Well the survey was just to disprove the generalization.
Man, I cannot believe that there is so much discorse and verbal sparring over a little skin. Just let it be settled that JDT likes his uncut penis and leave it at that. He is not going to change his mind.
I think the clinical term is delusional, but hey, I could be wrong.
I’m not a real doctor - I just play one at work.
Well, I’ve waded through about a third of JDT’s gross generalizations, and I hope this will be my only comment on it. I think that we all know this his generalizations don’t apply to our own sex lives. No amount of reasoning will convince JDT that this is true. I’m fighting the urge to go over some of his ideas point by point, telling him how these items aren’t true, certainly in my case, but why give him lurid details about my sex life? I like to save those for the fun threads. I say that we ignore him, like the gnat that he is. His friends, family, and acquaintences have to put up with him. We have the option of ignoring him.
His points have been made, our respective points have been made. Other than expressing pity for his past and future sex partners, I don’t know what is left to say to him. It would seem that nothing will convince him that we know the first thing about our own bodies, physical reactions, and sex lives.
Duck Duck Goose,
> Are you saying, “the foreskin of an intact penis holds onto some of the semen after ejaculation and during the post-coital removal of the penis from the vagina, thus making the wet spot on the bed smaller?” <
I'm saying a lot of things, but right now I'm trying to figure out what these persons in this thread think the wet spot is.
> Or are you talking about some kind of kinky sex “wet spot”, <
What would the "kinky sex 'wet spot'" be?
> like the semi-mythical “G-spot”? (Whatever happened to that, anyway?) <
The G-spot hasn't gone anywhere. It's alive and well. You can forget about a circumcised penis stimulating it for you, though.
> It was my understanding that when a penis with a foreskin gets erect, the foreskin pulls back out of the way, leaving the glans exposed. <
Not necessarily. In a lot of men, the glans remains covered even when erect. In any event, even if the glans is exposed, the foreskin will be covering the glans intermittently during coitus.
> Therefore, when it’s inside the woman’s vagina, it wouldn’t matter whether there was a foreskin or not, and therefore, there wouldn’t be any difference in the amount of semen that drained out onto the bed. <
No, the penis glides in and out inside of the foreskin during coitus. The glans pulls inside of the foreskin and that prevents the glans from being a one-way valve pulling the woman's lubricant out of her vagina. More important than that is that the man's stroke will be shorter in order to stimulate his foreskin as opposed to the long strokes on the circumcised man done in order to pull on his frenulum.
> My experience is that no matter how much or how little there is, the amount that’s going to drain out to form the “wet spot” is going to be “all of it”. <
What do you mean? What is forming the wet spot in your opinion? Obviously, it is mostly the woman's lubricant. But, some people here for some reason are insisting that the wet-spot comes from the man only. It's just nonsense on their part.
> I’m just amazed that any man, anywhere, has even noticed the problem of the “wet spot”, let alone offered some kind of opinion on it. <
Well, if a woman runs out of lubricant, the sex stops. Any man should notice that. Also, these wet spots can be two feet in diameter sometimes. Any man should notice when he's sleeping in something like that.
> P.S. A woman can get pregnant even if “all” the semen drains out onto the bed <
Actually, there's some minimum sperm count below which a man is considered sterile. But, I get your point.zen101,
> Maybe there is less of a wet spot because with the addition of sensitive tissue men with the extra amount of foreskin ,ahem, complete the task so bloody fast that the female isn’t aroused enough to produce much vavinal lubricant? <
No, there's no evidence to support this hypothesis.
> As previously stated in this line of arguing men with foreskin engage in less foreplay as well thus again less stimulation for the woman. <
I don't know that this is generally the case that intact men engage in less foreplay than circumcises men. I personally question the reason for stimulating erogenous zones when you can spend the same time stimulating erotogenic nerves. If the woman and the intact man want to have her erogenous zones stimulated, that's no problem. But, I think that the woman is going to insist on going right to the erotogenic nerves as soon as she gets a some experience with an informed intact man.
> Even if all of these assertations are true I wouldn’t be bragging about having more foreskin. It’s tantamount to saying “Hey baby, I gots’ me some extra foreskin and that means I’m not going to give you any foreplay and I’ll finish real fast too. Ohhh, yeah. Can you dig it?” <
It's more like "Hey baby, <intact guy> got foreskin and you have permission to shoot me if I don't get you off awesomely."In response to Jack…
No, the penis glides in and out inside of the foreskin during coitus. The glans pulls inside of the foreskin and that prevents the glans from being a one-way valve pulling the woman’s lubricant out of her vagina.
I’ve actually seen this documented elsewhere. Its supposed to be more comfortable for the female to participate in intercourse for a longer period of time with an uncircumsized penis for the exact reason that JDT is pointing out here. The foreskin helps to form a seal and keeps air from drying out the vaginal lubricants a woman excretes when aroused. When he eventually pulls out, there will be a bit of a gush anyhow. Theres no escaping that cursed wet spot!
**The G-spot hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s alive and well. You can forget about a circumcised penis stimulating it for you, though. **
There is, in fact, a G-spot. Trust me here, I have one. However, its been stimulated by circumsized -and- uncircumsized penises as well as manually. This probably doesnt go for every woman because each is built differently… But its best stimulated in the female dominate position (girl-on-top). I believe this has much to do with the natural upward curve of the penis and the location of the G-spot being towards the front of the vaginal canal. Its stimulation or lack thereof is entirely independant of the amount of skin on the penis.
malkavia,
>But its best stimulated in the female dominate position (girl-on-top). <
That's interesting. I can see how this could be so.
> I believe this has much to do with the natural upward curve of the penis and the location of the G-spot being towards the front of the vaginal canal.<
This might be the reason. But, I would think that the reason a woman's G-spot can be better stimulated in the girl-on-top position is because she can maneuver herself in such a way as to prevent the penis from missing the G-spot entirely. A circumcised man will automatically push down on his frenulum instead of up like an intact man will do. The circumcised man is almost guaranteed to miss or be almost useless in the missionary position.
> Its stimulation or lack thereof is entirely independent of the amount of skin on the penis. <
That's not true. The erotogenic nerves of the foreskin will receive extra stimulation when they contact a low profile object such as a G-spot or clitoris.Sore wrist yet Jack? Tug Ahoy effective yet?
Details, man, details! Enquiring minds are keen to know all about your dangly bits!
I’m doing a research project, you see.
No, there isn’t any evidence to support this hypothesis, and plenty to contradict it.
The circumcised man is almost guaranteed to miss or be almost useless in the missionary position.
For me, all men are relatively useless in the missionary position as far as “hitting the right spot” goes. I’d have to say that missionary is more for the feeling of being intimate and close than for hardcore stimulation.
Pssssst…thanks for the plug Primaflora, the super-sized tin of Milo is on its way…
malkavia,
> For me, all men are relatively useless in the missionary position as far as “hitting the right spot” goes. I’d have to say that missionary is more for the feeling of being intimate and close than for hardcore stimulation. <
Have you ever seen a pair of lower mammals such as dogs or rabbits mate? They do it "doggy style." A circumcised man may as well do it doggy stile with a woman because it's possible that his frenulum will contact her G-spot. That's probably how pre-humans did it. I suspect that the only reason for the evolution of the foreskin sensations and the clitoral sensations is for humans or their ancestors to go from doggy style to the missionary position. Sex isn't so anonymous in the missionary position and perhaps the sensations of the foreskin combined with the close look at the woman's face causes her to imprint on his brain (and vice versa). This is all speculation as I'm sure the flamers will make very clear, but, I can see how this could make for a stronger relationship and for a stronger society. Imagine the level of damage that this society has suffered if this scenario is even remotely close to the truth.Wow… I just waded through a bit of JDT’s postings… man, I feel like I need a shower.
JDT, I am cut, my son is not. The decision turned out to be accidental. We were not aware that it was something that needed to be done right away, and by the time he was 6 months old, his doctor said “It’s possible, but he may be too big.” That’s my BOY!! Also, the doctor, Jewish, didn’t push us one way or the other.
My wife has been with both types of male.
Her take on it is that it’s more about style, and person than the penis. That is the most important aspect.
Also, she orgasms, and orgasms quite nicely, although, to be perfectly honest, I tend to do it more for her than any other partner she’s had… that’s what knowing someone’s body is all about.
Data: Her, and every female I have been with (with one exception) have been vocal during climax, and during the act itself. The exception turned out to have (I’m serious, no joking please) mental blocks against enjoying sex due to an abuse problem… we didn’t know it at the time, but we learned.
Opinion, and what will get me yelled at by the mods: JDT, I feel that this post may have been a waste of time. Everytime someone has posted good data, regardless of it’s source, you immediatly come up with a reason to discount it. You seem to have an amazing ability to read peoples mind, as you know more about their sex life than anyone else, including them.
Which is odd, since you show an astounding lack of Real Life knowledge of sex, in any way beyond what may be learned in grade school from your peers.
anything more, and I’m gonna get thrown in the pit.
I just wanted to thank Opal for opening up a new thread in which Jack can go on some more about his obsession. After all, with the other thread finally dying out, we certainly needed a new one.
David B,
> I just wanted to thank Opal for opening up a new thread in which Jack can go on some more about his obsession. After all, with the other thread finally dying out, we certainly needed a new one. <
What's the matter, David B., you getting a little weary? Well, I have bad news for you!!! Did you see that movie Nixon? I'm Madelyn Kahn in that movie. Her best line in that movie was the following as she was speaking into a television camera outside of some federal building where all of the Watergate commotion was happening: "Tricky Dick Nixon knew every <pregnant pause> GAWDdamn <another pause> last deTAIL." <pause> <here's where she and I are so much alike> "They'll NNNNNNEEEVVVVVVer shut ME up <pregnant pause>. Probably end up gggggkkkkkiiiiiilllllllen meeeeyyyyyeeee!!!!!!" So, David B., if it's retirement you're thinking about, you'd better get to it because I don't want to be the one who is inadvertently responsible for putting you into an early grave.Here’s an idea - let’s not give him any intimate sexual stuff to jerk off to (metaphorically and literally).
David, I am betting you have more staying power than JDT. More practice and real life experience, I would imagine 
Duke
thanks for the Milo 
Jack said:
I got weary of you at about your 2nd post, Jack.
No, I didn’t see the movie, but isn’t Madelyn Kahn dead? Doesn’t that mean you should be leaving?
This board is about fighting ignorance, Jack. I wouldn’t have signed on as a moderator if I didn’t plan to be a part of that fight. To steal from Pink Floyd, you’re just one more brick in the wall.
What? No Lunatic on the Grass?
::Reads JDT’s post:: Um… ::Blinks:: Well, that was WAY out of left-field, even for him…
I WAS going to suggest David was being a little over-sensitive…
Now, on the other hand, I see David was just concerned about poor JDT’s mental health.
Yikes…