shorter dicks....

tom prendergast said:
Every thread goes to shit when Damn Shankie and the Wicked Witches jump on board.
Click to expand...


Yeah right, PRECIOUS! You had nothing to do with turning this thread into how the men in the UK have far superior penises because you aren't circumcised. You ran your mouth like a runaway freight train for days telling us why your ugly dick is better because you didn't get mutilated as an infant. Doesn't matter you stink to high heavens!

Pure as the driven snow that Precious is!
 
Damn Yankee said:
She's got you there, Tom:
Click to expand...

nobody-cares1.jpg
 
tom prendergast said:
Another point which men should consider is that circumcision desensitises the penis, in much the same way that a condom does.
Click to expand...

:palm:

i'm not even sure how to respond....the claim is such nonsense, i wonder how tom gathered the courage to make it.

i hate to do this, but, i'll give one anecdotal rebuttal to tom's nonsense because it has to be said in order to counter tom's idiocy. a buddy had his penis circumcised in his mid 20's due to personal health reasons. i made fun of him because i was circumcised as a baby. afterwards....he told me that he enjoyed head and sex more after the circumcision.

me...it has always felt wonderful and using a condemn is a lousy analogy. i speak that from experience.
 
The main difference between what is in the UK and what SF wants to do here is the fact that anybody can get one in the UK if they want, but if this passes they can't in SF without exigent circumstances. Unless they are dumb enough not to allow for medical necessity and religion.
 
Threedee said:
Everyone wants to play my trumpet. To put it in their mouth, to grease it, to empty the spit valve into the proper recepticle, to finger the valves, and to generally have their way with it, and to make loud, melodious noises by playing it like, well, like a trumpet. :cool:
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmm.

Well said.
 
Yurt said:
apparently apple and tom hate religious freedom. comparing female circumcision to male circumcision is pure ignorance. an uncircumcised penis is more likely to lead to infections than a circumcised penis...

tom, do you actually know the difference between a female and a male circumcision?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://cagem.org/femalevsmale.aspx
Click to expand...

Obviously, there isn't any comparison between the two. There are legitimate reasons for male circumcision, whereas "female circumcision" is a barbaric, Satanic practice.

That said, I am generally of the opinion that male circumcision should be discouraged.
 
Yurt said:
apparently apple and tom hate religious freedom. comparing female circumcision to male circumcision is pure ignorance. an uncircumcised penis is more likely to lead to infections than a circumcised penis...

tom, do you actually know the difference between a female and a male circumcision?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

http://cagem.org/femalevsmale.aspx
Click to expand...

babies sometimes die from infections caused by circumcision

the decision should be made by a person when they become an adult
 
Damocles said:
The main difference between what is in the UK and what SF wants to do here is the fact that anybody can get one in the UK if they want, but if this passes they can't in SF without exigent circumstances. Unless they are dumb enough not to allow for medical necessity and religion.
Click to expand...

why should mutilation of babies be allowed on religious grounds, or at all
 
Yurt said:
:palm:

i'm not even sure how to respond....the claim is such nonsense, i wonder how tom gathered the courage to make it.

i hate to do this, but, i'll give one anecdotal rebuttal to tom's nonsense because it has to be said in order to counter tom's idiocy. a buddy had his penis circumcised in his mid 20's due to personal health reasons. i made fun of him because i was circumcised as a baby. afterwards....he told me that he enjoyed head and sex more after the circumcision.

me...it has always felt wonderful and using a condemn is a lousy analogy. i speak that from experience.
Click to expand...

You are now using heresay evidence to back up your case. :palm:


Many of those fanatics have all the personal reasons to be enraged on the western sexuality as a new research in the British Journal of Urology International reveals that men with normal, intact penises have more sexual sensitivity, as much as four times, than those circumcised.

The researchers found that circumcising cuts off more of a male's touch sensitivity than is delivered by all his ten fingertips. No matter the location, intact men displayed more fine-touch skin sensitivity on their penis and foreskin than a circumcised man did.

An uncircumcised man has a foreskin covering the glans (penis's bulbous head) when the penis is flaccid and during the erection this skin slides back and exposes the glans. Circumcision removes this extremely sensitive skin portion. The study proves that circumcision could be in fact an act aiming to reduce sexual pleasure for men in some cultures. In this case, it is a violation of a male's right to bodily integrity, a genital mutilation.

The results are similar to female circumcision, where even the mildest forms eliminate the most sensitive parts of the female genitalia.

There is a wrong belief that circumcision is made for hygienic reasons, to protect against disease like banalities, urethritis, retained smegma, penile and cervical cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Besides not being protective against these, as circumcision has such a severe effect on adult sexuality, no child should ever experience a non-therapeutic circumcision, like phimosis or paraphimosis, when the foreskin poses medical problems.

Controlling a boy's level of sexual sensitivity because of personal bias or prejudice is something not so well regarded in progressive societies.

Moreover, circumcised men, with a decreased sensitivity, could refuse to wear further-desensitizing condoms. And circumcision could give them a fake feeling of "safety".

Those on the way to undergoing circumcision should be informed about its sexual effects and that it does not protect against STDs, including HIV/AIDS.

Some naive opinions I read belonged to puzzled people who asked themselves: if the glans, the penis' most sensitive part is not removed, why does the sensitivity decrease?

Simple: A glans with circumcision is dry. The foreskin evolved exactly for this purpose: to keep the glans wet and sensitive. The glans skin is a membrane and like any membrane, when it's dry it loses sensitivity as the nervous terminations can no longer work.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/CIrc...our-Times-Penis-039-s-Sensitivity-52117.shtml
 
Schadenfreude said:
why should mutilation of babies be allowed on religious grounds, or at all
Click to expand...
Inane, we've already covered the "mutilation" theory and it fails. Preventative medicine is a choice, and this is one of those. We've even covered the "death rate" being far lower than those for innoculations, even when studies count any baby circumcised who dies as part of the "cause" of their death. It's silly to just repeat this nonsense as if it makes sense.
 
Schadenfreude said:
babies sometimes die from infections caused by circumcision

the decision should be made by a person when they become an adult
Click to expand...

Babies are sometimes harmed by innoculations that they receive.
Are you suggesting that the decision to innoculate should wait until they become an adult?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top