Ezra_Pound wrote:Guest27.
Old man, words cannot express just how violently I detest you. Everything I have ever seen you post makes me want to vomit. The fact that you would use the word "ostensibly" speaks volumes about you. Hahaha.
All I want to say is why not be civil?
Was I not civil, comrade? Some idiot brought up
abortion, of all things, and I dealt with him swiftly. What would you prefer me to do? Allow the thread to degenerate into an argument between relgious fundamentalists and those of us who actually have two brain cells to rub together? It may shock you, my dear boy... It may even cause you to spontaneously combust, but I do not undertake every action with the intent to
please you. In fact, I have been known to make a decision or two with little to no regard for how the consequences will affect you, and how you will feel about it. Shocking, I know. I hope you were sitting down.
For which you shouldn't post such a misleading subject line.
"Would you circumcise your son(s)?" is a "misleading" subject line? I don't believe it is, comrade. I ask a question, people answer it. If you are referring to other threads, go and post in other threads, and if that is not to your satisfaction, and you demand even more of my attention, send a PM. Just please don't seek me out, since I would struggle to value your opinion less than I do presently.
You're trying to change minds, right? Well what's going to work best: amiable discussion or terrorism?
Actually, I'm not. Would I
like people to stop circumcising their children? Yes. I would also like people to put an end to capitalism, but, unfortunately, it seems people are profoundly stupid, and no amount of argument is going to achieve either end. I'm just learning the motivations of these nincompoops. I am unlikely to learn anything new.
"Terrorism"? I can tell you're an American. You yanks are awful fond of throwing the word around.
"Amiable discussion"? You think I should be reasonable? An impossibility. Circumcising a child is completely
unreasonable, particuarly for religious/"cultural" reasons. To entertain the possibility that those are legitimate, morally acceptable reasons for violating a child is to completely
surrender reason. Surprisingly enough, once someone has surrendered reason, they are beyond reasoning. It follows. Try "reasoning" with a Neo-Nazi and see where it gets you - The principle is the same.
"Guest".
People only use "smilies" when they're frustrated, and scared of losing an argument.
you sound desperate to sound right.
I'm terribly sorry if that's how it came off, but I assure you that is not the case. Apparently you are entirely ignorant of the foreskin and the role it serves. It's role in intercourse is actually exceptionally important. The reason such a thing is difficult to measure is because, to conduct such a study scientifically, all other potential variables have to be kept constant, which of course is an impossibility. Not only that, but there are dozens of psychological factors to take into consideration.
On the foreskin and its gliding mechanism, look here for a helpful diagram:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/interc02.gifAnd here is the written information:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/Here's another helpful diagram:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.htmland no, i dont post a username or care about spelling or give a chunky nugget what you think.
Thank you for being civil. Now smarten up, or
Guest27 will yell at you.
girls will always like seeing a face on their cocks, its simple stats.
You do realise that intact penises have heads, too, right? Point me to your "stats". You are painfully ignorant, and I have no reason to believe the people you claim to have asked are any different. Why do you find it so hard to accept that other people may possibly be a tad more knowledgeable than you? Are you angry with your parents?
every girl i ever talked to about it says skin there is like suckin down a worm or shoving a small elephants in her snatch.
Charming. I'm sure the 80+% of women in the world who frequently engage in acts of a sexual nature with intact males feel the exact same way. They're just waiting for studs like you to come along and show 'em how it's done!
medically i don't give a crap unless yur my doc.
I know far more about this than most (American) doctors do. The fact that many babies are circumcised for "phimosis" (which all medial authorities acknowledge cannot be diagnosed until adulthood), pretty much proves my point. Circumcision is a billion dollar business in the U.S., as is artificial <A HREF='http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/23_64_255/products_id/563' target="_blank">
Lubricant</A>, which millions of men use to aid <A HREF='http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/catalog/default.php/cPath/23_64' target='_blank'>
masturbation</A>, and millions of women use to ease penetration. The doctors are likely circumcised themselves. The doctors are not legally allowed to attempt to "influence" the parents, only to offer information,
if asked. Think about it, buddy.
the way you bash other practices is xenophobic and closeminded
Oh puh-lease. We're not talking about different cuisine here, we're talking about, violating a
child's rights, verus
not violating a child's right. Tough call.
elliegirl.
Not really. Not really much difference for me at all as far as penetration is concerned. If anything, now that he is circumcised there seems to be slightly more friction, but not hugely noticeable.
Friction is undesirable. Women become lubricated so as to cut down on friction. It is the
movement of pressure that stimulates, and friction is just something that may or may not go along with it.
"Not really" much of a difference. Hmm...
Anyway, may as well forget it. It's impossible to test these things. One can just go on good sense. I'm guessing you're emotionally attached to your boyfriend? Well that will be more than enough to cloud judgement.