Yay For Us :d

Circumcision also removes the part that carries the HPV from woman to woman. Result: great reduction in cervical cancer.

I'm fine with being circumcised. I get plenty of pleasure anyhow, and I'm not really sure if I would want more anyway. Besides, what Brandye says about HPV is definitely a concern. (But then, since I'm married now, I don't have to worry about going from woman to woman).

I hope more parents read this and take it into account. Thanks for the link!

There are so many conflicting reports on this. =/...I'm not sure which to believe. Its more logical that uncircumcised men have more/give more pleasure, since its what nature intended. Its also logical that circumcised men get less STI's because theres nothing to trap the bacteria.

*shrugs* If I have a son, I will let him make his own choice when he's old enough.

yeah...i never really understood why the decision is made for the child when they are so young (kind of how parents pierce their infant girls' ears)

you can get circumsized later if you WANT it, but its not something you can undo. why not just leave it alone and let the individual decide what they want done with their body :confused:

Yes, you can get circumcised later. BUT, circumcising a two week old is a non-issue. The older a man is, the more difficult a procedure it becomes - pain, bleeding, infection, stitching.

As Brandye said, more painful as an adult; similar analogy, think about having your tonsils out as a kid rather then as an adult.

It may be more painful, but considering what's at stake my personal belief is it's something an individual should be able to choose, and not have the choice made for them. As far as I know there's no real "upside" to keeping your tonsils (although I still have mine, they've never given me problems). As mentioned in other threads the AMA does not recommend routine circumcision anymore - please folks, it's simply not black and white. If you google "circumcision and HPV" you'll find tons of references that do put qualifiers in these results . . . . as with HIV the procedure does reduce transmission but so does safe sex and personal responsibility. As the referenced link suggests this is not a superfluous flap of skin on the male organ, you are altering the level of sensation in the male. Parents do have the ultimate authority in this decision, but research BOTH sides and come to your own conclusions based on documentation available.

[quote=DVDBear;182770]It may be more painful, but considering what's at stake my personal belief is it's something an individual should be able to choose, and not have the choice made for them. As far as I know there's no real "upside" to keeping your tonsils (although I still have mine, they've never given me problems). As mentioned in other threads the AMA does not recommend routine circumcision anymore - please folks, it's simply not black and white. If you google "circumcision and HPV" you'll find tons of references that do put qualifiers in these results . . . . as with HIV the procedure does reduce transmission but so does safe sex and personal responsibility. As the referenced link suggests this is not a superfluous flap of skin on the male organ, you are altering the level of sensation in the male. Parents do have the ultimate authority in this decision, but research BOTH sides and come to your own conclusions based on documentation available.[/quote]

Keeping the tonsils serve as a mechanism to assist with the elimination of toxins. Many times also end up trapping bacteria, causing infection. You are lucky!

As far as circumcision, many do this for religious beliefs and hygiene purposes. It's a choice parents need to make but as Brandye said it's a non-issue after birth and later in life become quite painful. I believe many just have it done as part of traditional beliefs; however, with any procedure parents should be well informed prior to any invasive procedure.

I vote for later. People should have a choice. Both are correct btw, the procedure eliminating other risks but having less sensitivity.

I say keep foreskin, double hygiene on the area :D

If our child is a son, my wife and I are in agreement that circumcision is the way to go.

[QUOTE=Engage!;182832]If our child is a son, my wife and I are in agreement that circumcision is the way to go.[/QUOTE]

Just wondering...why did you decide this? :)

Not judging I promise! Just genuinely curious. *points at my user name* :p

Almost no one is going to want to get circumcised later in life. I was circumcised as an infant and it doesn't bother me at all, in fact I'm sort of glad. But even if wasn't circumcised as infant and didn't like my foreskin there is no way I would want to get the skin in the most sensitive part of body cut off. Even if this did happen and I did go through with it, it is not something I would want to remember. What is so bad about parents having their children circumcised? Sex still feels good.

[QUOTE=VanellaSchnella;182836]Almost no one is going to want to get circumcised later in life. I was circumcised as an infant and it doesn't bother me at all, in fact I'm sort of glad. But even if wasn't circumcised as infant and didn't like my foreskin there is no way I would want to get the skin in the most sensitive part of body cut off. Even if this did happen and I did go through with it, it is not something I would want to remember. What is so bad about parents having their children circumcised? Sex still feels good.[/QUOTE]If you had a toe removed from your foot at birth you'd still be able to walk just fine. Does that mean the toe was unnecessary and should have been removed? Obviously if there was a pressing medical reason to remove it then the answer would be yes. The question (and controversy) is whether circumcision warrants being a routine procedure done at birth. You can find plenty of medical opinions on both sides of the fence. Read the link at the beginning of this thread for starters.

Personally for me, i'm circumsized and I'd rather it be like that just because I think its looks better than just not being circumsized

Luckily I have girls and don't have to worry about circumcision. That said, I would never consider, slicing off their clitoral hood. I have see a lot of news, in recent years, about stopping female genital mutilation (FGM), why is it different for boys. I think it should be up to the man to choose.
I do have to ask you guys who are not cut, is sex painful for you? The few guys I know who were not cut as babies, have said that sex is way too much stimulation, and causes pain?

Circumcision is a decision that someone has to make. Note how many uncircumcised men post here about problems with hood retraction as compared to how many men complain about anything other than size.

For most of the last century, we have known that cervical cancer is lower in Jewish and Muslim populations than in the rest of the world. Both religions circumcise at birth. Much of the world has fallen in line.

As a partner of mine, the increased sensitivity of being uncut would make little difference - no uncut penis is accepted into my vagina.

[QUOTE=Dan22;182853]Personally for me, i'm circumsized and I'd rather it be like that just because I think its looks better than just not being circumsized[/QUOTE]

It only really looks noticeably different when a man is soft really :rolleyes:. When he is hard its barely noticeable imo, I guess it depends on the guy.

[QUOTE=Brandye;182874]Circumcision is a decision that someone has to make. Note how many uncircumcised men post here about problems with hood retraction as compared to how many men complain about anything other than size.[/QUOTE]

I was told that depends on how he took care of himself when he was younger, and especially while growing. If he kept it extra clean, and stretched the skin back several times a day it keeps it flexible and it doesn't irritate. It sure worked for my fiancée, he never has problems. Btw he is also "above average" size, which I am told it makes a difference as well. I think if people don't want to be circumcised, there needs to be more information and more care to prevent problems. Did you know, women who have larger clits can have the same problem; the skin getting stiff and keeping germs caught under the hood. Women like that should gently pull the hood back and clean underneath like a circumcised man should clean his foreskin.

Just what I have read over the years :).

-please remove-

[QUOTE=Brandye;182874]Circumcision is a decision that someone has to make. Note how many uncircumcised men post here about problems with hood retraction as compared to how many men complain about anything other than size.

As a partner of mine, the increased sensitivity of being uncut would make little difference - no uncut penis is accepted into my vagina.[/QUOTE]That's hardly a scientific observation, Brandeye. How many uncut men complain of hood retraction out of the total men who are uncircumcised? From what I'm reading 1 in 20 will have some form of this problem at some time, and out of that a very small percentage need any surgical help in correcting it. It's not surprising men who do ask about it here . . . . this is a sex information board! Does this condition happen? Yes it does. Does it warrent routine circumcision of every newborn male? Evidently not, since the AMA, BMA and other medical organizations don't recommend it be performed routinely. As far as the upside . . . as someone who was circumcised at birth it's a little difficult for me to honestly say how much sensitivity I'm missing since I've nothing to compare it to. But getting back to the original poster's link this is the latest in many studies to suggest it's a legitimate concern.

You're entitled to set whatever criteria you like for who you'll have sex with. I not sure what that has to do with an academic discussion of the pros and cons of circumcision. (Except for males in your geographic area). :D

Anybody interested in a reasonably balanced summation of circumcision, both pro and con should read the Wikipedia entry. It's really interesting.

The relationship with cervical cancer, and some STDs, is very scientific.

I agree the Wiki article is quite good.

What I found as the pro's recommended by the Board of Pediatrics:
* Vast reduction of UTI's.
* Decrease in problems involving a tight foreskin.
* Lower incidence of inflammation of the penile head.
* Fewer problems with erections especially during puberty.
* Decrease in STD risks of patient and partner, HIV, Chlamydia, HPV, & Syphilis.
*Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
* Decrease in overall urological problems.

[QUOTE=sera300;182902]What I found as the pro's recommended by the Board of Pediatrics:
* Vast reduction of UTI's.
* Decrease in problems involving a tight foreskin.
* Lower incidence of inflammation of the penile head.
* Fewer problems with erections especially during puberty.
* Decrease in STD risks of patient and partner, HIV, Chlamydia, HPV, & Syphilis.
*Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
* Decrease in overall urological problems.[/QUOTE]"Decrease in problems involving a tight foreskin"? Yeah, I imagine it would! That's like saying decapitation takes care of headaches. :D

Seriously, nobody is arguing that they're isn't a number of factors that make a plus side to circumcision, but IT IS a question of weighing these against the minuses, and to either ignore or deny that there is a very real downside as well is doing a disservice to anyone, parent or adult considering the procedure and looking for unbiased information. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and I'm not landing on anyone for stating their own. "Facts", however, are slippery. An example, from The American Family Physician re: circumcision and HPV -

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020701/tips/8.html

[COLOR="RoyalBlue">EDITOR'S NOTE: The sound bite that will hit the evening news from this study--"Circumcision prevents HPV infection and cervical cancer!"--needs so many qualifiers that it has little scientific rigor. The initial association between circumcision and cervical cancer was lessened with each of the confounding variables included in the statistical analysis (e.g., education level, number of partners) and there is no guarantee that other socioeconomic or clinical variables that were not tracked may explain the association entirely. Retrospective, case control studies have led the medical community astray before with findings that were not borne out in prospective, controlled trials (which would obviously not be feasible in this situation). The lack of a significant association overall between circumcision and cervical cancer is a less dramatic result than the 58 percent reduction in cancer for the high-risk subgroup, but it is likely the more reliable take-home point."--B.Z. [/COLOR]

That is, of course, just another opinion. Ultimately, for me, what is the key question is whether these findings create the urgency for parents of not leaving their son(s) intact (with the understanding the procedure is more involved later in life) then letting him make the choice when he is old enough to do so. If they do ultimately decide in favor from a well informed, researched perspective . . . end of story.

I'll remember that one when my next patient starts complaining of chronic headaches! LOL.

I can say I am unbiased on this topic and never gave it a second thought until I read the past debates! Since, I have had a heighten awareness of cut v. non-cut (sort of on penis patrol). I can say in 20 years of working in NYS & CT regional hospitals, NYC shock trauma, and now as a NP; I have seen my fair share of the penis. I have seen a handful (no pun) which are not cut, of those they were elderly gentlemen. Of men I have been with personally, all were cut, I dated 2 guys who were not, both were Jewish (people love to tell you personal info when they know you are a nurse). I have never heard a man say they felt differently b/c of circumcision.

Where I am now, we do peds, the boys are cut. The reason I looked further into the topic was lack of experience on the topic. I have seen elderly gentlemen with horrific infections and urosepsis who were not cut; therefore, cleanliness is a one reason which I tied to being uncircumcised. The info I put up was strictly for info I found for it, there are equal reasons against it. But since I do not have a penis of my own, the choice if I did? Don't know.

Of men who are circumcised do they feel they have lost sensation? Or is it just perhaps the particular subset of these men have less sensation normally? Obviously, you feel there would have been a difference if you were not circumcised.

But then looking at the risk factor for diseases spreading (mainly HIV & HPV) are the organizations which promote circumcision to decrease the risks (60%) wrong? Obviously condom use is essential to decrease the risk, but realizing many will over look using one especially in earlier years of sexual experiences; isn't too late then to ask the man what he prefers? Since he probably has already engaged in unsafe behavior and sexual practices?

[QUOTE=sera300;182939]I have never heard a man say they felt differently b/c of circumcision.

Where I am now, we do peds, the boys are cut. The reason I looked further into the topic was lack of experience on the topic. I have seen elderly gentlemen with horrific infections and urosepsis who were not cut; therefore, cleanliness is a one reason which I tied to being uncircumcised. The info I put up was strictly for info I found for it, there are equal reasons against it. But since I do not have a penis of my own, the choice if I did? Don't know.

Of men who are circumcised do they feel they have lost sensation? Or is it just perhaps the particular subset of these men have less sensation normally? Obviously, you feel there would have been a difference if you were not circumcised.

But then looking at the risk factor for diseases spreading (mainly HIV & HPV) are the organizations which promote circumcision to decrease the risks (60%) wrong? Obviously condom use is essential to decrease the risk, but realizing many will over look using one especially in earlier years of sexual experiences; isn't too late then to ask the man what he prefers? Since he probably has already engaged in unsafe behavior and sexual practices?[/QUOTE]Thanks for the first hand insights, Sera. You make some good points.

Personally I have thought I've lost a small degree of sensation as I age. Whether this is due to the glans being exposed and toughening or other physiological and psychological factors, who knows? Maybe I'm imagining it. I've NEVER been able to perform well in a condom . . . . maybe the extra sensation would help there. If the choice had been left to me I would not have gotten circumcised, for both performance and aesthetic reasons (not that I think there's anything wrong with the way a cut penis looks).

My personal view is simply that it should be the individual's choice. You're right about young men perhaps being reckless in sexual behavior, but you can't protect against a lack of personal responsibility by removing body parts. As has been mentioned in other threads on this subject by myself and others there's a definite reverse danger of soundbite and second hand reporting that somehow being circumcised either completely or so dramatically reduces chances of infection a kid, lacking a handy condom might decide to "chance it" since he's cut and "less susceptible".

It's a very complex and emotional subject, and *talk about timing!!* - this article has just shown up on MSNBC -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19294881/

A very interesting read, especially the comments section. :)

I know it doesn't really matter what little old me thinks in the grand scheme of things, but I definitely prefer circumcised penis over not circumcised penis. The extra skin on an uncut penis just creeps me out... It's not like I choose to feel that way about it though, it just does.

It probably has a lot to do with what you're used to. I didn't even know what an uncut dick looked like until I was about fifteen, and the first one I saw both disturbed and fascinated me. If something looks different than "the norm" (and the age I grew up in almost everyone was cut) it can be unsettling at first.

I've since grown to appreciate it. ;)

I agree - the first man I was with was uncut, and his was the first penis I had ever seen in person. We were together for five years, so, that's what I grew used to. Although every man I've been with since has been cut, I still prefer and uncut penis over cut. Just looks wise, anyway. The scars on the penis is what creeps me out.

Scars? Now how come I've never noticed any scars!? Guess I need to pay more attention to my man's junk. o.O

In the UK, being cut has never been an automatic thing as it seems to be in the US. I get the impression that you're going against the norm if you don't do it there. Here, it's very much the opposite. I know of perhaps a handful of guys who've had it done (... and mentioned it in conversation :P)

Personally, I'm glad I'm uncut. The idea makes me queezy. Its my penis damnit. ;)

[quote]
* Vast reduction of UTI's.
* Decrease in problems involving a tight foreskin.
* Lower incidence of inflammation of the penile head.
* Fewer problems with erections especially during puberty.
* Decrease in STD risks of patient and partner, HIV, Chlamydia, HPV, & Syphilis.
*Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
* Decrease in overall urological problems.[/quote]

Seems to me, safe sex deals with most of those. I'll happily go with that instead of with cutting a chunk off my penis. There's also the fact that they seem to be fairly rare occurrences. People have been having sex for a very long time. Pretty sure that circumcision isn't the norm in the majority of the world (Not sure on that though)

Xan:
As I said I am pretty unbiased on the subject, yes safe sex practices will reduce the incidence of spreading HIV & HPV, my only doubt is the younger who may tend to skip using condoms, contract one of the diseases, and infects themselves & then continues the spread. Obviously HIV in the US is not the same as it was years back for multiple reasons, some not related to sex. I know when I was younger how many times I risked it (skipping condoms) I was really lucky not to get preg. Now there are so many diseases predominant. Much like DVD, I hate the damned things.

It's something much more predominant in the US. I thought about this for a few days, my ex was from Sweden and so were his parents. He moved here as a young child and was cut at birth. Perhaps much of this is due to a generational issue?

I did read the majority of penile infections in young uncut males is due to parental lack of proper cleaning. I hate to sound ignorant, however, would you not have to use the same "clean up" (TP) as a woman does after using the rest room? Otherwise, the build up and colonization of urine would stay under the foreskin? I am honestly embarrassed to even ask this!

DVD:
I read the article, and found it informative especially the side comments, perhaps this is the same reason I found for the 32 guys I knew? I guess it comes to personal preference, I see there are many thought processes on the subject. I do not have to make these choices! I just cannot see a teenager or young man deciding "Hey I want to be circumcised" and following through with doing it. If cutting of any body part was to be done on me; I'd go for early on rather then later in life (tonsils included).

[QUOTE=sera300;183372]Xan:
As I said I am pretty unbiased on the subject, yes safe sex practices will reduce the incidence of spreading HIV & HPV, my only doubt is the younger who may tend to skip using condoms, contract one of the diseases, and infects themselves & then continues the spread. Obviously HIV in the US is not the same as it was years back for multiple reasons, some not related to sex. I know when I was younger how many times I risked it (skipping condoms) I was really lucky not to get preg. Now there are so many diseases predominant. Much like DVD, I hate the damned things.

It's something much more predominant in the US. I thought about this for a few days, my ex was from Sweden and so were his parents. He moved here as a young child and was cut at birth. Perhaps much of this is due to a generational issue?

I did read the majority of penile infections in young uncut males is due to parental lack of proper cleaning. I hate to sound ignorant, however, would you not have to use the same "clean up" (TP) as a woman does after using the rest room? Otherwise, the build up and colonization of urine would stay under the foreskin? I am honestly embarrassed to even ask this![/quote]

Hmm... This thread got me interested. I just went away and did some research. ~20% of men in the UK are circumcised. Wow. Both higher than I thought, relating to my experience and lower than I expected, from what I'd read elsewhere. I also found out that apparently, circumcision was introduced as a routine surgery in the US as a means to prevent masturbation! :eek: ([url=http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=1159]Source, although I'm not sure of its accuracy)

Anyway, the reason I found that article is it covers your question. In answer, no, different "clean up". Urine isn't likely to build up under the foreskin. It's smegma that needs to be dealt with (And I only just discovered after wiki-ing this that women build up smegma too! I'd always thought of it as a penis thing... But then, I don't have a vagina, so it doesn't immediately leap to mind :p) and this is just a simple case of washing with warm water (In the bath/shower, for example).

It's hardly a difficult procedure anyway. :)

[url=http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/articles/412-circumcision.htm]Natural Family Online looks like an interesting site. This link is to their circumcision article. Covers both sides of the argument quite well. Definitely a good read.

As that article says at the start, there's not really a "right" or "wrong" to it. But I know I won't be circumcising when I have children. To me, the benefits don't seem nearly worth it. I'll spend the ten minutes educating them in cleanliness and the admittedly more awkward education on condoms.

I half wish I didn't go into this thread and read that article. I have also seen in other threads on the topic that there a fair number of members who say that circumcision reduces pleasure. Now, I was circumcised at birth so what I have is what I know but reading things that say that I could be missing out on intensity make me sad. It's not like I had a choice, I was "cut" 8 days after birth (religion). It's not like I could have had a mature discussion at that moment (in my diaper) with the rabbi (holding the cutting implement) concerning the pro's and con's of this process.

Come to think of it, that would be a pretty funny scene if it were to happen.

And as for the claims in the article, how can it be said that there is a reduction? It's all subjective, everyone feels sensations a bit differently. Even with one person, say myself, sensations feel different depending on: my level of arousal, presence of lube, etc. There are too many factors to arrive at such a conclusion.
Maybe that was just my jealous side talking, but I guess should be happy with what I have.

I also noticed there was mentioning of scarring from circumcision - I don't have any scars from it (or I never noticed). Does this only happen if it's done as an adult?

I've only known one individual who's had a circumcision after infancy, a friend of mine who had it done when he was about fifteen. It was done for medical reasons (unretractable foreskin), and he said it was extremely unpleasant. The biggest problem wasn't so much the operation but the aftermath - his glans was so incredibly sensitive he couldn't stand to have anything rub against it for weeks (a bit of a problem when you have to wear clothes!). Anyway, he's much happier circumcised but under the circumstances that's quite understandable.

Sera, I agree the vast majority of males would not opt for this procedure later in life unless there was a compelling reason to do it. (Although when I see people with hellacious tats or piercings in the most sensitive and painful places imaginable I'm always amazed someone would WILLINGLY put themselves through that much torture. Who knows . . . . ? If circumcision was only being done by request of the adult male it might become a "fashion statement". LOL If you can convince people a Prince Albert's a good thing to do to a penis anything's possible).

[QUOTE=~*GenericUserName*~;183266]Scars? Now how come I've never noticed any scars!? Guess I need to pay more attention to my man's junk. o.O[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there is a definite line that I have noticed on all the circumsized men I've been with. Some are more obvious than others, but there is definitely some scarring where they were cut. Maybe I just coincedentally have been with those with scars, but I know that the penis scars extremely easily, so I imagine every cut male would have some scarring.

Sera, I agree the vast majority of males would not opt for this procedure later in life unless there was a compelling reason to do it. (Although when I see people with hellacious tats or piercings in the most sensitive and painful places imaginable I'm always amazed someone would WILLINGLY put themselves through that much torture. Who knows . . . . ? If circumcision was only being done by request of the adult male it might become a "fashion statement". LOL If you can convince people a Prince Albert's a good thing to do to a penis anything's possible).[/quote]

Yeap! DVD, I do not get that one either! Ughhh and I am not even a man but it would be like putting one through some delicate tissue on me! LOL! Fashion statement or not...not piercing any such parts! I have to read the other posters, Xan's, articles...I have a interest in this "penis patrol project" & I am on a search it out mission!

[QUOTE=sera300;183502]I have a interest in this "penis patrol project" & I am on a search it out mission![/QUOTE]

Good luck! For penis' everywhere, research everything you can!

I knew a 21 yo who had it done.. He was in pain for months to come.

I personally have been with both. I like it to be cut. Just what i like. As for my boys they both were done at birth.

I'm a guy, and maybe I'm just biased but I like being cut. I can't imagine not being cut.

I've heard in other places that being uncircumsized causes a decrease in pleasure and I gotta say, I'm glad. I have a hard enough time stopping from prematurely blowing my load during sex. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if I added more pleasure to the mix. :D

If smegma is the problem, then why don't women do it?! As said before, they also create it! And don't tell me that women shouldn't have hygiene concerns!

This is a topic that comes up over and over again, and it's a mere esthetic issue for most part, because the medical part is vastly unproven so far, because if you relate the foreskin to cervical cancer, why don't you relate bras with breast cancer?!

I'm uncut and thank the mighty lords for having parents that were not religious fanatics, because there lies the reason for 85% of circumsitions. :) yay

Cut and proud of it. No complaints from the women!

[QUOTE=alban lusitanae;183793]

I'm uncut and thank the mighty lords for having parents that were not religious fanatics, because there lies the reason for 85% of circumsitions. :) yay[/QUOTE]

Portugal is something ridiculous like 90% Catholic as I remember...I don't usually associate circumcision with Catholics *shrugs*. Do most people there get it done? I know my fiancée isn't :p but his brother who was born 2 years after him is...:confused:

I guess I can ask him later :p

Catholics in our country are not really fanatic :D they are in the religion so that no one pisses them off and makes questions :) If you come to my country and ask people how many people go to mass every sunday... well... :)

[QUOTE=alban lusitanae;183918]Catholics in our country are not really fanatic :D they are in the religion so that no one pisses them off and makes questions :) If you come to my country and ask people how many people go to mass every sunday... well...[/QUOTE]

Yeah :p he told me most list they are Catholic, but they're not "practicing" Catholics. ...and I am visiting, probably next summer :).

I recommend Sintra :) great (unburnt) forests, mysterious magical place, with great beaches. :) freezing water though :p

[QUOTE=alban lusitanae;183926]I recommend Sintra :) great (unburnt) forests, mysterious magical place, with great beaches. :) freezing water though :p[/QUOTE]

Well, I told him that we're getting a car and driving all across the country :D. Not like it takes that long rofl. I specifically want to see the North, seen some really nice pictures...and the Algarve of course, because it looks nice and well everyone goes there XD.

Of course, the north is beautiful, but don't miss Sintra ok? 19 km away from Lisbon :)

And be careful of rent-a-cars. Bared-faced robbery here that is!

[QUOTE=alban lusitanae;184070]Of course, the north is beautiful, but don't miss Sintra ok? 19 km away from Lisbon :)

And be careful of rent-a-cars. Bared-faced robbery here that is![/QUOTE]

Lol okay, and we'll probably use his old car, which is brother is getting...or his fathers car. :p

Anyways uhhh...back on topic :D...Circumcision should be a mans choice :p.