Penile Lengthening Column

Great Debates
61

Hmmm. So the penis and the vagina are specially desiggned to fit into one another perfectly (ignoring, of course, the spectrum of shapes and sizes of naughty bits).

A circumcised penis is unable to fit in the same way.

So how could a formerly circumsized penis that’s been rudely stretched with sticky tape and tugboats into an approximation of it’s former glorious self fit just as well? And if the forseskin has one of the highest concentrations of touch receptors (I believe you said that, second only to the heel?), how could plain ol’ stretched skin in any way compare?

My biggest problem with thios area of discussion is that the circumsized can’t experience uncircumsizedness, and vice versa. A reconstructed male is simply a circumsized male who grew something back; he is quite definitely not uncircumsized.

62

Look, Jack, I’m going to have to say it: You are the biggest asshole I’ve ever encountered in my life, and I once met Lyndon LaRouche.

You have repeatedly insulted me, insulted my beliefs, insulted my wife, insulted my unborn child, and insulted the intelligence of everyone reading this thread. Why?

Because you seem to see yourself as a crusader against circumcision. You say you close your mind to dogmatic beliefs, but you haven’t noticed you’re the only one here unwilling to accept any beliefs but your own!

Guess what that makes you? A hypocrite. And I’m sorry, but I think that deprecating the exercise of Jewish ritual in the words you’ve used does make you Anti-Semitic.

So you’re an Anti-Semitic hypocrite with a closed mind. Sounds like a textbook asshole to me.

I’m interested to know your qualifications to discuss this. How old are you? How many sexual partners have you had? Have you had any medical training?

No, strike that–it really doesn’t matter. You’d have to be God in order to know all the things you claim to, and you’re not.

You don’t know diddly-squat about my sex life. You claim you do, but unless you have actual evidence to support your claims I’m going to assume anyone with a brain is going to ignore you.

You base your arguments on loose, unproven data. I admit I don’t have perfect, hard evidence to support my decisions, but, you know what? I don’t need it. I’m not saying circumcision is great and wonderful and everyone should do it! I’m saying I don’t mind that it was done to me, and my wife and I have chosen to have it done to our son. You’re the one saying I’m evil for that choice.

Oh, by the way, you state that nature intended every part of the human body for a purpose. I’m really curious to know how you know that. Proof, please. Oh, and while you’re at it, please explain what the appendix is good for.

And pay very close attention to me now: If you say one more thing about my future son being a freak, or despising me, I will call upon the moderators of this board to killfile you immediately. There simply is no call for this kind of vicious slander. I never said anything to provoke you (until now).

-Matt

63

Wow – so if I were uncircumcized I could enjoy the benefits of intercourse primarily outside my wife’s vagina, lack of creativity and variety of sexual experience, and the sublime jot of a 1/2" stroke to glory.

Man. No wonder you’re so hot on the idea.

Thank you very much, but I think I’ll keep my varied, creative sex life which long ago taught me that I can rub myself to ejaculation in a number of ways, but nothing compares to the warm embrace of my love’s vagina, even if I do tend to stroke it hard sometimes.

BTW, if you think a woman is incapable of contracting her waginal muscles while a man does more than flutter in place, then you don’t know as much about sex as you think you do.

Ooops. I seem to have stated the obvious.

64

I thought only Babwa WaWa had “waginal muscles”. :smiley:

65

[Moderator Hat ON]

If you have to say it, say it in The BBQ Pit, not in Great Debates. If I see a post with too many insults–this goes for everyone in this thread–I am perfectly capable of deleting it. No direct personal insults in Great Debates. Jack Dean Tyler, you will ease the hell up too.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-27-2000 at 03:50 PM]

66

andros,

>That your view is Truth. That all others are False. That you know what is best for everyone. <

I'm stating my expert opinion. And, I'm giving conclusions that logically follow from the available evidence.

>It sure doesn’t strike me that you are willing to slow down and listen to other viewpoints.<

Your problem is that we are moving to quickly toward the truth and that scares you.

>And I don’t understand why one would brag about being close-minded. <

You don't understand why someone would brag about being closed-minded to dogmatic beliefs? You don't understand why someone would brag about being close-minded to some schizophrenic insisting that he is seeing ghosts and talking to a skydaddy? Well, I don't understand why you have trouble understanding such a position.

>Well, no, actually. Nature doesn’t “make” anyone anything, for any reason. Nature has no will. <

Nature made organisms a certain way because they were strong. You are altering those organisms in a very fundamental way.

> And I’ll make sure to let every parent know that they are not allowed to make any decisions for their child. <

That’s OK. The law already forbids parents from doing cosmetic surgery on their children.

> I think you missed my first couple of questions. Firstly, please provide some evidence of a damaged sex life. <

Well, narrow it down a little, why don't you? Do you want evidence for a damaged penis? Do you want a study that shows women prefer intact men and have more orgasms with them? Do you want sexual horror stories? Do you want evidence showing that sex is fundamentally different?

> But what I was asking you to show evidence for was your idea that AIDS cases in the US are because "the US is circumcised to such a great extent. <

The reason that I am bringing up the AIDS statistics is because some irresponsible people insist that circumcision will protect society from AIDS. If this were true, then one would expect similar societies to show a favorable AIDS rate where circumcision is common. This doesn't happen in the US.

> Further, are you saying that uncircumcised men do not engage in oral sex, manual stimulation, or the arousal of other erogenous zones? I also do not believe this to be correct. Can you support it? <

What I am saying is that intact men do not do these other sexual activities as often. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/     go down to "sexual practices."

> Then we can ignore those points until you wish to provide some evidence. <

Better yet, just don't ask FGM questions to begin with.

>No. The difference between a “clitoral” and a “vaginal” orgasm is where one is being stimulated to achieve orgasm, not where the orgasm is felt nor what “type” it is. There is only one type of orgasm. <

I’m sure that you don’t have cite for that bit of nonsense. Why don’t you ask any woman if there is a difference between a clitoral and vaginal orgasm? She’ll tell you that the clitoral is much better. Why don’t you consult any modern sex manual? It’ll tell you the same thing.

> Then our discussion is over. <
Good. We weren’t accomplishing anything, anyway.

>Once again, I yield to the dogma of the conspiracy. You don’t have to provide any support for your statements, as you are able merely to state that all such evidence has been “covered up.” Such beliefs must perforce be filed with UFOs, Bigfoot, and Nessie. <

You are SO typical. Here we are in this very bazaar situation where every part of the human body has been researched ad nauseam except for the foreskin. And, babies all over the country are having this very part of their bodies forcibly amputated. And, I give an opinion as to the motivation of why this is so. And, you equate that with a belief in UFO's. Since you are such an obviously rational person who is so sophisticated that he doesn't believe in "UFOs, Bigfoot, and Nessie," why do YOU suppose it is that no one has researched the physiology of the foreskin?

>Funny, since I specifically stated I’m not a supporter of circumcision.<

Actions speak louder than words.

67

Actually, I think Pavel Chekhov’s girlfriends all had them too. :smiley:

68

**The law already forbids parents from doing cosmetic surgery on their children. **

you mentioned this a number of times, Jack. Are you sure? I remember some threads in GD a while back concerning cosmetic surgery for children with down’s syndrome.

btw, I am a circumcised male who harbors no ill will towards my family, but who would not circumcise his own child. Why? Because it’s completely unneccesary.

Your rather inflammatory and dogmatic style, however, may cause many like me to criticize your points. Overzealous selling will drive fewer points home and more listeners away.

jb

69

sniff I can’t bewieve you meanies are making fun of the way I tawk.

I am wery disappointed in both of you.

70

Gaudere - My apologies. I did not intend to disturb the tone of the message board. I will rein in the personal insults, and hope that Jack will do the same.

Jack -

You have yet to provide any hard evidence for anything you have said–you’ve cited a few article supporting your statements, but so have I, and so have others who disagree with you.

You have not offered any refutation for any point made against you that does not boil down to “Because I say it’s not true.” Well, that’s fine and dandy, if you’re having an argument in kindergarten. But I was under the impression that adults occasionally felt the need to support inflammatory remarks with actual evidence. Are you a politician? That’s the only reason I can figure out for your complete failure to make a properly supported argument.

You claim to have an “expert opinion.” Please elucidate. What are your credentials? Are you a doctor?

You asked me to tell you exactly what I wanted evidence of. Please provide evidence supporting the following points you’ve made (and please don’t just send us to the same dogmatic sites you’ve listed before–something somewhat impartial would be nice):

  1. My sex life is bad.
  2. My wife does not enjoy sex with me, even though she says she does.
  3. My as-yet-unborn son will, when he grows up, be a freak.
  4. My as-yet-unborn son will, when he grows up, despise my wife and me.
  5. Every part of the human body has a purpose.
  6. Any alteration to a baby’s body by his/her parents is unconscionable (would this include fixing a harelip, for instance?).
  7. All women experience both clitoral and vaginal orgasms, and can distinguish between the two (my wife can’t, by the way).
  8. Sex is only properly performed by rubbing the dorsal side of the penis against the clitoris. (Why do you get to decide?)

There are more, but that’ll do for a start.

Go ahead, Jack, educate us dimwitted, evildoing fools. Let us bask in the glow of your brilliance.

-Matt

71

And in what way are you an expert? You are stating your opinion. Give us some credentials before you call yourself an expert - and be prepared to have them challenged.

I hate it when people bring ‘truth’ into a scientific debate. Truth has nothing to do with this.

Oh, krikey. There are other threads on this board that are discussing just such issues. The skeptic’s response about claims of seeing ghosts or whatever is NOT “There is no such thing as ghosts.” The skeptic’s response is “I concede that it is possible that there are ghosts. However, I have not seen any evidence, other than your word, that there are ghosts. And I have seen evidence there there are other explanations for the phenomenon that you attribute to ghosts. Therefore, unless you provide me additional evidence, I will accept the alternative explanations over yours.” That is an open-minded approach. You are close-minded.

Okay, so explain to me what the appendix is good for. Or the tonsils. And while you’re at it, explain to me why typically men are stronger than women.

I’d like to see evidence for any of the above, please. Thanks!

I’m going to disagree with you both here. andros, as a woman, I’m going to disagree and say that in my experience clitoral and vaginal orgasms are different. And Jack, I’m going to disagree and say that clitoral is not better. Simply different. Apples and oranges.

Okay, Jack, that’s not making any sense. What actions are you referring to?

Felice

72

jb_farley,
> A circumcised penis is unable to fit in the same way. <

A circumcised penis and an intact penis are roughly the same geometry. The difference is in how they can interact with the female's genitalia.

>So how could a formerly circumcised penis that’s been rudely stretched with sticky tape and tugboats into an approximation of it’s former glorious self fit just as well?<
A restored foreskin will eliminate the friction problem during coitus. Also, a restored foreskin will eliminate the keritinizatin that has built up on the penis and the sensations will go back to being at least as good as they were when the man was a child.

> And if the foreskin has one of the highest concentrations of touch receptors . . . how could plain ol’ stretched skin in any way compare?
A restored foreskin is nowhere near as good as the original foreskin. However, it is much, much better than no foreskin at all. It’s well worth it for a circumcised man to restore.

>My biggest problem with this area of discussion is that the circumcised can’t experience uncircumsisedness, and vice versa. <
Actually, this is possible it has recently been discovered. This is the area of research that I am most concerned with.

73

Well, I’ll continue to try to speak calmly and politely. I reckon this will be about it, though. Apologies to Felice, I had this mostly composed before I saw your post.

Expert, eh? Please provide your “expert” qualifcations. Are you a professional psychiatrist? Surgeon? Neurosurgeon? Sexologist? What?

Whatever, kiddo.

I’m sorry, I guess I didn’t explain that very well. Being close-minded is never an enviable position, or one to be proud of, IMO. For example, scientists are willing to entertain the notion (hypothesis) that there is a large predator living in Loch Ness–until such evidence has been accrued that indicate otherwise.

Being open-minded is a hallmark of critical thought and scientific reasoning.

Again, nature doesn’t “make” anything. there is no design implicit. I invite you to read any of our myriad Creation vs. Evolution debates here to learn how natural selection works.

YES, for kdapt’s sake! All of the above! I want peer-reviewed, scientific studies demonstrating any and all of the above.

But no one said that in this thread. I don’t want you to answer objections that have not been raised here, I want you to show me that AIDS cases inthe US are a result of widespread circumcision. Or else concede the point.

Fair enough. But make sure you read that article throughly. It states in part, “While circumcised men of all 3 ethnic groups tended to engage in more elaborated set of sexual practices, this was less true of blacks and Hispanics.” If your point held water, then there shouldn’t be any difference racially, should there? Only if there are other factors involved. Correlation does not imply causation.

Further down the page on that same link we see this:

Please understand this, as I’m saying it for the third time: I do not advocate circumcision.

[quote]
I’m sure that you don’t have cite for that bit of nonsense. Why don’t you ask any woman if there is a difference between a clitoral and vaginal orgasm? She’ll tell you that the clitoral is much better. Why don’t you consult any modern sex manual? It’ll tell you the same thing.

[quote]

It’s clear that you have not taken your own advice. Go out and read about the female orgasm. Here are some places to start:

http://www.thriveonline.com/sex/orgasm/orgasm.vaginal.html
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0469.html (Columbia University)
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/notes/#myth (Duke University)

And in paper, see also:

Kinsey, AC, Pomeroy, WB, Martin, CE, and Gebhard, PH Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,
Much of the work by Masters and Johnson,
Alzate H 1985 Vaginal eroticism and female orgasm: A current appraisal J. Sex Marit. Therap. 11(4): 271- 284 ,
Hoch Z 1986 Vaginal erotic sensitivity by sexological examination Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 65: 767- 773
Yes, there are many people who persist in the idea that there are different “types” of female orgasm, and it is true that not every orgasm feels the same, but vast weight of the evidence indicates that orgasm is A) cerebral and B) systemic (simultaneously vaginal, clitoral, and uterine).

And no, Herbert Otto has not been willing to have his ideas reviewed by his peers.

Gratuitous insult aside, I believe that people have researched the human foreskin. Check out the British Journal of Urology link I provided on page on of this thread for an example. But if you feel science needs to reeavluate its findings, I am not the one you should talk to.

What actions? You know nothing of my actions, Jack. Once again (for the fourth time!) I do not support circumcision. However, just because I agree with you that it’s an unnecessary procedure does NOT mean that I agree with your methods or seeming lack of critical thinking skills.

74

JDT: *A circumcised penis and an intact penis are roughly the same geometry. The difference is in how they can interact with the female’s genitalia. *

How about when a condom is used? If we’re just talking about differences perceptible in unprotected sex, they’re going to be pretty irrelevant to many people’s actual sex lives.

Oh, and I’d also like to add my voice to Felicity’s (I think it was) in contradicting your assertion about women’s views on “vaginal orgasms” and “clitoral orgasms”.

And I’d like an answer to the question I asked above: if sexual techniques other than mutual genital contact are less used by uncircumcised men because they are “unnecessary” (since, as you claim, “intact organs automatically do what works” or something like that), then why did elaborate erotic traditions of such sexual techniques evolve in ancient cultures where no men were circumcised?

75

Felice,

>And in what way are you an expert? You are stating your opinion. Give us some credentials before you call yourself an expert - and be prepared to have them challenged. <

For about two years now, I have studied the erotic nature of the penis. I have studied resources available on the internet. I have conducted a zero-budget experiment with intact volunteers. I have collected anecdotal information. I have studied penises up close. And, I routinely exchange information with hundreds of other men across the globe who also study the erotic nature of the penis.
In an academic environment that refuses to study this matter, I am an expert. I know that it is a very sad state of affairs that I know more about the erotic nature of the penis than any Ph.D. on the planet, but what are you gonna do?

>The skeptic’s response about claims of seeing ghosts or whatever is NOT “There is no such thing as ghosts.”<

In theory, you are correct. As a practical matter, though, if there's no evidence, one should proceed on the assumption that such does not exist.

> The skeptic’s response is “I concede that it is possible that there are ghosts. However, I have not seen any evidence, other than your word, that there are ghosts. And I have seen evidence there are other explanations for the phenomenon that you attribute to ghosts. Therefore, unless you provide me additional evidence, I will accept the alternative explanations over yours.” That is an open-minded approach. You are close-minded. <

Little too wordy. In the face of no evidence, it's OK for a skeptic to repeat that skeptics reject all dogmatic beliefs. In the face of some pitiful evidence, then the skeptic should immediately resort to Ockham's razor and then just brush the dogmatist aside. This is the way that circumcision should be handled except that helpless babies are being forced to comply with the circumcisers dogmatic beliefs. I mean, it wouldn't be a big deal if the dogmatist just insisted to the baby that there were ghosts everywhere. In no time the baby would be looking at the dogmatist with raised eyebrows.

>Okay, so explain to me what the appendix is good for. <

They don't do appendectomies so much anymore because they have found that the appendix is important for the immunological system.

>Or the tonsils.<

They stopped routinely removing tonsils a decades ago. I forget what they found out about why they are important.

>And while you’re at it, explain to me why typically men are stronger than women. <

Whatever the reason, it's because humans were better off in terms of survival.

> I’d like to see evidence for any of the above, please. Thanks! <

I'm not going on a wild goose chase for you. You tell me precisely what you want. Or, you can find your own cites at http://www.cirp.org/library/

> Okay, Jack, that’s not making any sense. What actions are you referring to? <

I'm referring to all of the hostility and to all of the fallacies.
76

Well, this guy Jack Dean Tyler did indeed take the subject of this thread to heart.

[Satan’s insult deleted. --Gaudere]

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, four days, 20 hours, 35 minutes and 39 seconds.
8074 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,009.29.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 50 minutes.

*THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-27-2000 at 06:25 PM]

77

Okay, thank you. That is what I was asking for - why you consider yourself an expert.

I’m going to cut the thread about the nature of skepticism as it’s irrelevant to this discussion, though worthy of another thread unto itself.

Oh, bloody hell, Jack. You said,

And I said YES!!! Don’t be deliberately obtuse.

Where is the wild goose chase? I checked out the cirp site you mentioned - it is quite clearly energetically promoting an anti-circumcision agenda. Therefore I cannot accept it as unbiased evidence. More please.

Fallacies being all those that disagree with you, and hostility being all those that challenge you? Boy, you ain’t gonna last long around here.

Felice

**
[/QUOTE]

78

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Satan *
**Well, this guy Jack Dean Tyler did indeed take the subject of this thread to heart.

But not the biggest on record, Satan. I refer of course to the One Who Shall Not Be Named. Jack’s small potatoes compared to him.
But I fear he’s starting to troll, and it’s going to sadden me.

Felice

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-27-2000 at 06:26 PM]

79

**

This is credentials? Hell, so has Esprix!

:: fleeing ::

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, four days, 20 hours, 48 minutes and 20 seconds.
8074 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,009.33.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 50 minutes.

*THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!

80

Before Gaudere or David can say it, Satan, please help keep this out of the Pit. While we may not be getting much accomplished here, I know we’ll get nothing at all done there.