..................

by **The Colonel** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:11 am

cosmicB wrote:Keep telling yourself... it will protect you from the fags.. but the mirror won't!..

I don't understand you.

I liked many of your comments, and then you start posting things like this that make very little sense whatsoever.

by **Guest** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:14 am

circumcised lasts longer which is better for the woman. that's all i care about

by **cosmicB** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:33 am

The Colonel wrote:
cosmicB wrote:Keep telling yourself... it will protect you from the fags.. but the mirror won't!..

I don't understand you.

I liked many of your comments, and then you start posting things like this that make very little sense whatsoever.

You really don't want to understand me... It would nag at you daily, and would destroy you if I were to say to you what I've got next to say.. it would Crush you, so I won't say it... We'll just leave it at that hun...

by **The Colonel** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:56 pm

. wrote:circumcised lasts longer which is better for the woman. that's all i care about

Then you're a selfish, ignorant and pathetic b***** aren't you?

by **cosmicB** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:28 pm

Wrong colonel-rectum!.. it's true, peeled dicks do so last longer, giving the Woman much more pleasure than ultra-sensitive natural penies...

Colonel-SA.. Do you know why is it that you are in a thread focused totally upon "cock-sucking"..? Would you kindly relate your intense military experiences in sucking men's penises..? I'm thinking you were gang raped in the military... Would you like to tell us about your sore-ass escapades..?

_________________

It wasn't Colonel Plum in the kitchen with the candle holder!.. It was Colonel Rectum in the basement with a broom handle...

by **Guest** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:58 am

Circumcised are much better. There is not any lack of sensibility and is good either to cure the guys with premature ejaculations. The surgery is done with local anesthesia and very very simple. You can do it and just after go to work, but I give you an advice : do a " low & tight" circumcision, that one that excises all the inner skin ( mucosa ), suturing the external skin near the head. That's the best. Believe me, I know what I'm saying, because I know the before and the after, considering that I made mine about my 19 y.o.

Bill

by **cosmicB** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:15 pm

Like in everything on the planet, maybe there are some who shouldn't get circumcised... And given that some labia look like empty scrotum's.. could it be that foreskins is full vulva..? "Vroop!.."

by **Tsuba** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:27 pm

. wrote:Circumcised are much better. There is not any lack of sensibility and is good either to cure the guys with premature ejaculations.

This is rich. On the one hand you claim there is no loss of sensitivity, and then you manage to contradict yourself in the same sentence by saying it's "good to cure guys with premature ejaculations". You do realize that the whole "cure premature ejaculation" argument rests entirely on the loss of sensation, right?

But that is rather moot, as both your points are wrong in any case. Is there loss of sensitivity? You betcha. There is some debate as to how much sensitivity is lost in the glans, but even if there is none, you still have the loss of the nerve endings in the foreskin. I mean, your argument is about the same as, "cutting off a finger will not reduce sensitivity to the hand". And sure, maybe not the hand that remains, but what about the finger that you've cut off? Barring phantom pains, you still have sensitivity in that?

Also, men who are premature ejaculators will not find circumcision to be a magic cure. Premature ejaculation is rooted more deeply in psychology than physical stimuli.

The surgery is done with local anesthesia and very very simple. You can do it and just after go to work, but I give you an advice : do a " low & tight" circumcision, that one that excises all the inner skin ( mucosa ), suturing the external skin near the head. That's the best. Believe me, I know what I'm saying, because I know the before and the after, considering that I made mine about my 19 y.o.

Bill

Did you have all types of circumcision done to you, Bill, as you seem so sure that "low & tight" is the best? What is your basis of comparison?

Also, did you have the circumcision done for medical reasons? If so, then I fully expect you to be satisfied with the results. Speaking for myself, however, as an intact male, I have never had medical issues (or issues of any kind) with my foreskin, and I wouldn't allow myself to be circumcized even if it would bring on world peace. The foreskin gives me tremendous amounts of pleasure when it comes to masturbation, handjobs, blowjobs as well as intercourse.

by **Tsuba** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:34 pm

cosmicB wrote:Wrong colonel-rectum!.. it's true, peeled dicks do so last longer, giving the Woman much more pleasure than ultra-sensitive natural penies...

This assumes that intact men are "ultra-sensitive" and cum too fast. Which, of course, is rubbish. It is true that circumcision makes you last longer, in the beginning at least. As soon as one has adjusted to the difference in sensation, however, one's "lasting power" returns to what they were before. One essentially learns to make do with less. All research indicates that premature ejaculation is just as prevalent among circumcized men.

by **cosmicB** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:07 pm

Only if the survey included 16 year-olds as "men"...
They probably did...

Should the average 16 year-old American touch his dick to a young hot Greek lass's labia, suddenly he would squirt his load before he got an inch in, circumcised or not... Including teens as "men" fouls the survey with kiddie-stuff...

Sensitivity is lost by rubbing skin on clothing a lot... Uncircumcised dicks have a protective shield around the end o the dick, what maintains them thar nerves sensitive, which generally can make a man cum a lot faster than if his his dick was chopped-up and worn-out...

by **The Colonel** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:12 pm

cosmicB wrote:Only if the survey included 16 year-olds as "men"...
They probably did...

Should the average 16 year-old American touch his dick to a young hot Greek lass's labia, suddenly he would squirt his load before he got an inch in, circumcised or not... Including teens as "men" fouls the survey with kiddie-stuff...

Sensitivity is lost by rubbing skin on clothing a lot... Uncircumcised dicks have a protective shield around the end o the dick, what maintains them thar nerves sensitive, which generally can make a man cum a lot faster than if his his dick was chopped-up and worn-out...

Mine might be chopped up, but it certainly isn't worn out.

by **Polgara69** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:23 pm

Ah ha! U admitted it!

by **The Colonel** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:24 pm

Polgara69 wrote:Ah ha! U admitted it!

Admitted what?

by **Polgara69** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:25 pm

That u have the snip. Someone asked u that before (cant remember who) and u wouldnt say.

by **The Colonel** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:29 pm

I have said so before, although I did deny it at least a few times as well. But I cannot be bothered any more to do so.

However, I had no choice in the matter. The decision was denied to me.

..................

Who is online