Quake3World

You just contradicted yourself, KiR.

Im so contrary :lol:

Transient wrote:

duffman91 wrote:

shadd_ wrote:are they comparable? they seem to me(imo)to be quite different organs.

Both get circumsized. Both deal with loss of pleasure as a result.

Seems very comparable to me.

Not from what I can tell. Cutting off the clit is the equivalent of lobbing off the head of your Johnson, no? Jules, correct me if I'm wrong.

no... cutting off the clit is like removing the point where your foreskin is connected to the main shaft. and this point happens to be the most intense

I'm curcimsized, and i don't feel at all left out of the pleasure aspect, infact, I fucking love sex and it feels great.

amen

What's a foreskin?

HAHAHAHAHAH

Yeah fucking right

R00k wrote:All the girls I've ever talked to about it are completely turned off by an uncircumcized penis. I think that would have more influence on my decision to do it or not.

A cut foreskin just looks sexier - gets the women feeling RANDY!

The girls you talk to must be stupid bitches then

lol, don't get defensive or anything man.

back to the study for a minute...epidemiological studies are very powerful within their context - so this study should be considered important in the cultural context it was conducted in. To take those study findings and apply them else where would be dubious due to a lack of external validity ie other cultures might be so different that the findings are non applicable - aka the hrt study in USA which lead to huge numbers of women stopping hrt, although hrt prescription in the USA, and the median age range of those women was not generalisable to other countries. So good data (probably) but not a solution to be blindly adopted in other cultures.

R00k wrote:
A cut foreskin just looks sexier - gets the women feeling RANDY!

True.

duffman91 wrote:
What if I happen to like the foreskin turtle neck my massive cock enjoys?

then you should not change anything!

Scarface wrote:I'm curcimsized, and i don't feel at all left out of the pleasure aspect, infact, I fucking love sex and it feels great.

Many circumcised women claim the same about their mutilated genitilia.

Ignorance is truly bliss.

duffman91 wrote:
Jews started this trend, and we all know what happenned to them.

actually male circumcision dates to at least 5000 years ago - graphic depictions of it are to be found from ancient egypt.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Scarface wrote:I'm curcimsized, and i don't feel at all left out of the pleasure aspect, infact, I fucking love sex and it feels great.

Many circumcised women claim the same about their mutilated genitilia.

Ignorance is truly bliss.

Ouch, BURN!?

Transient wrote:
Not from what I can tell. Cutting off the clit is the equivalent of lobbing off the head of your Johnson, no? Jules, correct me if I'm wrong.

The head of the penis (glans) is probably the least sensitive part of the organ.

The specialized receptors exist at the mucous membrane junctions that connect the shaft to the glans. This is essentially the inner wall of the foreskin.

The sensitive regions of the circumcised penis are mere remnants of what would have developed had a doctor or religious figure not taken a knife to your penis shortly after you were born.

many anatomical details can be found here:

http://research.cirp.org/

I posted this in another thread:

...here's a little experiment we can all do on this msgboard.

One of the things that is invariably lost due to circumcision are the erotogenic stretch receptors on the ridged band of the foreskin.

Males with intact penises can elicit sexual feelings by pulling down their foreskin, and stretching it. Some can even induce orgasm this way simply by stretching the foreskin down.

This is due to the receptors' responsiveness to physical deformation.

Males who are circumcised do not experience this.

Would be nice if intact males who are posting in this thread could confirm this.

It is possible that men who are circumcised as adults retain some of these stretch receptors, depending on the tightness of the circumcision.

For those that are circumcised at birth, it's may be a different story, since I think that band is not as developed and much thinner.

S@M wrote:back to the study for a minute...epidemiological studies are very powerful within their context

not necessarily. For example, within a certain culture, there may exist two tribes, one of which practices circumcision, and one of which doesn't.

They may systematically differ in other ways, such as hygeine, or sexual behaviour, and these factors would be huge confounds.

some good info there. thanks julz.

[xeno]Julios wrote:I posted this in another thread:

...here's a little experiment we can all do on this msgboard.

One of the things that is invariably lost due to circumcision are the erotogenic stretch receptors on the ridged band of the foreskin.

Males with intact penises can elicit sexual feelings by pulling down their foreskin, and stretching it. Some can even induce orgasm this way simply by stretching the foreskin down.

This is due to the receptors' responsiveness to physical deformation.

Males who are circumcised do not experience this.

Would be nice if intact males who are posting in this thread could confirm this.

It is possible that men who are circumcised as adults retain some of these stretch receptors, depending on the tightness of the circumcision.

For those that are circumcised at birth, it's may be a different story, since I think that band is not as developed and much thinner.

This is getting a little too personal for me, but I don't think that's limited to uncircumcised people.

R00k wrote:This is getting a little too personal for me, but I don't think that's limited to uncircumcised people.

heh - one of the things that allows the atrocity of male circumcision to continue is the taboo around frank discussion between males regarding the sensory topography of their penises.

R00k wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:I posted this in another thread:

...here's a little experiment we can all do on this msgboard.

One of the things that is invariably lost due to circumcision are the erotogenic stretch receptors on the ridged band of the foreskin.

Males with intact penises can elicit sexual feelings by pulling down their foreskin, and stretching it. Some can even induce orgasm this way simply by stretching the foreskin down.

This is due to the receptors' responsiveness to physical deformation.

Males who are circumcised do not experience this.

Would be nice if intact males who are posting in this thread could confirm this.

It is possible that men who are circumcised as adults retain some of these stretch receptors, depending on the tightness of the circumcision.

For those that are circumcised at birth, it's may be a different story, since I think that band is not as developed and much thinner.

This is getting a little too personal for me, but I don't think that's limited to uncircumcised people.

yeah i'd have to agree with rook on this.

ignorance prevails!

[xeno]Julios wrote:

The specialized receptors exist at the mucous membrane junctions that connect the shaft to the glans. This is essentially the inner wall of the foreskin.

That's the frenulum, right?

duffman91 wrote:

shadd_ wrote:are they comparable? they seem to me(imo)to be quite different organs.

Both get circumsized. Both deal with loss of pleasure as a result.

Seems very comparable to me.

:icon28:

Girls get cut also, news to me.