My God, porcupine, you were right - the foreskin sucks! 
So I can ditch the Dustbuster[sup]TM[/sup] and find me an uncut male in my dorm?
tiggeril- if you find one, send him East. I need one for my dorm, and God knows all of these New England yuppies must be cut- the drinking that goes on here is an obvious symptom of angry men repressing their rage about having the most whatever part of their penis amputated.
We could start a “rent-a-foreskin” agency.
It’s a shame “Hertz” is already taken… I can imagine the advertising now. “Make spills and stains disappear with one of our freshly harvested foreskins! Satisfaction guaranteed.”
Gee, I can think of some other reasons.
- He doesn’t/can’t ejaculate
- Significantly less than 10cc of my baby’s love.
- The woman isn’t aroused.
Yes, in Jack’s World, women just lie there, not moving much and not making much noise, eschewing such oddities as oral sex in favor of having their nipples poked through to their backs, and – surprise! – no wet spot results. Could it be because she’s FINALLY doing sex “right,” or could it be that she’s bored out of her skull and mentally balancing her checkbook while she waits for Mr. “I’m Intact-But-Clueless” to finish?
Newsflash, Jack the Snipper. An erected, intact penis does not need its foreskin retracted: the forskin IS retracted in erection. Yes, each and every one of them, unless you have foreskin that exceeds the length of your flacid penis. Nothing I’ve ever seen at the gym, anyway.
Anecdotal Evidence? I don’t think so, Tim. Welcome to the Straight Dope. Facts, man. We need facts.
I think this problem might occur with women who attempt to have sex with you. That doesn’t mean you get to make wild generalisations about it! So you have trouble getting a woman wet. Wanna talk about it?
OK, so what happens afterwards? The man stumbles to the bathroom, pinching his foreskin shut (over his ERECT penis, mind you!), only to release a three liter mass of female fluids and semen, all sucked into his mighty foreskin? Sure! Makes a lot of sense! OK, intact guys. A poll. When erect, can you pull your foreskin over the tip of your penis? One “Nay” right here.
Again, don’t extrapolate your own experiences. The fact that you are challenged in the length-area doesn’t mean us big boys can’t stroke deeper.
Sheesh. What’s UP with this lad?
You don’t really want an answer to that, do you? 
Female lurker here.
And I was going to answer question but Jodi makes a good oint. Anyway there will no doubt be some reason why my experience doesn’t count.
Having waded through this mess (maybe I shouldn’t put it that way now that we’re talking about wet spots) I thought I try to put more posativly, just for the hell of it.
So what you’re saying is, there is this really great technique, involving stimulation of the clitoris by the foreskin, that is so mind blowing wonderful, in your opinion, all other sex pales incomparision. And it your opinion everybody who can should try it. And people should not be circumsised so they will be able to try. And you wish, out of the goodness of you heart, to share news of this great pleasure with the world.
Now. Isn’t that better than “There is only one way to have sex. You’re not really having sex. In fact you’re not really having pleasure. You only think you like cunniligus. You don’t really find wet spots a turn on. You’re just duiluding yourself. Your not reall sexual satified. That little smile you went around with all the next day was just a pathetic front.”
Ummm…this is psychotic.
Um… meaning that the woman didn’t “get wet”… ie, she didn’t really enjoy herself.
Coldfire, Jodi,…stop…please.I can’t laugh anymore…it hurts…
Coldfire,
> Newsflash, Jack the Snipper. An erected, intact penis does not need its foreskin retracted: the forskin IS retracted in erection. <
A lot of intact men can still retract their foreskins farther than it is in the erect state. But, you're absolutely right, it shouldn't be retracted further for intercourse.
> Yes, each and every one of them, unless you have foreskin that exceeds the length of your flacid penis. Nothing I’ve ever seen at the gym, anyway. <
Hmmm, something is funky about this statement. You know a lot of men have foreskins so long that there ERECT penises are still covered. It does happen that a little bit of the glans can be showing when flaccid in some intact men, though. But, usually the glans is fully covered when flaccid. Are you sure that you're intact? How did they miss you?
Anyway, so you're saying that you don't retract any further than an erection would naturally retract your foreskin when you engage in intercourse.
> Anecdotal Evidence? I don’t think so, Tim. Welcome to the Straight Dope. Facts, man. We need facts. <
Naw, we'll just go by experience with the matter of the wet spot.
> I think this problem might occur with women who attempt to have sex with you. That doesn’t mean you get to make wild generalisations about it! So you have trouble getting a woman wet. Wanna talk about it? <
OK, so I'll take this as saying that you've never had a woman go dry and that you think that a woman could fill an average size swimming pool with the lubricant from her vagina. Moving right along . . .
> OK, so what happens afterwards? The man stumbles to the bathroom, pinching his foreskin shut (over his ERECT penis, mind you!), only to release a three liter mass of female fluids and semen, all sucked into his mighty foreskin? Sure! Makes a lot of sense! <
You sure seem to lack a lot of creativity when it comes to understanding how a penis works. I mean, especially since you are alleged to have an intact penis. I'm trying to figure out what the problem is here. When you are inside of the woman, your glans does at least partially retract into your foreskin as you are stroking, correct? So, you scoop lubricant into your foreskin with your glans and then the pressure of the lubricant will cause the lubricant to slightly balloon up the foreskin or to softly squirt out of the foreskin back into the woman. How can an intact man not immediately understand this process? I wonder.
> Again, don’t extrapolate your own experiences. The fact that you are challenged in the length-area doesn’t mean us big boys can’t stroke deeper. <
Well, let's see, by your own description you have a short foreskin. And, since you're being so hostile, I'll just read into what you are saying as opposed to asking you directly. It seems that you prefer deep strokes as opposed to little short ones. Well, women who have been with intact and circumcised men say that the strokes of the intact man are shorter. This jibes perfectly with my understanding of the physiology of the penis. You appear to be anomalous in yet another area.
> Sheesh. What’s UP with this lad? <
What's up with you? Something is. Why do you seem to know so little about how an intact penis works if you are intact? Why does your "intact" penis seem to function as though it is circumcised for all intents and purposes? A lot of men who have been "loosely" circumcised have part of their glans covered by their remaining skin when flaccid. That could describe you. Are you sure that you're not circumcised? It's not a rare situation for people in the anti-circumcision movement to encounter men who think that they are intact but who are really circumcised.Because, dear Jack, for most of the rest of the world, those not suffering from you neurosis and obsession, penni “function” the same, cut or uncut.
betenoir,
> So what you’re saying is, there is this really great technique, involving stimulation of the clitoris by the foreskin, that is so mind blowing wonderful, in your opinion, all other sex pales incomparision. And it your opinion everybody who can should try it. And people should not be circumsised so they will be able to try. And you wish, out of the goodness of you heart, to share news of this great pleasure with the world. <
I see your point, but, with all due respect, that sounds like what YOU should be saying to everyone. I think that you would be very effective. I'm too depressed to cop an attitude like that because I know that as I speak babies are being mutilated. If you have nerves of steel, why don't you put on the Pollyanna attitude and spread the word in order to help the little guys out---they need it.
> Now. Isn’t that better than “There is only one way to have sex. You’re not really having sex. In fact you’re not really having pleasure. You only think you like cunniligus. You don’t really find wet spots a turn on. You’re just duiluding yourself. Your not reall sexual satified. That little smile you went around with all the next day was just a pathetic front.” <
Well, for me it's either put it this way or tell everyone to storm those hospitals right now and protect those babies who are being attacked as we speak. I chose the former only because it would be impractical for one person to storm these hospitals. Besides, if these people won't protect those defenseless babies, why shouldn't these people suffer with the ugly truth of circumcision. I mean, that's nothing compared to what happens to another baby every two minutes.Oh Dear God,
JDT does not know what the hell he is doing…Coldy, git 'im.
He’s a PUTZ folks, get that in your brain now if you haven’t already. He has demonstrated over and over again he cannot prove any point but states “personal research” (which we all know is viable in a debate OH and we all know his “personal research” is accepted by the AMA, the US Army, the NFL and the Girl Scouts of America) as proof that his outrageous claims are scientific and valid.
Look dude, (trying to keep this non-pit material) you don’t have anything that creates proof to prove your personal theory. You spout a lot more than your circumcision idea, which there are people on both sides of the fence regarding circumcision. You sit there and get people into the discussion of women and how we women prefer to have sex. Wrong bucko, you are so wrong if you were a woman who has had many partners that include circumcised and non-circumcised men then you might have something to discuss otherwise keep your mouth shut. Sheesh I can find more information within 10 minutes to support and to negate your claims here than you have done in over 100 posts over however many days. Your debating about personal research is weak at best. If you are so passionate about this issue then give people some meat to chew on, some solid facts to back up your claims.
Stick to facts and give us solid proof or your debate is nothing less than flacid and you will loose any shred of credibility you have here, although little if any exists at this point.
:rolleyes:
< puns kind of intended >
Well, no. That’s not what I’m likely to be saying to anyone 'cause for the most part your version of sex seems incredible depressing to me. And generally it would be you who I think needs help.
**
Fine. You think cirmscision is a horrible mutilation. I think we all know that. What does that have to do with denying every other persons sexual experience? Circumscion takes away from this one sexual experience, that,IN YOU OPINION is really great, therefore there is no other good sexual experience possible? Other people know nothing about sex, not even the sex they are actually having? You arn’t even responding to what I was saying. Not that I should be surprised.
Sorry, I’ve had a bit of trouble with my Windows 2000 so I haven’t been able to post in several days.
Anyway, as an intact male who has had plenty of sex recently sans condom, I can say that I haven’t experienced this wet spot. I don’t know if that’s because of the foreskin’s mind-boggling powers of absorption or my own, er, shortcoming.
Where do all those fluids go? No idea. Evidently not onto my bed.
Do people really consider it a turn-on? Seems pretty nasty to me.
Also, I didn’t manage to try out Jack’s suggestion. Maybe sometime soon.
I have no idea why I find this thread so amusing, but I do.
Keep wondering, Jackie - I don’t understand it either.
Yes, I’ve noticed a wet spot on some occasions. I might add that it’s unpleasant to sleep in and a devil to get out of the sheets. Happy now?
And in answer to Coldfire’s poll: Nay. (I’m sure both Coldie & I had preferred blissful ignorance on this matter. However, in the fight against willful ignorance no sacrifice is too big. Please work in your own pun about how this is “stretching it a bit” here.)
Jack, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. Repeatedly. You’re against circumcision, that’s cool. I would probably be too, if I had to form an opinion on the matter.
Unfortunately for you and your cause, you’ve been posting “facts” about uncircumcized intercourse (so it’s not the intercourse that’s circumcized, sue me) that’s in direct contradiction with a lot of peoples first-hand experiences. Among them mine.
When called on it, you’ve basically responded with one of three retorts: We’re doing it wrong, we don’t know what we’re experiencing or - my personal favourite for pure entertainment value - we don’t know that we’re circumcized. Yeah, right.
I’m getting a sneaking suspicion that you didn’t expect to have other uncircumsized debaters around and thought you could post your nonsense without contradiction. Well, tough luck. This is the SDMB, we fight ignorance.
In short: I have a very hard time recognizing any of the stuff you’ve posted as being reminiscent of my own experiences. A lot of other posters have been pointing that out as well. Perhaps you should take some notes and adjust your theories accordingly ? Or perhaps it’s time to issue invitations to the Pit.
S. Norman
OK, let me put it this way: IF an intact man still has “leverage” on his foreskin whilst erect, then the foreskin is going to fold back all the way upon entering the vagina. How would you make it “stay out front”? Unless we’re talking about giant vaginas here, I don’t see how the friction of entering could NOT result in full retraction of the foreskin.
Sure.
I’d say it’s a pretty even 50-50. Purely anecdotal, of course, since this is your prefered scientific method.
Yes, I am sure noone cut off my foreskin when I wasn’t paying attention :rolleyes:
And what do you mean by the latter remark? Who are they, and why did they miss me? With what?
Read again. Where am I claiming anything about the amount of lubricant fluids a woman can produce, possibly under my influence? I merely insinuated that your anecdotal evidence of women drying up might have something to do with your own methods of pleasuring a woman, rather than with the woman at hand. Why always seek fault elsewhere? It just might be you as well, JDT. Do you ever stop to think about that?
I really don’t know, as I usually don’t mount a DickCam[sup]TM[/sup] to my penis during intercourse. But judging from the erect state of my penis and the relative postition of the foreskin, I’d say there is no or very little retraction into the foreskin once inside and a-strokin’.
After reading that paragraph 25 times, I think I know what you mean. So? Are you saying that the foreskin of an intact man is able to scoop up ALL the female lubricants, AND ejected semen, leaving NO wet spot, NEVER?
You must have one big foreskin, mate. Hence the three-liter exaggeration in my last post.
Translation: “Since you are openly questioning the validity of my statements, I am now going to misinterpret your words in the most horrible ways known to man. This is what I call debating.”
You’ve got a lot to learn, kiddo. You think I’m hostile? You ain’t seen hostile yet. Believe me. But let’s see how you interpret things.
Actually, I prefer to vary my repertoire. Not that it’s any of your business, of course. I was merely saying that circumcision has little effect on the depth of strokes. I can only imagining it having effect when a foreskin is tight enough to stop a penis from becoming fully erect. In such cases, circumcision is usually performed here in Europe. For that reason, for hygene, and for being Jewish. That’s all. This of course means that the majority of European men are uncut.
Other than the example of the too-tight foreskin, stroke depth is unaffected by circumcision, and I dare you to prove otherwise - by means of actual fact.
They’re just trying not to hurt your feelings, probably. Other than that, skip the “anecdotal evidence” in this debate. It means nothing to me.
Thanks, Dr. Ruth. I think I’m gonna sit in this corner and cry for a bit. JDT has finally told me what I always feared: my dick is an anomaly!
I’m gonna call Star Trek and see if they can fit it into an episode. This is gonna be great!
Scene: the bridge of the Starship Voyager
Ensign Harry Kim: “Captain, I’m picking up an unidentified object three million kilometers off the starboard bow.”
Captain Janeway: “Is it a vessel? A comet, perhaps?”
Ensign Harry Kim: “No, it appears to be an anomaly of some sort.”
Neelix: “It is rumoured that Anomalous Dicks appear in these areas. Us Talaxians always avoid this star system like the plague!”
Tuvoc: “Let’s not jump to conclusions just yet. There’s probably a completely rational explanation for this.”
Captain Janeway: “Lay in a course to intercept, Ensign.”
Neelix: “Captain, I ask you to reconsider! Anomalous Dicks can be extremely dangerous! Legend has it that an entire Borg Cube once disappeared under an Anomalous Foreskin!”
Janeway: “Don’t worry, Neelix. Voyager can take on any dick. Besides, we just recalibrated the ForeSkin Deflector Shields last week! Engage, ensign.”
Harry Kim: hesitantly “Aye, Captain…”
** Neelix walks off the bridge, shaking his head in disbelief**
Harry Kim: “The Anomaly is within visual range, Captain. Let’s hope it’s just one of those boring ruptures in the space-time continuum again. Neelix freaked me out with his dick stories!”
Janeway: “Don’t be such a pussy, Harry. On screen!”
the Anomalous ClogDick appears in all its threatening glory, full screen, high resolution, and 3D, to boot
Entire Crew: “AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHH!!! We’re DOOMED!!”
outside shot of the Voyager being scooped up by the Giant Analomous Foreskin
Roll Credits
Hoo yeah. I’m gonna be rich!
Because I’m a closet Jew. I am trying to force my Bar Mitzwa out of my memory. You buying that? No? Good. Neither am I. My penis works fine, and I know all I need to know about it.
Listen, dude. How could I possibly be circumcised without knowing it?
Just tell me how that could happen. I was born in the Netherlands, where circumcision is not performed on Roman Catholics (which I am, or at least was at birth). It is only performed on non-Jews for medical reasons. There were none, in my case. How would some Evil ForeSkin Cutting Ninja Team go about in -partially- cutting off the tip of my weener without me noticing? EXPLAIN that to me. Give me one of your hilarious “anecdotes” that goes into this.
I can’t wait to read it. You’re one of the most laughable posters I’ve encountered in these 18 or so months I’ve been here. And NO, that’s not a compliment.
Coldie:
- and I, for one, now know considerable more than I’d ever need (or want) to. <shudder> Coldie, you realize that this clown got us to describe our plumbing to half the western world ?
S. Norman