I am going to take this opportunity to link to some answers I got from that NORM guy a while back, since I went to all thr trouble of e-mailing him.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38549
weirddave,
> Why, Jack. My father is a well respected pediatrician, <
Does your father do circumcisions, weirddave? What does he say about circumcision?OK, Jack, you say:
“Even intact men from Europe don’t engage in coitus the way I think it should be done”
and then:
“If it’s a European woman…she’s use(sic) to it not being necessary to give instructions”
Which one is it? Can uncut European guys do it “right” or not? I wait for the answer with baited breath.
I’m not really an insane rabbit-I just play one on the net.
Felice,
> it has been my observation that direct pressure on the clitoris, via the penis, foreskin, or anything else, rapidly ceases to be pleasant and becomes painful. <
How interesting. So, you've been with an intact man who uses his penis how I say it should be used? --------not.
Most all women will say that they don't like constant direct stimulation of their clitoris. That's not what is happening when a man is stimulating a woman's clitoris with his foreskin.
> It is a relatively delicate piece of tissue, quite amenable to being manipulated by the tongue or fingers, which are extremely precise instruments. <
A woman’s clitoris doesn’t really give her all that many good sensations (just like a man’s glans doesn’t). It’s her clitoral hood (that’s what the “sex experts” say if you don’t believe me) that gives her the best sensations. I’m not a woman, but I still cringe at the thought of hard fingers or a rough tongue on my clitoris <shiver>. A soft, ripplely foreskin and corona would seem so much nicer. But, I guess we all have our masochistic tendencies, otherwise why would I be responding to these posts?
psychobunny,
> OK, Jack, you say: “Even intact men from Europe don’t engage in coitus the way I think it should be done” and then: “If it’s a European woman…she’s use(sic) to it not being necessary to give instructions” Which one is it?<
I don't know which it is, psychobunny. I think that a European woman's input could be beneficial, but I wouldn't absolutely count on it.
> Can uncut European guys do it “right” or not? <
I wouldn't count on an intact guy doing it right just because he is intact. Although, when he is inside, he will do it right because he sort of can't miss. However, outside is more important than inside. Your sexual appetite will not be satisfied if you don't get a dose of sensations from the outside. If you're with an intact guy, just tell him approximately what to do on the outside. He'll see the light quickly.Why do you say that?
Jack, you’re may be reading what I’m writing, but are you comprehending it? Do you not understand the part where I said that my foreskin had swelled to the point where it was not moving? I was talking to my father about this as I posted, Jack. He remembers this. He discussed this type of thing with the pediatrician and the pediatric urologist.
Jack, please don’t insult me here. I’ve told you several times that my foreskin did not stretch. I’ve consulted both parents on this, as they remember how painful an experience urinating was for me. I’ve seen how my brother’s foreskin looks and looked at my age (four when the surgery was done), and I remember how mine looked. Mine was very tight and white; his was not nearly as tight or white.
And if we don’t know much at all about foreskin today, what makes you think there was anybody we could have afforded who knew much about foreskin back in the mid 80s?
Jack, my father obtained his nursing degree from Georgetown. I’d appreciate it if you not insult his intelligence; he’s been a registered nurse for quite some time now. And quite obviously he wasn’t taught that the foreskin should be cut off as soon as possible, else he’d have requested it when I was born. I don’t know about the schooling of the pediatrician and pediatric urologist.
That, Jack, is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever seen. So much so that I may use it as my .sig line. Damn, that’s funny.
Hey Jack, are you even paying attention to what you write? First, you gave this advice to men:
Then a little later, you posted this advice to women:
So, you want women to give out instructions, but the men are supposed to ignore whatever their partners try to tell them. Though this might seem a paradox to some ordinary mortals, you are so brilliant that you can hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously. You are obviously a heavy-duty philosohper, and we lesser mortals must kowtow before your dizzying intellect.
Thank you for enlightening us, O Master Of All Things Sexual. Please continue to bestow your wisom upon us. You have shown us the world through the eyes of a badly-circumcised loser who hates his parents, can’t score with women, and is completely clueless about how to have sex; I’m sure we’re all better people because of it.
Insults, you say? I don’t see any insults…
Wow, now ‘intact’ penises leviate but still use gravitational forces.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
weirddave violated the rules and insulted Jack; then he said:
You can “contend” anything you like, but you’re wrong and you knew damn well you were wrong. Don’t try to rationalize your way out of it – you broke the rules and knew you were doing so as you did it.
I thought we had made ourselves pretty damned clear. Apparently, somehow you are still fuzzy on the concept.
Should there be a next time (and I really hope there isn’t), I won’t just delete the insult; I’ll delete the whole message.
David B, Pissed Off SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Still waiting, Jack. Also, are you married and if so, what does your wife think of your preoccupation with mens’ penises (or is that penii?)?
Now, now, everyone. Jack may very well have had sex.
He just can’t possibly have had good sex. I mean, the man thinks all humans are the same (though I assume he still understands the differentiation of the genders). He therefore clearly must believe that all women respond the same way sexually.
Speaking only for myself, and, since I’m talking about my sex life, I’m sure Jack will correct me where I’m wrong :), I’ve been with nine different women in my time, and each one of them responded to different things. Some of them liked oral sex, some didn’t. Each liked manual stimulation, but each liked it slightly differently. One woman’s clitoris, when she was aroused, got so sensitive the slightest touch could be unbearable for her. Another liked direct manual stimulation of her clitoris, and loved it when I sucked it into my mouth during oral sex. Several could be brought to orgasm without my actually touching their genital area at all–hell, I made one of them come just by kissing her the right way for long enough.
Now, I have a sampling of nine women, out of billions on the planet. If the nine I’ve been with have been so radically different sexually, how can anyone, even one such as Jack (note how I deftly avoided a direct insult there), say that all women are the same?
-Matt
In fact, the study was overseen by Dr. Schoen. Mind telling me on what basis you malign his professional status?
“For example, some recent studies suggest that circumcised men tend to have certain other lifestyle factors associated with lower penile cancer risk – they are less likely to have multiple sexual partners, less likely to smoke, and more likely to have good personal hygiene habits.”
Go here, Jack: http://www3.cancer.org/cancerinfo/load_cont.asp?st=pr&ct=35&language=english
Dunno where you’re getting that figure, since you didn’t provide a cite. However, we’ll take that figure as a working number.
From http://www.cancer.org (The American Cancer Society site): “The National Institutes of Health estimate overall annual costs for cancer at $107 billion; $37 billion for direct medical costs (total of all health expenditures), $11 billion for indirect morbidity costs (cost of lost productivity due to illness), and $59 billion for indirect mortality costs (cost of lost productivity due to premature death).”
Their estimate of the rate of penile cancer as a whole of cancer cases is 0.2 percent. So, if we take 0.2 percent of the total spent on cancer and say it was spent on penile cancer cases, that gives us a cost of $214 million. Not on a par with $3 billion yet, but wait, there’s more:
Wrong, O Logical One. According to the National Institutes of Health, we spent $8.7 billion on AIDS at the federal level. See here:
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/social/kaiser_family_found/2098.3d3f.html#chart1
(Note how I use statistics that are fairly recent, as opposed to 51 years old? Little things like that tend to help bolster an argument. Might wanna try that sometime.)
See above. I’m showing you research quoted by the American Cancer Society. Show me a study, or heck, even the reference to a study by a reputable organization, and I’ll consider your point. Otherwise, proof is on my side at this point.
Again, see above. You know, this is either the second or the third time (not in this post; in the threads) I’ve directed you to the ACS site for this information. You’re not intentionally ignoring contradicting evidence, are you, Jack? That would indicate adherence to a dogmatic belief, and I know you hate that.
At any rate, the ACS says direct medical costs of lung cancer are $5 billion a year.
But I thought you wanted to spend $900 billion a year on restoring foreskins? At any rate, the studies cited by the ACS (again, see above) indicate that uncircumcised men have poorer hygiene habits than circumcised men.
Might wanna revise that line of thinking a bit, Jack. We’re up to $13.9 billion a year so far.
Why do I have to define what a circumcision is? As you’ve mentioned, it’s been common practice in the U.S. for decades, and has been practiced by various religious and ethnic groups for centuries … in some cases, millenia. There seems to be a pretty good working definition of the procedure.
As for your last question, that’s what I’m doing. I’m proving my point that men are better off without their foreskin, and that as a result of circumcision, U.S. society as a whole would be better off in the form of lower mortality rates, lower incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, and less time spent debating with those who don’t understand the necessity of providing proof of their assertions.
If you think tongues are “rough” then you’re obviously not doing it right, Jack. If you’re going to give us advice on how to have coital sex right, then I’d be more than happy to tell you how to have oral sex right.
And the fact that you lovingly describe it as a “soft, ripplely {sic} foreskin and corona” only furthers our suspicions about what you jerk off to at night (hint: it ain’t Playboy).
Jack, let’s cut to it, shall we?
No one disagrees with you that circumcision is not a necessary procedure. In fact, the medical establishment seems to be agreeing with you, and circumcisions are down, mostly because the proported advantages have been reexamined and found to be lacking.
Yes, I actually did a little research on the subject. I found one pretty good article here [URL fixed by David B] from webmd.com that sums up much of what I read, and it fully supports your take on circumcision - not medically necessary, not as beneficial as once thought, and even that sensation is lost.
However.
Attributing violence in the Middle East, the downfall of American civilization and some kind of surreptitious Zionist movement to take over the world makes you out to be a babbling loony-toons. You may very well not be one, but that’s certainly the appearance you’re giving us here.
Somehow, however, I doubt you care, so good luck on your crusade.
Esprix
[Edited by David B on 11-07-2000 at 02:35 PM]
I imagine it was a lot like: :eek:
Been lurking on this thread the whole time, but I felt others were refuting Jack well enough. And I’m no sex expert, but I just HAVE to reply to this:
No, Jack, you CERTAINLY are not a woman. I can’t think of any woman, myself or people who I’ve spoken to whom that makes cringe and shiver… unpleasantly, anyway winks.
“Murder” is defined as the deliberate, unlawful killing of another human being. Justifiable homicide is not unlawful and is therefore not murder.
NEXT!!!
**
I would STILL have done a bad thing, but I would have been coerced into doing so. It would not have been my fault, it would have been the fault of the person holding the gun.
NEXT!!!
Name one. (What do you want to bet he says “Babies’ foreskins!” and completely undermines his own position yet again?)
NEXT!!!
I said you CANNOT prove a negative. And I never studied Aristotle!
NEXT!!!
You said babies can NOT complain. Now you say they CAN. Which is it?
NEXT!!!
Look who’s talking.
(All these posts and you still haven’t figured out how to do a proper quote.)
What did you use? Play-Doh?
Others have pointed out the absolute absurdity of the first sentence so I will not. I would like to point out, though, that you still have not explained what “BXO” is.
iampunha,
> Why do you say that? <
Because in northern Europe, amputating the foreskin is an absolute last resort. You were nowhere near that point. Infections are treated with antibiotics and not with amputation of the infected part.
> Jack, you’re may be reading what I’m writing, but are you comprehending it? Do you not understand the part where I said that my foreskin had swelled to the point where it was not moving? <
I want to know why it swelled up like that. Did someone other than yourself retract your foreskin? Was that someone a health care worker?
> Jack, please don’t insult me here. I’ve told you several times that my foreskin did not stretch. <
It would have stretched if you would have tried. It's not your fault, you just didn't know. And, neither did your parents. For that matter, neither did your doctors.
> And if we don’t know much at all about foreskin today, what makes you think there was anybody we could have afforded who knew much about foreskin back in the mid 80s? <
"(C)ould have afforded"? Were you lucky enough to have been born poor in America? That's probably how you kept your foreskin. The foreskin is often called the "gift of poverty."
> And quite obviously he wasn’t taught that the foreskin should be cut off as soon as possible, else he’d have requested it when I was born. <
Your father would have received his training in the same political atmosphere as medical doctors. That means that he was taught to assist in circumcisions and that the foreskin was to be cut off at the early possible convenience. He probably didn't do it at the time you were born because he couldn't afford it---lucky you.AuraSeer,
> So, you want women to give out instructions, but the men are supposed to ignore whatever their partners try to tell them. Though this might seem a paradox to some ordinary mortals, you are so brilliant that you can hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously. <
I see the problem. Let me dumb it down a little. Those intact men that have read my thread should take my advice. Those intact men who have not read my thread never heard my advice so I'm not affecting them, anyway.