_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

comments

um... Well I thought Daniel Radcliffe was fit as! I just wanted to see him with his top off but came out with this! You must be a hell of a great actor to get naked on stage! Just think how many people would judge him for that or how many people saw is penis !

When was this play on??? It looks like it was around 2010 - 2011 because of how old he looks. I never really thought he would get naked on stage really he just didn't seem like that you know when you watch all those things on TV or youtube with him talking he just doesn't seem like the kinda guy that would do that!

I mean I've only ever seen him in Harry Potter years 1 - 8 so I've always thought of him as playing the main character who saves the day! I have to admit it's kinda weird to see him like that on stage!

I still think he's fit tho oh and Rupert Grint of course!!!

Posted by: Unknown ??? | January 3, 2012 8:49 AM

__________

He is a beautiful talented young man, and that is all I care about. My wife is an OB-Gyn and leaves circumcision decisions up to the parents. She said it is down to about 30% and there is no medical reason to do it.

Posted by: Carroll A. Peterson | July 10, 2011 11:31 PM

__________

I'm hot for him now.
Please love on me Dan.
o.o

I'VE LOVED YOU SINCE I WAS LIKE, TEN!

D=

Posted by: Realistic_Dove | January 20, 2011 3:20 AM

__________

I just sorta skimmed the comments on here and don't know why it turned into circumcision.

In the US, circumcision is the norm for "sanitary" reasons from a long time ago. Some of it makes a little sense; I guess, something could get trapped under foreskin and make into urethra later. I don't know.

I think the whole idea of uncut having better sex than cut makes a lot of sense. Think about it. The head is the most sensitive part. It's covered by this extra piece of skin, so it's not rubbing up against clothes or whatever. You cut off the skin and it's getting all kinds of stimulation it never would have had.

Posted by: me | November 5, 2009 1:13 PM

__________

Just fyi. It is true that there is one study that suggest that circumcision cuts down the chances of transmitting HIV a little. (not 90% like someone in this thread said)
But by now there are more studies that came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised males, regarding HIV-transmission.
So wear a condom and don't mutilate your childreen. They have a right to decide over their own body once they are old enough.

Posted by: Miles | September 19, 2009 2:15 PM

__________

daniel should play on horror movies, suspense movies and mystery movies, he would be good to be in them

Posted by: MK | August 7, 2009 6:51 AM

__________

This scene isn't about the nudity it's about the story. It is really sad how people have twisted this around in an extremely sick way.

Posted by: GGC | May 4, 2009 7:04 PM

__________

Actually, the word you're looking for is "cornification." And study after study has found nothing other than circumstantial (ooh- a near-pun) evidence of any impediment to sexual function due to circumcision. I'm against the procedure, myself, but strictly due to ethical considerations. None of the people I know who have had the procedure after infancy have reported any problems.
Since you haven't actually contradicted anything I said, I'm trying to figure out why you're being so high-and-mighty or calling me "ignorant." Cornification is not the "wearing away of nerves"- it's the build up of keratin tissue.
The whole post mainly seems like a long excuse to revive a dead topic and flash your asserted credentials.
Oh, and by the way, I too am a medical professional, but I learned a long time ago that being a doctor doesn't make anybody smarter or more correct, so I typically avoid pulling it out as a trump card, just as I never say to a kid, "When you're older, you'll understand." Facts is facts, no matter what your degree is in. And the facts are that, over and over, studies have found now preponderance of data to suggest that circumcized males are suffering in any way (except in the case of botched operations, of course.)
We now return you to your local programming.

Posted by: AC Walker | May 2, 2009 2:09 PM

__________

Wow, where to begin? I come here to see one of the most gorgeous males in all their glory and find this. The ignorance expressed here is quite amazing. In this blog, one person making assertions that are illiterate at best and another attacking one for one's ignorance with their own ignorance.

For your insight and information, circumcision, if one is not Jewish, is for presumed sanitary reasons as well as the old school thought that it would prevent excessive masturbation. Most doctors are now either indifferent towards it or are advising against it unless it is part of a religious act.

As to the sexual performance, circumcision does desensitize a man to some extent, which varies by person as does almost anything else. This is due to keratinization of the glans of the penis since the penis is exposed and abraded on a constant basis. The amount of keratinization and resulting desensitization depends upon the individual and their lifestyle.

And, yes, I am a medical professional. Why don't you both leave the criticism to someone who is actually trained?

Posted by: in_love_with_daniel | May 2, 2009 4:50 AM

__________

If Daithi is a doctor, I would fear a prescription from him. His writing skills are atrocious.

Posted by: Grammar Doctor | December 16, 2008 6:34 PM

__________

» View older comments »

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

add a new comment

name email (required, but will not be visible) url (optional) remember me comment text (you may use HTML tags for style)