The circumcision thread: restored

[Falcon]

WHOA.

Um, Maybe I missed it, but how hte hell is there no wet spot? If the man ejaculates inside the woman, and it runs out, there’s a wet spot. That has NOTHING to do with whether he’s cut or not.

Sheesh.

[Shayna]

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
**There’s no wet spot when you have sex with an intact guy. So, I would imagine that there are a lot of intact guys that don’t know what a wet spot is. **

And you know this because of all the cut and uncut men you’ve slept with, right? :rolleyes:

Oh, and even if by some wild stretch of the imagination what you say is true (it’s not, though), what makes you think you can begin to know whether intact men are familiar with certain terminology, even if they’ve never experienced it themselves? SHEESH!

[Jodi]

JDT says:

You’re right about what she is saying. And, I said that this statement was wrong because FGM victims in Africa say that their sexuality is unharmed!

DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THIS ??? Because everything I’ve read about FGM says this is flat wrong. Inhibited sexuality is the principle motivation for FGM. If you refuse to educate yourself by even reading up on the subject on the Web, kindly shut up about it.

ACKSIOM has been banned, but in case he’s still reading (and I DO have e-mail):

Initially persuasive, but invalid. If you’re going to argue that the principles are undefined and therefore not equally applicable to boys, you’re thereby defining them yourself, by, er, definition.

What? Saying that principles are undefined is not the same as saying they are not equally applicable – it is saying they are undefined.

I’d be very happy to see you present any elucidation of these principles which even potentially excludes boys from equal application.

First, I do not need to “present” any eludication of the principles. YOUR question asked if these “principles” were not equally applicable to boys and girls – I merely pointed out that YOU have not set forth the “principles” you’re talking about. Second, I do not need to elucidate the principles in any event; I can go look them up in the leglislative history of the statute – as you can too, if you choose. Third, the obvious reason the principles do not apply to boys is because the statute itself by definition refers to females and the female anatomy.

In the absence of such, the default position is that they are equally applicable. To argue otherwise is to argue against an inherent conceptual element of ‘principle’ in the first place – the characteristic of universality.

Oh, bushwa. If I define “vagina” as “a biological organ ocurring in women and not men,” and further refuse to “elucidate” the “principles” underlying this definition, you apparently would argue that the definition is therefore equally applicable to me – under the “universality characteristic of the word ‘principle’.”

It’s your responsibility to demonstrate how and why the principles are not equally applicable, remember?

Not until you define the principles, my friend. It is demonstrably unfair to expect me to “prove” something about a term you have introduced but refused to define.

The equal application of principles must be assumed as a default…

Blah blah blah. I’m not cutting and pasting all this. Look, the principles underlying various laws differ from law to law. If you wish me to take a stab at explaining why the principles of a given law are not (or should not be) equally applied to men and women, then you’ve got to define the principles we’re talking about. Though frankly, it seems to me self-evident that if a statute by its terms addresses only women and not men, we need not look any further for a the reason it is not uniformly applied.

Parenthetical aside: cutting off the clitoris is most closely analogous to cutting off the glans, as the clitoral body itself continues into the body . . .

Blah blah blah. But cutting off the foreskin is not the same as cutting off the glans, as you must know.

Returning to the inaccuracy of the akindom you suggest, I seem to recall that the 15 square inches of lost foreskin tissue figure has been more or less accepted around here . . .

Not by me, as I haven’t seen a cite for it.

I’m reasonably satisfied with the range of 10-12 square inches as a general mean, how about you? Can we agree on that figure?

No. See above.

So, in light of the amount of tissue lost, therefore, it’s more accurate to compare a routine male genital reduction to a combined hood and labial excision (see below).
[/quote]

Incorrect. Labial excision is the removal of fatty tissue AND skin, not just skin.

And beyond THAT point, allow me to point out that the movement of the foreskin is itself both highly erogenous and sexually pleasurable.

Sez you and Jack. Many women – including ones posting here – have stated that they notice no appreciable difference between cut and uncut during intercourse.

Hopefully you have had some observational experience with this yourself, whether simple digital or combined oral/digital, if you’ll pardon the personal comment.

Actually, I won’t, except to point out that “observational experience” confined to the “digital or oral/digital” would not do me much good, as no man I’ve ever been with had a foreskin on his fingers OR his tongue – thank God.

The removal of the foreskin ALTERS PENILE FUNCTION.

Cite?

This can be demonstrated with a simple physical exercise.

Oookay . . . I’m not cutting and pasting this whole “experiment,” but will only say that since neither of my hands has a foreskin either (thank God), the demonstration would obviously be more relevant to the sensation of a circumcised penis (also no foreskin) over skin.

That’s what happens when the foreskin is amputated. The greater the genital reduction, the tighter the skin on the penis. The tighter the skin on the penis, the less it moves. The less it moves, the more the penis receives only friction input. The more the penis receives only friction input, the more need there is for primarily rougher thrusting motions to stimulate it.

None of this follows. If you remove the foreskin (the covering on the head of the penis), it does not serve to make the skin on the rest of the penis (including the head) any tighter, anymore than removing my eyelid would tighten my eye.

Now, are you really willing to argue that friction input is the only valid method of penile stimulation?

I never argued this in the first place, so I see no need to argue it now. But I don’t accept conclusions you base not on how the penis works but rather on how the hand works. I’d like to see some citation for any of this, but I’ve long since stopped hoping that will happen.

Medically speaking, routine – i.e. done without a direct, curative need – male genital reduction is unethical. The fundamental purpose of both curative and preventative medicine is to preserve as much healthy function as possible.

You have yet to demonstrate, except by questionable analogy, that circumcision in any way inhibits the “healthy function” of the penis. Millenia of having the procedure performed with few if any side-effects would tend to indicate it does not.

Believe me, folks, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve been steadily investigating this topic for over two years now. . .

Hmmmm. The same length of time JACK has been at it? Coincidence?

Naughty, naughty, Sauron. You play fair now, or I’ll take my bat and my brain and go home.

Or be sent home. But at least JACK is still here to entertain:

In any event, studies have shown that “creative sex practices” are less common with intact men.

Another negative to post to the uncut side! Keep talking, Jack; soon you and your uncut friends will never get laid again. But at least you can use the time you used to devote to sex to admiring your perfect (and unused) penises.

If a man puts as much of the woman’s breast in his mouth and gives them a full power suck and simultaneously then flickers the nipples back and forth with his tongue, then the nipples get pushed deep within the woman’s breast and that has some major erotic effect.

Push our nipples back into our breasts like poking a raisin into dough? And you think women LIKE this? You are quite the spokesman for “proper” sex, but what you know about women is literally laughable.

As far as I’m concerned, sex is only happening when both partners are experiencing erotic sensations.

So what is rape, if not forcible sex?

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

Shayna,

> Oh, and even if by some wild stretch of the imagination what you say is true (it’s not, though), <

It is true. No wet spot with an intact man. Just think about all those years it took you to convince yourself that that wet spot was sexy. Obviously, you're a virgin.

> what makes you think you can begin to know whether intact men are familiar with certain terminology, even if they’ve never experienced it themselves? SHEESH! <

You're right. That's why I asked him if he even knew what a wet spot was, duh. (It's probably a bad idea to ask an intact man what a wet spot is. Just like it's a bad idea to ask a circumcised American man what a foreskin is. They've never seen one, so how would they know.) Ask all of these experienced women who claim to have been with intact men if it is true, then.

[Primaflora]

Am I alone in thinking that JDT is posting arrant nonsense like his theories on breast play and no wet spot to entice women into responding in detail about their sexual experiences?

[porcupine]

Well, considering his response here, I think I’m going to have to agree with you.

[Coldfire]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
**Shayna,

> Oh, and even if by some wild stretch of the imagination what you say is true (it’s not, though), <

It is true. No wet spot with an intact man. Just think about all those years it took you to convince yourself that that wet spot was sexy. Obviously, you're a virgin.**

No, obviously, you are sadly mistaken. I’m an “intact man”, to use your highly scientific terminology, and I can assure you I am capable of producing quite a wetspot. But maybe that’s because all the women I slept with were unable to keep the stuff in after ejaculation.

Wait a minute. All the women I slept with were uncircumsized! They all had a clitorus! OK, we’re there now. Wetspots can be prevented by circumsizing women. :rolleyes:

JDT, I have no idea what your agenda is, but I’m amazed you keep people amused for so long, basically by spewing nonsense. If you can, make this your living. Not a lot of people outside politics can earn their daily bread by BS’ing all day. You seem to have the potential. And when I use the word “potential”, I use it in the non-sexual, uncircumsized meaning, naturally, uncut, and unaltered.

[Shayna]

Originally posted by Shayna
Oh, and even if by some wild stretch of the imagination what you say is true (it’s not, though)

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
**It is true. No wet spot with an intact man. Just think about all those years it took you to convince yourself that that wet spot was sexy. Obviously, you’re a virgin. **

SNORT!!! Ok, besides the fact that those are completely contradictory statements, the thought that you could know whether or not I’m a virgin is freaking HILARIOUS!

And let me say this really slowly so you get it once and for all…

T h e r e … I S … a … w e t … s p o t … e v e n … w i t h … i n t a c t … m e n. I know. I’ve been with them. HAVE YOU???

Skipping the rest of the nonsense in that last paragraph,
Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
Ask all of these experienced women who claim to have been with intact men if it is true, then.

I don’t have to ask any other women. Again, I’VE been with intact men and I KNOW THIS first hand.

Oh, but I forgot, you’re the foremost authority on ALL things sexual, even if they’re not about you! I bow to your superior knowledge, O’ Wise One.

Jeez.

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
It is true. No wet spot with an intact man. Just think about all those years it took you to convince yourself that that wet spot was sexy. Obviously, you’re a virgin.

I’m going to regret this . . . Jack, what evidence do you have to support this?

Anyone want to come in and agree with Jack here? On either count.

Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler
**(It’s probably a bad idea to ask an intact man what a wet spot is. Just like it’s a bad idea to ask a circumcised American man what a foreskin is. They’ve never seen one, so how would they know.) Ask all of these experienced women who claim to have been with intact men if it is true, then.
**

Friend, I know what a wet spot is, and I know what foreskin is. And (as we’ve established) I’m circumcised. So there go both your assertations.

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

Coldfire,

> No, obviously, you are sadly mistaken. I’m an “intact man”, to use your highly scientific terminology, and I can assure you I am capable of producing quite a wetspot. <

Well, I don't know what the problem is here because even with restored men there is little or not wet spot. I couldn't help but notice your little play on words, though: "capable of producing quite a wetspot." Are you saying that whenever you have intercourse, that there is a wet spot? And, how would you be able to compare your wet spot with that of one left by sex involving a circumcised man? Have you ever had a woman run dry on you?

[Coldfire]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
Well, I don’t know what the problem is here because even with restored men there is little or not wet spot.

Cites, links, pictures even, if necessary. I for one am not buying any of your crap untill you prove it. As for my own genitals: they appear to be in good working order, as experienced by Miss Fiery, just this weekend.

I couldn’t help but notice your little play on words, though: “capable of producing quite a wetspot.” Are you saying that whenever you have intercourse, that there is a wet spot?

It wasn’t a play on words. I am saying that a wet spot can occur when a man and a woman have intercourse. Factors may be, but are not necessarily limited to:

1. The use of a condom. Not wearing a condom would make a wet spot more likely, as it would then consist out of female fluids and semen.
2. The amount of semen ejaculated, in the case of unprotected sex.
3. The level of lubrication fluids a woman produces. Some get more wet than others, to put it bluntly. I’m sure the mans skills come into play as well in this, but it is NOT related to his penis being circumsized or not.
4. The tightness of the females vagina. Some woman can “keep it in” all night, only to have it run down their legs when they get up in the morning. Others “drop” it straightaway. Maybe effort is a part here as well, I have no idea. Ladies?

And, how would you be able to compare your wet spot with that of one left by sex involving a circumcised man?

It’s not the sort of thing me and my mates talk about in the pub. Cars, football, yes. Wet spots, not really. But the burden of proof is upon you, JDT, for it is you who posted the wild statement, not I.

Have you ever had a woman run dry on you?

No, because I’m the BID, BAD BOOTY… [sub]never mind.[/sub]

My apologies for the highly unscientific terms I may have used. I’m an economist, and my knowledge about sex is strictly practical. I’m not the scholar JDT seems to be :rolleyes:

“De beste stuurlui staan aan wal”
A Dutch saying, which translates literally into: “The best helmsmen stand ashore”. FYI, it is a sarcastic saying, mocking those who have strong opinions on things they know nothing of, in practise. Sound familiar, JDT?

[tiggeril]

Coldfire, I was about to post to say that I love you, but Jack hasn’t told me that I’m capable of feeling love, so I remain in a state of complete bafflement about myself.

[Jodi]

JACK, you appear to have an alarmingly purile interest in the sexual practices of others, for one who remains so coy about his own sex life (or lack thereof). For mercy’s sake, if you’re not willing to pony up details about your own experiences in this area, that kindly stop quizzing others on theirs. Not that I want you to; I appreciate you keeping your own private life (or lack thereof) private – but your refusal to allow others to do the same is voyeuristic and distasteful.

As for the rest of it – “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you might be mistaken.” Oliver Cromwell

[Falcon]

I’m still wondering how the hell JDT thinks there’s no wet spot with a non-cut guy. I thought I had a good imagination, but I’m just not seeing it. Ah well. shrug

Or maybe…he’s wrong. Nah, couldn’t be.

[porcupine]

Well, you see, Falcon, it’s the wonderful sucking properties of the magical foreskin. That’s why uncut men don’t perform oral sex - the foreskin does it for them. What most of these uncut men don’t realize is that the foreskin is actually prehensile. But of course most men don’t know how to use their penis, so they aren’t aware of its magical properties.

[Cantrip]

*Originally posted by Falcon *
I’m still wondering how the hell JDT thinks there’s no wet spot with a non-cut guy

Well, lessee…JDT advocates a “piss wash” to keep one’s member clean. Maybe the magical, mystical, all-powerful foreskin automatically closes up upon ejaculation, leading to (1) a “sperm wash” for the head of the penis and foreskin, thus maintaining proper hygiene, and (2) automatic contraception! Of course, this would prevent intact men from propagating and give circumcised men a natural advantage, so in a few generations, men will naturally shed their foreskins. A brave new world!

Hah! An answer to the evolution deniers and JDT all in one grand unified (dare I say, “intact”) theory!

[Jodi]

[hijack]

Memo to all you uncut guys: If you ever want oral sex again, do not tell your SO that you keep yourself clean using a piss-wash.

That is all.

[/hijack]

[Jack_Dean_Tyler]

Coldfire,

> It wasn’t a play on words. I am saying that a wet spot can [emphasis added] occur when a man and a woman have intercourse. <

Well, woman lurkers, I would like to ask any of you if there has been any time that you have had sex with a circumcised man (that lasted more than 60 seconds) where there was no wet spot? You can tell by the phraseology of our intact friend here that at least sometimes, there is no wet spot.
BTW, Coldfire, I meant to ask you, you're not retracting your foreskin before you enter the woman are you? If you do that, then there will be a wet spot to some extent along with ruining the sex.

> 4) The tightness of the females vagina. Some woman can “keep it in” all night, only to have it run down their legs when they get up in the morning. Others “drop” it straightaway. Maybe effort is a part here as well, I have no idea. Ladies? <

I don't believe that this would have any effect. It would make an interesting study, though. This is the only one of your factors that I wonder about having any affect.

> It’s not the sort of thing me and my mates talk about in the pub. Cars, football, yes. Wet spots, not really. But the burden of proof is upon you, JDT, for it is you who posted the wild statement, not I. <

No, don't need a cite for this one. We'll just rely on anecdotal evidence for this. These women are so experienced with intact men (how they find them I have no idea) that I'll just let them ask their intact friends if this is true. Besides, if they really had this experience (laugh) they'd already know it.

> No, because I’m the BID, BAD BOOTY… never mind. <

Women running dry, especially older women, is a common problem.
I know of at least one intact man that never, ever leaves a wet spot. There's two major reasons why this is so (no cite, my own personal research and NORM anecdotal evidence): 1) because the glans pulls the female's lubricant back into the foreskin instead of out of her vagina; and 2) because the action of the intact penis is just a bunch of short strokes which don't tend to move a large quantity of the female's lubricant.

[Smeghead]

*Originally posted by Jack Dean Tyler *
**<snip> No, don’t need a cite for this one. We’ll just rely on anecdotal evidence for this.
**

Whew. I feel better. I thought a cite would be useful, but obviously, it wouldn’t. That clears that up! Must remember this tactic for my next submission to Nature…

[Jodi]

JACK sez:

Well, woman lurkers, I would like to ask any of you if there has been any time that you have had sex with a circumcised man (that lasted more than 60 seconds) where there was no wet spot? You can tell by the phraseology of our intact friend here that at least sometimes, there is no wet spot. BTW, Coldfire, I meant to ask you, you’re not retracting your foreskin before you enter the woman are you? If you do that, then there will be a wet spot to some extent along with ruining the sex.

Once again, with feeling –

**

JACK, you appear to have an alarmingly purile interest in the sexual practices of others, for one who remains so coy about his own sex life (or lack thereof). For mercy’s sake, if you’re not willing to pony up details about your own experiences in this area, that kindly stop quizzing others on theirs.

**

No soup for you!

Oh, and “lurking ladies” – I wouldn’t cough up ONE MORE DETAIL about who does what to whom and what results until our Jack coughs up some details on who HE’S shagging, and what happens then.