as late as '05? Downright strange. And removal of thread? Censorship.

I seriously doubt any threads were removed, even if called for. Taking a quick look at the 'similar threads' feature at the bottom of the

page, I see 5 earlier threads on the subject, 3 of them started by the same person.

None dated back as far as 2005 though...

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri May 04, 2012 10:20 am

I remember Nomad starting one about masturbation and if had been me that had started it, there would have been a lot of complaints. I remember posting a spammy email I got and I got a stern talking to by admin for dirtying up the home page. I posted a photo of a guy dressed up like a baby and one poster was so upset that I'd share a photo of a mentally disabled man (her interpretation) that I've never seen her post here again. Then there's the whole Brokeback Mountain thread that I've mentioned before. I posted a now well known photo of the back of a naked man climbing down a fire truck's ladder that got me reported for lewdness. I could go on and on.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri May 04, 2012 11:03 am

I believe I recall Chezzie and myself having to be very careful when on the subject of nob cheese

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

oscar;1392926 wrote: I believe I recall Chezzie and myself having to be very careful when on the subject of nob cheese
Is that what you call smegma?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri May 04, 2012 11:07 am

Accountable;1392927 wrote: Is that what you call smegma? Yes... The English version Is nob cheese.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 04, 2012 11:09 am

Fomunda

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri May 04, 2012 11:09 am

Accountable;1392933 wrote: Fomunda
Not to be confused with the English female version of Fish and Chips.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 04, 2012 3:19 pm

Accountable;1392933 wrote: Fomunda
Gouda ?

I thought you had left this thread with your head held high ?