foreskin makes me gag during a blow job. it gets stuck in the throat.
Printable View
foreskin makes me gag during a blow job. it gets stuck in the throat.
hahaha :) :)
My (my bf's) penis looks THANK GOD like the one on the right picture... Soft and not dry like horse's ass , blaaah.
And now that I think... I like when head of the penis is hidden at the beginning... I wouldn't like to see it outside all the time. No I don't like this view...I would think he's some kind of pervert ,cause he's excited all the time... No , no thanks.
^^^thats what a lot of American penises look like....its pretty popular to be cut here...even without religious affiliations.
i am so sorry that i opened this page at work, thank you dop.
I'm glad my penis is still pretty smooth and shiny, but I think if I could restore my foreskin, it would help even more.
I'm actually considering doing it because there are a lot of success stories.
would you like me to pull on it in hopes that it grows back? sorry CC if you are reading this, but the man obviously needs help.Quote:
Originally Posted by doppelgaenger [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
LOL no thanks. CC is the only woman allowed to touch my penis.
EDIT: CC is the only woman who is *NOT* allowed to touch my penis.
I am thinking about trying one of the methods on this site.
[url=http://www.norm.org/]NORM - The National Organization of Restoring Men[/url]
Re: lilwing's picture
You guys are funny. The foreskin isn't attached to the head of the penis, so the one on the left doesn't look that way because of a circumcision. Sometimes, they just have that texture, with or without the circumcision. :D
That's the problem with those extremist sites. They appeal to people without critical thinking skills.
EDIT - I just read the other link wing posted about why women supposedly like uncirc'd sex better... medically speaking, it's even more nonsense.
Those are not extremist sites. They advocate human rights.
You are being VERY immature about this; there is nothing funny about this. Nothing to smile or laugh about.
And excuse me, I HAVE critical thinking skills, and so do the people who believe boys should be protected by law from this kind of mutilation.
The only people who lack critical thinking are the ones who don't understand the facts and allow this BULLSHIT to continue.
The foreskin is FUSED to the glans at birth. This is a well-known medical FACT. They separate sometime after birth, usually before puberty, but not always.
During infant circumcision the foreskin is RIPPED from the glans. That's not even the worst part; after one of the most sensitive, erogenous zones is cut off from the infant boy's body, his glans, meant to be an internal organ like the clitoris is exposed and will lose sensitivity through keratinization.
How can we believe what you've *seen*? For all I know you could be bullshitting just for the sake of argument. However, with intact males, the glans can become keratinized from being exposed too often, washing too much, etc. A normal, healthy glans is not all wrinkly and dull and insensitive.
I'm going to touch some foreskin... SOOOOOOOON :D Om nom nom :P
BED TIME!!!
Wing - For the record, when a circumcision is done, they don't separate the portion of the foreskin that is still fused.
When you go to med school, I will take your rantings a bit more seriously. lol
I don't need to go to med school to understand the difference between mutilation and necessary medical procedure.
You don't need to go to medical school to have some common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Hehehhe in polish "foreskin" is "napletek". It sounds so funny. "Hi I'm napletek" hehehe
Bon, I really go to bed now . Wreally :)
No, but you MIGHT in order to understand that much of the content in the links he posted was utter bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Anyway, I have long since grown bored of this topic. If you boys don't want to circumcise your babies, then don't. (shrug)
Vorhautbeschneidung unterwegs!
Sounds like something the Jews would be prosecuted for during the Nazi regime.
I didn't click any of his links, my simple point was countering your argument that a person is more susceptible to STD's. Regardless if someone has a foreskin or not they're always going to be at "greater risk" of contracting an STI if they engage in sexual activity with a person who has them.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
How would being circumcised have any bearing on his risk when he's shoving his tongue in an infected woman's vagina?
'Zactly.
Call me Dr. Fras.
I don't think those penis heads are rough because of the procedure itself. It's the years of constant stimuli the head will receive when flaccid. The skin is of the head is naturally thin and sensitive, and the foreskin locks in moisture, which it needs to retain its original soft condition. Like the skin on any other part of your body, it will thicken and toughen in defense, or else start to crack and bleed.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
ok, so, in vashti's own words: Male circumcision is equivalent to removal of the clitoral hood.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
foreskin = hood. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with truly comparing the two, but let's just agree on that as fact and go from there.
Neither would I, and I think everyone can agree that neither would any woman in the developed world or pretty much anywhere where this practice is not woven so deeply into the culture that the local women don't know any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by lahnnabell [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
again, foreskin = hood
so, Lahnnabell, if I may use you in my example.. I'm sure you'd agree that if someone had removed your clitoral hood without your permission, you would consider this a violation of your human rights? And yes I agree, as dono pointed out, on a personal level there'd be nothing you could do but try to get over it and move on. You might not even think of it that often in everyday life- but you'd still be against repeating the practice on someone else; I'm pretty sure Lahnnabell would agree with what I'm getting at here.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Let me further put words in your mouth, Lahnnabell, and guess that even if we hypothetically allow that this procedure reduced your risk of catching STDs, you still might consider it too high a price to pay since you can just use condoms instead-- or at the very least, you still would want to make the choice for yourself, so even giving it the benefit of the doubt at every turn, you'd still be against the practice of doing it to baby girls who cannot give that consent.
Well, for arguments sake, if this did happen to you Lahnna, Vashti would have no empathy for you, nor would she acknowledge that your rights were violated, nor would she see anything wrong with repeating the same ritual on other baby girls.
(After all, that is her view of male circumcision --> foreskin equals hood --> thus circumcision equals clitoral hood removal --> equals your hypothetical situation)
..........
Need I say more?
Probably, because people are so dug into their convictions, which in turn are deeply rooted in their personal lives and experiences, that they can't see what's in front of them.
But I should't have to (say any more), because I think the above is pretty clear.
So, i'll try not to.
I know I keep saying that, only to unleash another rant.
but in comparison to past debates i've been pretty well behaved, I hope...
People are just prone to defend traditions, with conviction and often violently. There is really no rationale behind their comments; any arguments they give you were probably thought up later, after they already believed it, because they're unwilling to question their beliefs. The fact that something is "the way it is" is, to them, a valid argument for why it is good. Scientific method in reverse.
Another point - if you wouldn't do it to a grown man for the same reasons, why would you do it to a baby boy?
Well duh, because the fetus doesn't feel pain.Quote:
Originally Posted by doppelgaenger [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Well, so what? Any man who feels pain is a pussy.
Don't be silly. No one is defending a tradition for the sake of tradition. Nowhere did I say that everyone SHOULD be circumcised. I merely pointed out the health benefits that DO exist. I have stated (and ALWAYS state) that an uncirc'd man should NOT have it done, and I fully support people who choose not to. That doesn't mean I have to pretend there are absolutely no health benefits (despite medical evidence to the contrary), or pretend that the biased crap lilwang posts is meaningful, nor do I think it is a great idea to encourage his neuroses.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirWagginston [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Anyway, I'm done with this boring old argument. We've had it many times before.
Jesus Christ people....some people have a foreskin and some don't...sometimes I feel like a nut and sometimes I don't....who gives a ****...ya have what you have....I'm gonna go enjoy my penis without the foreskin while you guys are busy bitchin and missin out on quality peter time.
And I'm going to nonsurgically restore my foreskin ;)
And I didn't touch the foreskin yesterday... I fell asleep :(
Who said I was talking about you?Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I am unsure if I would consider it a violation of my human rights. I suppose if I did have a huge problem with it I might do what was within my power to educate others about why it can be a negative experience vs. a positive one. It really depends on how I was nurtured growing up as well. Dopp's own mother didn't do the best job explaining the situation to him. She felt that he would be satisfied with the fact that he was "normal" like his dad, when, in fact, Dopp had a much more perceptive brain than his mother gave him credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiay [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I think that proper sex education should suffice. I would like to know how much of the risk of STDs and HIV is decreased with the removal of the foreskin. I doubt those numbers are very significant.Quote:
Let me further put words in your mouth, Lahnnabell, and guess that even if we hypothetically allow that this procedure reduced your risk of catching STDs, you still might consider it too high a price to pay since you can just use condoms instead-- or at the very least, you still would want to make the choice for yourself, so even giving it the benefit of the doubt at every turn, you'd still be against the practice of doing it to baby girls who cannot give that consent.
Vash has made her opinion on this matter quite clear. I am not offended by her opinion, or Dopp's. They both have their own reasons for thinking as they do. Dopp's is based out of a direct personal experience, and Vash's on her high level of education in her field.Quote:
Well, for arguments sake, if this did happen to you Lahnna, Vashti would have no empathy for you, nor would she acknowledge that your rights were violated, nor would she see anything wrong with repeating the same ritual on other baby girls.
(After all, that is her view of male circumcision --> foreskin equals hood --> thus circumcision equals clitoral hood removal --> equals your hypothetical situation)
Thanks for clarifying that! I know I was totally just putting words in your mouth as an example, so it's nice to hear your own views on it. I really hope you didn't mind too much.
Not at all! I appreciate you breaking it down into sections too. I can't stand to read walls of text. This particular thread has increased my understanding and open-mindedness that much more :)
awwwwwwwwwwww
I love a group hug.
But my posts on rewarding behavior with sex didn't?!Quote:
Originally Posted by lahnnabell [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I been with a both a circumsed and uncircumsiced, I dont think there is much difference if he knows what his doing and you both know how to have fun. I think i kinda learn more towards having the skin on.. lol
I think we need to be careful about defining what health benefits are. Removing the foreskin, the most sensitive piece of skin on the male body, for an insignificant decrease in risk of STDs, according to a bunch of nonsensical, controversial statistic research is not really a health benefit. That's like medication with side effects that are much worse than the original diagnosis. It's not beneficial, but unpractical! There are more feasible solutions to the issue that you believe circumcision attempts to resolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You're not really providing a good argument here, Vashti. You're trying to disprove the points that others and I have made by disregarding them with your personal experience as a nurse, instead of providing credible sources. You're calling bullshit on my sources and accusing them of having bias without having any counter arguments or sources.
You are getting bored of the debate because no progress is being made here. You think you're right and you're stuck in your own conviction. You cannot acknowledge the facts that have been brought forth. You do not care to argue your own points. If you're sick of arguing, why do you come back for more? Obviously you're not willing to contribute to the debate.
Really? So if your clitoris became dried and insensitive as a result of your circumcision and you lost a lot of sexual stimulation as a result, affecting your ability to achieve an orgasm, possibly even making arousal painful, you might not consider this a violation of your human rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by lahnnabell [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You are being a little unreasonable, doppelgaengar. The decrease in risk of being infected with an STD is small, but not insignificant. The catch is, with or without circumcision, the risk of infection is great enough that you should simply not have sex with infected people.
I wouldn't have unprotected sex with a person with STD. With or without foreskin. I wouldn't be stupid enough to agree to have sex with such person "just because he doesn't have foreskin". Like really... It is insignificant. There is still high risk of getting STD so I don't give a crap. Circumcised penis is not penis with a condom on. What a bs for real lol :D
EDit: it's pretty what you said SW, just I think it IS insignificant, I see no reason to cut foreskin because of this reason. next please :)
I think Lahnna is entitled to her opinion.
And also, it's such a difficult hypothetical situation to imagine that it's very hard to know what one would even think of it. I'm sure I would feel that it was a violation of my human rights. But that's assuming that I know what I know- if I was told by doctors that it was perfectly healthy and it was the norm and guys "preferred" cut girls and all this kinda thing... heck who know how I might feel about it. the situation has too many variables.
But, that's not really the point.
to use an extreme example, murder is illegal, even if the victim welcomes it because they are suicidal :P
for a surgeon to cut the tip of the pinky finger off a baby is, I would imagine, illegal (unless it was a life-saving thing for some reason), so the foreskin should be off limits too.