Circumcision

So did you lie to us in Post 23?

"My ears stuck out when I was a teenager. My grandparents offered to pay to have surgery done to make them look 'normal'. I would not have liked it, methinks, if they had decided to do this when I was born. I didn't have the surgery then, and don't intend to now."

...and why is it impossible for you to clean behind your ears regularly? I wash my body from the top down, scrubbing behind and inside the outer ear as I shampoo my thinning hair...every day. I also blast the wax out of my ears and pick the lint out of my inny navel every full moon, keep my cuticles pushed back, my nails clean and reasonably short and dig toe-jam from between my toes!

That toe-jam is often disgusting, but I talked to a man who had all his toes removed due to diabetes and he says its infinitely harder to stand still without any toes. I can just imagine.
 
I'm with you, Sinjin. I've never had a problem getting the soldier to stand at attention, but in my younger days, I'll admit that it was more difficult stopping him from shooting his gun too soon. :xkill:
 
If they cut off the most sensitive part, they went too deep. Circumcision involves the removal of relatively insensitive skin. Aside from improving personal hygiene by keeping the head dry and promoting the sluffing off of dead skin, there need be no other reason to whack it off. It is the female mutilation that takes place in so many backward families that denies excitement to the multilated by removing the sensitive parts. The little man in the boat is the female's equivalent to the male's most sensitive area. Cutting that off is mutilation. Uncovering the males hot button is not.

Poor Matthew S! We'll all cry for you!:cry:

BTW, earlobes do serve a purpose.
 
The thread? I don't think you have read much.



Read the damn thread, JPSartre12. It will help with this "making yourself look like a fool" stuff.

From here:
I am not judging sex as better either way (since it would depend on both the man and woman in question), only different

From here:
he point with circumcision is that there can be benefit to leaving the foreskin on and there is potential risk with this surgery

From here:
His sex life, because this decision you made purely for aesthetics, will irrevocably be different. It might be better for it, or it might be worse for it. But he will now never know how it would have been with the sensitivity he naturally would have

From here:
There are many potential benefits of leaving the penis as-is, as well. Part of the point is that you do not know if there will be any real benefit, and there absolutely are costs to sensitivity. It seems absurd to make the decision as you made it with the facts as they are

Jeez, it's like having a discussion with a child.



I wouldn't need to know what it tastes like, I would need to know if there was an issue with taste. Since there was no issue with the taste, that would be a valid assumption.


My statement stanRAB. To have any authority when you state you prefer something when you've experienced none other seems nothing more than a desire to validate your only experience.



There is a difference. There is a change in sensitivity and the foreskin itself has nerve endings. It obviously was a big deal to Dono. You don't know the difference and you've denied your sons the opportunity to experience both.



He speaks from a position of authority for himself, certainly. It would obviously vary from person to person. Some would prefer it one way, some the other.



Ah. I see now that you act this stupid on purpose.



In the absence of proof of benefit, you should advocate not circumcising. What you posted here makes no logical sense. With a risk involved with this surgery and some potential benefit that may very well not be realized it makes no sense to do this to your infant when he will get by just fine being uncircumcised, and may be better off for it.



Oh horror of horrors.
 
No :S Why do you think I lied? My ears stick out, and they gather junk behind them.

If you're referring to my comment on looking normal, I was being sarcastic about the reasons people want to circumcise their kiRAB. Some in this thread said you aren't normal if your not.



It's not impossible. My mother just never emphasised it, so I didn't clean behind them when I was young and never got into the habit to do so. I am a much cleaner person now, but it still is not habit to deliberately clean behind my ears. Junk gathers behind there; dead skin and the like.
 
Not sure this would indicate obsession, but would instead be a symptom of poor self-image. They are looking for something to blame, imo. For reconstruction, however, it might be a lack of sensation during sex.
 
Keeping the head dry decreases sensitivity. If you are uncircumcized, if you pull back the foreskin and allow it to rub against the inside of your boxers it is uncomfortable because the head is more sensitive than if it were dry. A dry head also requires more lubrication when having sex, and is less pliable when rubbing inside a woman's vagina. Some women find this uncomfortable.

The foreskin, itself, is far from dead as well. There are nerves that obviously are not there when a man is circumcised. Whether it is worth their removal is an answer only the individual can provide. What functions do earlobes serve? Is it essential? If you cut them off at birth one can hardly miss them, isn't that right? You never miss what you never had.
 
Third degree? Dono posted something that confused me, so I was asking for clarification.

Of what concern is it to anyone whether gay people marry? Adopt? What concern is it of mine whether female infants have their vaginas sewn up, for that matter? Why should anyone care whether women have abortions, as well?

Again, where is the line drawn between concern over an issue and obsession?



Yay for you? There were Black people who thought slavery was just fine, too, so I see this as evidence of nothing more than your own muddy thinking.
 
If you were actually dim it wouldn't be a problem, JPSartre12, but intentionally acting like a moron really pushes my buttons.

If you need an explanation on why I don't respond, I've no intention of continuing a discussion with you.
 
Almost any man will agree that the skin that loosely covers the penis shaft is not very sensitive at all. As a matter of fact, it can be gathered to the side of the penis and pinched rather drastically before any pain is felt. There's just one area on the underside of the glans that senRAB extreme pleasure signals to the male brain. It's ultra-sensitive.

Sensitivity is not required except when having sex. When having sex, the foreskin of an uncircumsized engorged penis is usually pulled back so that the sensitive area is exposed just as if the person had been circumcised. Lubricants, both natural (pre-ejaculate male juices and "I'm turned on" female juices) and applied (Vaseline, KY and the like) alleviate unwanted dryness of the moving parts, thereby making sex quite comfortable. If you've had trouble with dryness during sex, either you're not really turned on or you're temporarily worn out. Wait a while and try it again...or daub on some butter!:xhoho:
 
Quite the contrary, I've read it all. That's why I said you're obsessed with the preservation of excess foreskin. You're the Sultan of Smegma.:)

I read it and found your chastisizing of those of us that have been circumsized or had our sons circumsized to be, quite frankly, laughable. I'm sorry if I don't suffer the same level of indignation over the loss of a little piece of useless skin that does nothing but hide the helmet. :wow:

So what? Sex has been different with every partner that I've had. :confused:

And I've linked benefits of removal. Again, so what? Even doctors don't agree on the risk/benefits of circumcision.

Again, so what? Is there some equivalent of "the perfect wave" that we're all missing? :confused:

Again, that's your opinion based on no personal experience.

Yes, it is. A child that resorts to insults and wants to tell someone else what they should do without any personal experience to back it up. :rolleyes:

An assumption based on the lack of a negative response from a partner? Ever consider that the partner could be lying or not comfortable enough to tell their partner that they taste like ####? Unless you're the one playing the skin flute, all you can do is speculate and hypothesize. You CAN'T know for sure.

And my statement above stanRAB. You can't know about taste unless you're the one on the working end.

You CLAIM that there's a difference, yet you have no personal experience to back those claims. I have 50 years experience with the sensitivity of my johnson and I can attest that it's plenty sensitive.

And you speak from ZERO position of authority. What makes you an authority either way? What are your credentials since you are such a strong advocate against circumcision?

I try to converse on the same level as my adversary. :rolleyes:
I can tell that you're losing the debate because you are resorting to more and more personal insults. No problem, I'm a big, cut boy that will respond in kind.

Again, your opinion only. I see lots of benefits from cosmetic to hygeine to religious. You just don't agree that these are valid reasons for circumsizing an infant. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to make that call, I do. And since my son just graduated college last week 1 1/2 years early with an enginerring degree and highest honors and was offered every job that he interviewed for, I'd say that I know a little bit about raising kiRAB and making good choices for them.
How dare you or anybody else try to tell me that you know what's best for my son. That's an arrogant position to hold even for the Sultan of Smegma. :wow:
 
I checked in today and was surprised that this thread is still going..... why? It appears that all has been said and I doubt a single mind was changed. As an adult, I have been both uncircumcised and circumcised (the change at age 30) and from my experience the latter is by far the best. If only the doctor had complied with my request to be snipped with pinking shears, I would have the best of both worlRAB.
 
More invective hurling, eh Sigma? I probably wouldn't be pushing your buttons if your argument had any legs. Instead, it's superficial claptrap that you can't defend.


I can see why you wouldn't want to continue debating me. I have put more holes in your argument than Swiss cheese. Everything that you claim is based on speculation, second and third-hand antecdotal stories or fanatical foreskin crusaders with no perspective based on reality. You use arguments based on claims of it being "different". So what? I try to make sex "different" every time. BFD.
In the grand scheme of life, excess foreskin is as trivial as excess body hair. To get all worked up over it is ridiculous at best. Why not crusade against a real injustice such as female circumcision. Now THAT'S a crime. :xbanghead
 
In a civilized society, we get to make laws that conform to our core beliefs. When a great hue and cry comes from our shed foreskins, then, maybe somebody will give a flying ####. Until then, don't cry for our lost foreskin. It was just excess baggage to most of us. We prefer the trim look. :)

I believe that I've already answered that question, next!



My muddy thinking?!! You're the one that places near Biblical significance on the preservation of foreskin. Talk about muddy thinking. Geez! :wow:
 
Back
Top