Penile Lengthening Column

Great Debates
221

Jack:

I must disagree.

Over the past couple years I have, in fact, been testing this. Rigorous experimentation has shown that if, with the help of my lovely female assistants, the foreskin and glans are held apart and the glans stimulated, I have fun. If the foreskin is stimulated under the same circumstances, I do not have fun.

I apologize for divulging such gritty details, but there is dirty work in science and someone has to do it.

The aforementioned experiments have also shown that the foreskin produces only tickling sensations, while the glans produces sensations that are best described as “getting my groove on”.

I understand your concern about no one being willing to study the miraculous foreskin. I, for one, am a man of action, and I will do whatever it takes to advance the state of medical science. If you would like to propose experiments that will delve deeper into the mystery of nature’s magical fifteen square inches, my assistant and I will gladly carry them out next time Barry White comes on the radio.

222

That will be news to my aunt, who bore 3 children to a homosexual man (her husband, who then left her). Just because gay men are attracted to other men doesn’t mean they can’t procreate with a female. I assume the same with lesbians. Also, there is the whole ‘in vitro’ fertil-something-or-other’.

Just a thought.

223

If it is, I have to inform David B that he has a link to the Skeptical Inquirer on that page.

David, he’s a fan! Aren’t you proud?

224

Well, you know, we do what we can… :confused:

Huh? Oh, wait, you answered here:

Wrong - lots of gay folk have kids.

Wrong, for two reasons: one, genetic research isn’t anywhere close to being that advanced, and won’t be for quite some time; and two, homosexuality is, at best theories, a combination of nature and nurture, and will never be fully understood, let alone find ways of somehow “detecting” it in vitro.

Wrong - I’d wager most people are more concerned about the child as a human being rather than how they’ll turn out. Even children known to be born with serious mental or physical handicaps, their parents still don’t opt for an abortion.

Um, I don’t see how either cloning or same-sex unions have anything to do with being gay or somehow “propogating the gay species.”

(I know, folks - trying to debate this guy is like trying to herd cats, but I just had to respond.)

What I want to know is, are you a repressed homosexual?

Esprix

225

Mr2001,

> Over the past couple years I have, in fact, been testing this. Rigorous experimentation has shown that if, with the help of my lovely female assistants, the foreskin and glans are held apart and the glans stimulated, I have fun. If the foreskin is stimulated under the same circumstances, I do not have fun. <

How is your foreskin being stimulated by your female assistants? If you are being stimulated with oral sex, then try it this way: have the woman give you oral sex in the 69 position with your  foreskin peeled all the way back.

> The aforementioned experiments have also shown that the foreskin produces only tickling sensations, while the glans produces sensations that are best described as “getting my groove on”. <

The sensitive part of the inner foreskin is just one structure. It appears to be an evolutionary advancement of the frenulum. This sensitive part of the inner foreskin is ticklish to the touch just like you are saying.

> I understand your concern about no one being willing to study the miraculous foreskin. I, for one, am a man of action, and I will do whatever it takes to advance the state of medical science. If you would like to propose experiments that will delve deeper into the mystery of nature’s magical fifteen square inches, my assistant and I will gladly carry them out next time Barry White comes on the radio.<

Well, try the above experiment first and let us all know how it goes. Then I'll have another one for you to try and I'm sure that you and your partner will enjoy it immensely.
226

Esprix,
> Wrong - lots of gay folk have kids. <

They certainly do. Don't know how prevalent such a situation will be when humans can be tested for gayness, though. Love is blind, but I'm not sure if it is this blind.

> Wrong, for two reasons: one, genetic research isn’t anywhere close to being that advanced, and won’t be for quite some time; <

They've already got the human genome project completed. They've already found genes that show a high probability of occurrence in gay men. They've already found certain differences in the phenotype of gay men that, with further investigation, will almost certainly lead back to the genotype.

> homosexuality is, at best theories, a combination of nature and nurture, and will never be fully understood, let alone find ways of somehow “detecting” it in vitro. <

Yes, this is true in the politically correct world, anyway. Believe, believe, believe.

> Wrong - I’d wager most people are more concerned about the child as a human being rather than how they’ll turn out. Even children known to be born with serious mental or physical handicaps, their parents still don’t opt for an abortion. <

Some people will be this way. A lot of religious people have an attitude such as this. Religious people might not have such an attitude toward a "godforsaken sodomite," though. As I recall, years ago, amniocentesis was started in order for the parents to learn whether or not the mother was carrying a child with Down's Syndrome so that they can decide what to do.

> Um, I don’t see how either cloning or same-sex unions have anything to do with being gay or somehow “propagating the gay species.” <

A gay man could clone himself. A gay couple could select for a gay child.

> (I know, folks - trying to debate this guy is like trying to herd cats, but I just had to respond.) <

I do not share the same constraints that you do. I do not believe that it is healthy to necessarily hold status-quo-correct views on everything. I am not afraid to question what the truth is even if we cannot know the whole truth at the present time. I am not afraid to question what the future may hold even though we cannot know the future. That's the difference between your ilk and myself. Your ilk is the defender of the status-quo and I am the defender of the truth as best as we can know it.
227

Alessan,

>As I seem to understand, you see the massive rise in circumcisions here in the U.S. since the 60’s as the cause of the rise in violence, lowering of morals, and the general collapse of American culture. <

Circumcision in America started in a very limited way in the 19th Century. During WW II, many, if not the vast majority, of American servicemen were circumcised by the military. Following WW II was the so-called baby boom and this is when the circumcised fathers began circumcising their babies en mass. This new Baby Boom population was about 20 years old in the mid 60's.
Circumcision of servicemen continued in the Korean War and this is when the minorities got it. This added to the population of circumcised men of the 60's.

>Tell me, does this apply to other nations worldwide? Do snipped men around the world act the same? <

Circumcised men of the world (only 15% of the male population of the world is circumcised---so they are freaks) do seem to have a strong tendency toward being very high strung and fearless, I would say. I feel that I can even see the difference in between American celebrities who are intact and circumcised.

> Take Israel, for example. Here’s a country where we can easily assume all males have been circumcised. <

The Arabs are also circumcised.

>Do you see this disfigurement as the cause of the rampant violence in Israeli society, of the Israelis’ oppression of their Arab neighbors? <

What I see in the Middle East are a whole bunch of very high-strung and absolutely fearless men on both sides. I can't help but feel that if they could just relax with properly functioning sex organs, that they could come to some equitable arrangement. I feel that the situation in the Middle East is hopeless thanks to sexual mutilation.
228

I thought I had a new lock for “funniest drivel from the mouth of Jack”. Then he went and posted again. So what do you think, Dopers. Which statement is more representative of the absurdist worldview that we have come to know and laugh at?

or

BTW, Jack – the following statement is not funny. It is not amusing. It is hateful.

Are there any other minority populations in the world that you would like to label “freaks”? Pygmies, perhaps. Left-handers? Amputees? Stutterers? Applying a perjorative to broad categories of human beings based upon an accident of their condition is bigoted, dogmatic and arrogant in the extreme.

Imagine my surprise to find it in your post.

229

This is the real winner, Spiritus. I like to relax with a good book and a pint of Guinness. I find nothing relaxing about my properly functioning sex organ.

Then again, I am probably one of those high-strung, fearless types.

MR

230

Spiritus Mundi,
> Are there any other minority populations in the world that you would like to label “freaks”? Pygmies, perhaps. Left-handers? Amputees? Stutterers? Applying a perjorative to broad categories of human beings based upon an accident of their condition is bigoted, dogmatic and arrogant in the extreme. <

It's not an "accident of their condition." It's the direct result of the most heinous bit of mayhem imaginable.
I am not using the term "freak" in order to insult these unfortunate victims (my position is that we should spend at least half of the national budget to correct what has happened). I'm using the term as a simple measure of the damage done in order to indict those that perpetrated this crime upon them. If I was in a court room defending the rights of these men, I wouldn't be sugar-coating the damage done to them.
231

MY GOD! This is like a car accident. It’s nothing I want to see, and I feel compelled to keep looking! Unlike a Car accident, THIS is the most anusing thing I’ve seen in a while. I say it should be the threadspotting thread.
[godfather voice]

“I try to stay out, but they keep…pulling…me…back in”

[/godfather voice]

232

(emphasis mine) Excuse me? Are we going to talk about how uncut men don’t need to do exotic things like anusing now? :wink: :smiley:

By the way, I’d like to advance my theory that the reason government spending is out of control is because circumcised men are making all the spending decisions and they need to compensate for their unsatisfying sex lives.

Does anyone know the cut/uncut status of the presidential candidates? I’d like to base my vote on this crucial issue.

233

You do realize that the national budget is more than 1.8 trillion dollars?

234

Dear, dear Jack - you skipped right over my most important question! It was, of course: Are you a repressed homosexual? I’m ever so curious…

Your inference seems to be that gay couples only have gay children, or that a gay parent can only produce a gay offspring. I do believe that would be vastly inaccurate.

Please quote me a citation of these “facts.” Thank you.

OK, OK, OK. Tell me, then - why am I gay? (This I gotta hear!)

Yes. Yes, they could. :rolleyes:

{snicker}

{laugh}

{GUFFAW!}

{BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!}

You crack me up! :smiley:

You’re right, you don’t have the same constraints I do - namely, sanity. Thank you, O Defender Of The Truth - whatever would we do without your enlightenment? :smiley:

weirddave, where’s our stop? We have to get off this train wreck!

Esprix

235

LMAO-almost a trillion dollars a year to restore the foreskins of every American male. I bet it makes perfect sense to Jack.
:weirddave reels off, shaking with gails of laughter::

236

Nah. I’m not going to do it.

Oh, I could go on about how you discarded 2000 years of politics, religion, ethnicity, customs and economics in favor of your grand little theory. I could talk about the absurdity of ytour claim that Jews are inherently more violent than the Cossacks, Crusaders and Nazis who’ve slaughtered us over the years. I could debate your statement that virtually no man I’ve ever known has ever enjoyed sex. I could be enraged by the fact that you’ve insulted my country, my religion, my family, my friends, my former comrades in arms.

But I won’t. You know why? Because you’re meaningless. You’re not worth my valuable time - or my non-valuable time, either. You’re not even that amusing.

Just hope we never meet in person. I’m liable to get mideastern on your ass.

237

weirddave: *LMAO-almost a trillion dollars a year to restore the foreskins of every American male. *

Let’s see, at $100 per Tug-aHoy foreskin restoration device (from their online order form, which is worth a read just for the bewilderingly complicated size determination instructions), that’s, um, almost ten BILLION devices, or around a hundred per circumcised male—per year! That oughta get results, although I expect most of the trillion was actually earmarked for new research in the field.

238

Your imagination is quite limited in scope, apparently. On the other hand, it does seem to infect every thought in your head (see how nice I am, I assume that there is more than one).

You call people freaks because of a physical condition which they did not choose for themselves. You apply this perjoritive, apparently, because your passion for the issue overrides any semblance of concern for those same people that you term “victims”.

You are not in court arguing fr punitive damages. You are in a conversation with people whom you consistently insult and label “freaks”. I have a friend who lost his arm below the elbow. He did not choose the injury. By your rules, apparently, he is a freak.

Your rules are evidence of bigotry, dogmatism and arrogance.

I mention this only because there is a miniscule chance that someone else will read your posts and not recognize the character of your arguments.

239

Please cite (not that I expect you to do it). I did a Google search and uncovered nothing. The three problems I have with this claim are:

  1. The dumbest thing in the world the U.S. Army could do before sending troops off to fight Hitler would be to circumcise them, thus risking the non-Jews among the troops for being misidentified as Jews if captured, and then sent to concentration camps;

  2. I just can’t picture millions of American boys, even under military discipline, willingly undergoing circumcision as adults; and

  3. What possible military rationale would there be for this?

Sua

240

I am anti-circumcision.

I believe it should be illegal to circumcise infants. I believe this because it is painful, unnecessary, potentially dangerous, and reduces sexual pleasure.

I do NOT believe that circumcised men are more prone to violence, I do NOT believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy to keep us ignorant of the utility of the foreskin, I do NOT believe that presence or absence of a foreskin can cause a radical difference in how women experience sex or that circumcision makes 1/3 of men sexually dysfunctional.

I think the reasons I gave justify my view quite adequately, and I think this other nonsense that Jack is saying is actually hurting the anti-circumcision movement.