OpalCat,
>So… an “intact man” won’t have anal or oral sex?<
No, but an intact man is significantly less likely to engage in oral or anal sex.Cantrip,
> Taking hold where, you meerkat? In the US? But didn’t you tell us that it was taking hold in the late 19th century, which is why we got Jack the Ripper? <
Circumcision started really getting going in 1880 for England. In the US, circumcision really got going at the end of WW II.Admitedly believe was a poor choice of words. What I ment was you believe its the best explination. I do understand the science of logic very well. I have agrued with creationists. You remind me of them, here is why.
They don’t even admit the possibility that they are wrong, or they’ll say, “Well if you can manage to prove it logically of course I’ll give agree with you. But you can’t prove it logically so its irrelevant.”
I’m not going to speak for everyone, but I think in general didn’t think much about this before you came. You provided no valid evidence for your possition. You seem to not understand the experimental procces, the science of logic you tout and common civility. Then you act, in Esprix’s words, like a Jeezer trying to save homosexuals.
I can entertain the possibility that circumcision is as bad as you say it is. I can entertain the possibility that a medical conspiracy is hiding this fact. I don’t see any evdience to support your world view. I have to thank you for spouting the nonsense. Its going into a story in which you and theistic flat earthers are right, and the foreskin used properly provides a nearly endless supply of psychic energy.
Now, please dance for us more little monkey boy.
Like I said, all the more reason to avoid having sex with one.
Btw, the survey ( http://apps3.vantagenet.com/zsv/survey.asp?GO=Go!&id=11116213851 ) doesn’t seem to be supporting your side so far… very interesting.
Hey, you stupid shit, I know lots of women, and that was my point, THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN A SPECIFIC CLITORAL ORGASM. Neither does most modern sexual research.
Stimulating the clitoris causes orgasm. Stimulating the vagina causes orgasm. Stimulating the nipples can cause orgasm. Some people can orgasm without physical contact.
They aren’t completely different things, nor is any one, in general, ‘better’ for anyone.
Feel free to disagree, but that means you’re disagreeing with the people who study this. Unless you’re actually also an expert in female sexuality, but neglected to mention it until now.
Jack, I think I am:
- Smarter than you.
- More educated than you. (a different thing)
- Less pathetic than you.
- More logical than you.
- Better at human interactions than you.
- More knowledgeable about [url="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php?action=bbcode"VBB code than you.
- In possession of more friends IRL life than you.
- Getting lucky (defined as any sexual behavior) more than you.
- Prettier than you.
- Less insane than you.
- Your general superior in every imaginable way, except maybe staring at cocks.
This does not suggest low self-esteem.
–John
Well, I’m uncut, and I get oral and anal sex all the time.
Isn’t it Gaudere’s Law that if you criticize something for not knowing the codes, you will fuck them up?
Vbb Code
Vbb Code
Vbb Code
Vbb Code
Preview, preview, preview.
You’re pretty quick with unsupported comebacks, JDT. Care to offer some evidence ?
One
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592
Australian research, published in the British Medical Journal in June 2000, outlining why circumcision appears to reduce HIV infectivity.
Two
From that link you dismissed:
“There have now been twenty seven statistical studies that show a big difference in HIV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For example, among the uncircumcised people of Kisumu in Western Kenya, a man is three times as likely to get AIDS than his circumcised neighbours. Among truck drivers in Mombassa the difference is four-fold.”
**
And I strongly recommend this page:**
http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/06/30/circumcision/index.html
US online magazine article discussing the medical and ethical issues behind promoting circumcision.
Opening:
"Young Nelson Mandela sat in a row of 27 teenage boys, anxiously awaiting the arrival of the ingcibi, who was about to change them from boys to men. The old man soon knelt before the future president of South Africa, pulled the 16-year-old’s foreskin forward, and brought down the ceremonial blade in a single, swift motion.
“I looked down and saw a perfect cut, clean and round, like a ring,” Mandela wrote in his remarkable autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom.” “I count my years as a man from the date of my circumcision.”
Didn’t seem to do him too much harm.
The Tim,
> They don’t even admit the possibility that they are wrong, or they’ll say, “Well if you can manage to prove it logically of course I’ll give agree with you. But you can’t prove it logically so its irrelevant.” <
No, you have it wrong. Basically, what is happening with creationists is that they are providing no argument for their position. People like you will foolishly fall into the trap of trying to prove that creationism cannot happen. That's trying to prove a negative which is impossible to do. You have to force the creationists to give their argument as to why creationism is the best explanation for the available evidence using Ockham's razor. From there, you are suppose to pick apart the premises to their arguments. This trap leads you to debate the pros and cons of the various implications if one assumes that creationism is true. You cannot win.
Of course, I don't think that it is too difficult for you to see that you are in the same boat with the creationists as I am in with the pro-circumcisionists. They have not supplied an argument in favor of circumcision using Ockham's razor. If they had then persons like myself can attack the various premises. But, like the creationists, the pro-circumcisionists never gave an argument. Instead, everyone has to debate the experimental results. It's the same situation!!! We cannot win.
> I’m not going to speak for everyone, but I think in general didn’t think much about this before you came. You provided no valid evidence for your possition. <
Well, if you're thinking about it now, that's good.
> You seem to not understand the experimental procces, the science of logic you tout and common civility. <
Oh, I understand all about these things. They are just not completely applicable if one is trying to get one's message across to hostile people.
> Then you act, in Esprix’s words, like a Jeezer trying to save homosexuals. <
I have no idea what this means.
> I can entertain the possibility that circumcision is as bad as you say it is. I can entertain the possibility that a medical conspiracy is hiding this fact. I don’t see any evidence to support your world view. <
Evidence for how bad circumcision is is readily available on the net. In light of this, you can ask yourself why the medical establishment continues on with the mutilations. Tell me what you come up with.
> I have to thank you for spouting the nonsense. Its going into a story in which you and theistic flat earthers are right, and the foreskin used properly provides a nearly endless supply of psychic energy. <
OK. Spell my name right.OpalCat,
>Like I said, all the more reason to avoid having sex with one.<
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I like that survey, but, you shouldn’t be grouping women and gay/bi men together. It would be interesting to see their separate responses. Thanks.
Yue Han,
> This does not suggest low self-esteem. <
Yeah, it does. It also makes me question your rationality.matt_mcl,
>Well, I’m uncut, and I get oral and anal sex all the time.<
What kind of sex do you prefer?London_Calling,
> You’re pretty quick with unsupported comebacks, JDT. Care to offer some evidence ?<
Jack, I can’t believe I’m asking you talk MORE, but I’d really like you to explain how my opinion that I’m better than you means I don’t like myself.
I can see how, in Jack-the-Savior-of-Humanity World, it means that I am insane. After all, in your delusion, you are the One True Hero, fighting to save the world from circumcision.
But in case you don’t get it, here’s some random levels of respect, from highest to lowest.
Polycarp
David B
Me
Bodie Bender (A guy I know)
Chimps
You
Phaedrus
Stalin
Emilio Estevez
In short, I like me. Not as much as you like you, apparently, since you consider masturbation the highest form of sexual experience. Ah well, we all make do with what we can; I have to suffer through foreplay with my girlfriend.
–John
matt, for the love of God, gods, goddesses, and general divinities around, please don’t answer this question. We’ve (people who pay enough attention to JDT) basically figured out what jdt gets off on reading about this sort of thing.
Jack, saying “no” and “oh, that’s mighty convenient, isn’t it?” don’t make you right. They make you look stupid, ignorant and otherwise foolish. If you’re going to say something, be prepared to back it up. People lose credibility mighty quickly when they say X and can’t prove it. And when posters come back with evidence to refute X and you negate it with “I don’t think so” or something else clearly baseless, it makes you look so stupid the rest of us either sit back and laugh or sit back and . . . well, laugh harder.
I’m still waiting to hear from Jack what his opinion of penile inversion is…
Blind? How? I LIKE anal sex. I LIKE oral sex (both ways). I would consider it a major bad thing if my partner was not equally inclined.
As for the survey, the ONLY question that groups women and gay/bi men together is the preference question.
Interesting that so far the results indicate:
- Women prefer circumcised men
- Stroke length, anal sex, oral sex, and foreplay seem about equal in circumcised and uncircumsised me, and INTACT MEN spend LESS time outside the vagina.
- Women like foreplay best, followed by long strokes, then oral sex, then short strokes.
- 79% of circumcised men report that intercourse lasts 20 minutes or longer, compared with 75% of INTACT men reporting only 10 minutes.
- Women reported enjoying intercourse to last for 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes. Women liking 30 minutes or longer comprised only 25%.
- Women report wet spots with both cut and uncut men.
- NOBODY thinks the foreskin is the most erotic part of a man’s body, only 30% think it is even very sensitive, 8% think it’s useless, 6% think it’s in the way and sex is better without it, 16% think it’s gross, and 40% really don’t think about it.
- 87% of people think that a woman making noise and moving around in bed is a sign that she’s enjoying herself.
Now, the survey is less than 24 hours old, so this is just preliminary data… but I’m interested in your explanation for why it supports what we’ve been saying… and contradicts what YOU have been saying?
JDT said:
Let’s see, my dad is a hunter…and he drinks beer…but he’s not a farmer. ::look of astonishment:: Why, why, it’s a whole new paradigm! He’s the next step in the evolutionary chain!
Also,
When you have his credentials, I’d say that then you can criticize the man.
As it is, you have NO credentials at all (except for that you were working toward degree in astrophysics.) It’s so very clear to me how astrophysics and circumcision are related. Or maybe we should call your field of “research” the para-pseudo-quasi science of LAOMD. That’s “Looking At Other Men’s Dicks”, if you need it spelled out.)
Therapy, Jack. It’s called “Therapy”. Get some.
This will be my only foray into this mess and I know that spelling flames are verboten, but I must make an exception before I go out of my goddamned mind…
Jack, you numbfuck. It’s O-C-C-A-M-'S razor.
I don’t care if we somehow change your mind about the mystical properties for the foreskin (ask for it by name!) or if you never post to this board again, but if you spell this right just once in one of these threads, I will be happy for the rest of my days. Somehow I will beat the correct spelling into that cocoapuff-sized nodule of nerve tissue that you call a brain.
This is just one more piece of evidence to indicate that you’ve never so much as looked at the skeptical pages you link to on your website, she said as if his style of debate weren’t evidence enough.
Jack, I know you are sexually frustrated, preoccupied with the shortcomings of your microscopic prick, and busy with your one-handed posts to the SMDB about our sex lives, but say it with me now: O-C-C-A-M.
That is all. Go about your business.
Not to be pedantic, but the correct spelling of the Bishop’s name is disputed. I’ve seen both Occam and Ockham in academic sources. A spelling flame is out of order in this situation.