The circumcision thread: restored

Great Debates
241

BAAHAAHAAAAAHHAAAA!!! Jack, stop! You’re killing me here, man!

Okay, let me explain a little rudimentary sex for you: when a man (cut or uncut) ejaculates into a woman during the act of intercourse, 2-3 tablespoons of semen is released, along with the natural lubricants of the woman. IT’S GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE. A woman is not a kitchen sink, where you just pour whatever into her and down the drain it goes. Nor is she a sponge. Mucuous membrane, which composes the interior of the vagina is absorbant to a certain extent but only to the extent that the mucous membranes in your mouth or nose are absorbant i.e., very small amounts of material can be absorbed (like when a person with angina puts a nitroglycerine tablet under their tongue). NOT 2-3 TABLESPOONS OF SEMEN!!. After sex, when the man’s penis becomes flaccid and falls out of the woman, the semen will (as others have said) remain in her until she stands up or will run out while she’s laying down. Some women may prefer to go to the bathroom and let it “fall” into the toilet or whatever; maybe that’s why some people don’t experience a wet spot.

Use your head, man! That one statement alone made it very clear to me that you do NOT understand a woman’s anatomy.

Coldy, you, on the other hand, ought to be a comedy writer! :slight_smile:

242

I agree. Coldfire, that was one of the funniest Trek parodies I’ve read in a long time. Maybe you could sell it to Penthouse or Playboy?

243

New .sig for Coldfire - “Uncut Clogboy!” You crack me up. :smiley:

So… how about this election, eh?

Esprix

244

Coldfire,

The reason I continue to avidly follow this thread (and its progeny) is the unrelenting hilarity found on both sides of the debate, unknowing farce in many instances, but brilliant humor in others. Your post was obviously of the later sort. It had me laughing uncontrollably for several minutes, and I continue now with intermittent chuckles. It was a post worthy in the memory of the late Wally M7, quite properly remembered in your sig.

Thanks

Billdo

P.S. Is this really your fantasy of an encounter between Captain Janeway and the “Anomalous ClogDick”? :slight_smile:

245

Thanks, Billdo. I can’t think of a nicer compliment than that. Honestly.

All this talk, and no proof yet. This is quickly turning into the weekly Straight Dope Special: This week - Phaedrus on dicks and foreskins!
He doesn’t have access to the evidence now, but he’ll post it later. Oh, and it will be strictly anecdotal, of course :smiley:

If it weren’t such a horrible pun, I’d say this JDT guy is a bit of a dickhead.

246

Ooo, Coldfire - interesting parallel I hadn’t thought of before! You might be on to something there…

Esprix

247

Here’s my vote for someone’s theory that he just wants to get kicks out of hearing our personal experiences. (Sorry I can’t give you a name, my browser’s being stubborn) And for Jodi’s suggestion we don’t tell him.

A clue for you, Jack: we’re not your lab rats. We’re all in this forum for honest discussion, all on equal footing. This is not a forum in which to conduct your research. You want us to share? You should, too.

248

Coldfire,

> 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”? <

An intact man should be able to work it in without too much trouble.

> I’d say it’s a pretty even 50-50. Purely anecdotal, of course, since this is your prefered scientific method. <

Really? That's good Info. Actually, I checked and there was a German study done on this and it is about what you say that it is.

> Yes, I am sure noone cut off my foreskin when I wasn’t paying attention. And what do you mean by the latter remark? Who are they, and why did they miss me? With what? <

Sorry, I was assuming that you were an American. In America, you have to be really lucky to be missed for circumcision. You have to have a rare blood type, be born very prematurely, be born somewhere other than a hospital, or be lucky enough to be born to immigrant parents who know better. That sort of thing.

> I really don’t know, as I usually don’t mount a DickCamTM 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’. <

If you're intact there will be some retraction during intercourse. This is necessary so that the corona of the glands can stimulate the foreskin. That's what gives you the special sensation of sex.

> 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? <

I'm saying that the vaginal fluids never have a chance to leave the vagina in the first place. The action of the natural penis will (ahem) churn up the fluids a little, that's all.

> Actually, I prefer to vary my repertoire [long strokes and short strokes]. Not that it’s any of your business, of course. <

Well, that's more like what I would expect from an intact penis. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

> I was merely saying that circumcision has little effect on the depth of strokes. <

Do you have cite for that? You're wrong for a lot of reasons.

> I can only imagining it having effect when a foreskin is tight enough to stop a penis from becoming fully erect. <

An intact man only has enough of a stroke to retract his glans into his foreskin because that's all it takes to give him his best sensations.

> In such cases, circumcision is usually performed here in Europe. For that reason, for hygiene, and for being Jewish. <

For hygiene????? You're from Europe? That's got the stink of England. Is that where you're getting this hygiene thing from? Why isn't everyone circumcised where you are if it is hygenic?

> 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. <

You're wrong and you don't know anything about circumcision, obviously.

> 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. <

Yes, I'd like to do some expensive double-blind studies too. Do you want to pay for it?

> 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! <

You don't seem so anomalous now that you given me more facts. I think that before you were just trying to help support the circumcisers. Why, I don't know.

> Listen, dude. How could I possibly be circumcised without knowing it? Just tell me how that could happen. <

No RIC victim has ever had specific memory of his foreskin being amputated. Why would you be any different that the millions of American men who had RIC?
249

Jack, are you familiar with the regular message board term for a person who is baiting for responses by means of inflammatory, blatantly untrue and/or unsubstantiated statements?

I’m sure you are.

For now, I’m done with you. It’s great making fun of you (easy, too!), but debating doesn’t seem an option.

250

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Coldfire said:

< Ahem >

You mean, of course, if it weren’t such a horrible pun and if it weren’t against the rules, right?

That’s what I thought.

Thanks.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

251

Coldfire, who are you kidding? We know you can’t leave this discussion. You’ll be sucked back in – by the magical foreskin! :eek:

252

Sorry for losing my temper a bit back there, David. I don’t come around these intellectual parts that often, ya know :wink:

Won’t happen again. It’s not as if JDT needs my help in embarrassing himself (that’s within bounds, right?).

253

YK in the interests of scientific research and all that :wink: I just want to do an informal survey of the Men of the Straight Dope.

How many of you are so clueless that you don’t know your willy’s been lopped?

Get a grip Jack.

254

Considering that I agree with those who have suggested that Jack is only posting to get sex stories, I would suggest that he already does have a grip.

You just don’t want to ask where…

255

There is a final answer:

Arguably one of the most knowledgable and experience men of his era, Sir Richard Francis Burton has some unique insight into this issue.

You will recall that Burton is the great 19th Century explorer, linguist, lover, swordsmen, and intellectual who translated the Kama Sutra and Arabian Nights, Discovered Lake Tanganika (took a spear through the face for the effort,) and is supposedly the only white man to take the sacred journey into Mecca.

In preparation for this journey Burton realized that he’d be spending months in the company of circumcised true beleivers. It seemed unlikely that he would be able to go about his daily business without having someone notice his uncircumcised penis. He would certainly be summarily killed as an imposter. So, in order to pass muster he got drunk one night and had a friend do it in an alley behind a tavern with a piece of glass using brandy to sterilize the instrument (both the glass and Burton.)

Now Burton was quite the lady’s man claiming 10,000 lovers in his life.

When asked about the difference years later after completing the pilgrimmage Burton wrote at length about the improvement as far as sensation went and hypothesized that Arabic culture which he admired for refining and sophisticating the art of love-making (as of course compared to England at the time which was pretty repressed,) had at least partially come into the practice of circumcision specifically to enhance sexual experience. Apparently his wife Isabel who was a bit of a free spirit in he younger years approved of the change as well.

A brief overview can be found of this in The Devil Drives, a longer explanation including his writing on the subject can be found in Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton, which is unfortunately out of print. There’s a couple of other biographies out there that I haven’t gotten around to yet.

Here’s a link to the book if you want to try and find it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060973943/qid=974261822/sr=1-25/102-2461452-1218525

Burton makes a pretty good candidate as one of the greatest all around guys ever (to be technical.) I’m gonna accept his word for it.

256

Shame on you, Scylla. You would accept the word of some 19th Century explorer, linguist, lover, swordsmen, and intellectual over that of Jack Dean Tyler, who is, after all , a researcher. With an attitude like that, how can we continue fighting ignorance.

257

[gratuitous hijack]

Did you hear about the little boy born without any eyelids a couple years ago? I want to say it was in Cleveland, but I may be mistaken.

From what I recall, the muscles were present, but the flaps of skin weren’t there to cover the eye.

Apparently, the doctor who delivered the kid performed a circumcision right there in the delivery room, and shuffled the kid off to the operating room. He then called a plastic surgeon, who used the foreskin to fabricate working eyelids!

He’s doing fine now, if a bit cockeyed.

[/gratuitous hijack]

258

Mr. Cynical,

> Apparently, the doctor who delivered the kid performed a circumcision right there in the delivery room, and shuffled the kid off to the operating room. He then called a plastic surgeon, who used the foreskin to fabricate working eyelids! <

This is commonly listed as one of the reasons to not do a circumcision. If one's eyelids ever become destroyed, then the foreskin can be used to replace them. Frankly, though, I would say to find some other piece of skin to replace the eyelids even if it doesn't work as well. Foreskin's much too important.
It isn't all that uncommon for a baby in America to be circumcised right in the delivery room. About a year ago, a baby was being delivered and it was a breech birth. While the baby was half way out of the mother, the doctor circumcised him.
259

Originally from Cleveland, are you, Jacky boy?

260

I know I’m asking the impossible here, Jack, but CITE, PLEASE!

If this is true, which I find highly improbable, the doctor ought to have been at least reprimanded, and quite possibly sued for malpractice, since what you describe would mean the baby’s head was still in the birth canal, and he (the baby) would therefore have been in distress.

-Matt