By the way, thanks for the sig. 
Slight hijack (Sorry to detract from the high-minded debate so far…)
Just curious - what exactly is pornohol? Wouldn’t that be porno with an -OH group attached? And where can I get me some? 
Cantrip,
> Imagine that Taylor and others study the foreskin ad nauseum and come to the conclusion that it’s just another piece of skin. <
It has already been established by published research that the foreskin is not just skin.
> And that the foreskin and penis are actually meant to be thrust into the vagina and not rubbed dorsally on the outside. Assume this to be the case. Then what? Do you attack Taylor et al. as traitors who have succumbed to the Jewish conspiracy? <
(A man's penis is suppose to be put into the vagina near the end of the sex session.) I assume that you are talking about verifiable research and I don't have anything negative to say about that.
> Do you accept that maybe you’re wrong and you give up and go. . . Or do you just dodge the issue by explaining that the circumstances I’ve described can’t be true and therefore you won’t dignify them with a response? <
All depends. If a sound argument is presented and I don't find any fault with the premises, then I will accept the conclusion. Why don't people like you demand this level of knowledge before you accept something so egregious as amputating body parts?Jack said:
The problem, Jack, is that you will “find fault” with anything that contradicts your position – not through any fault of the premise or conclusion, but because you have already made up your “mind” and nothing will ever change it.
I amputate parts of my body about once a week. Five on each hand and foot. I even have a handy amputation-device that only cost me 79 cents!
Ok, so there may be a little bit of loss of sensation. That is a fate worse than death? Most women have some erotic sensation in their nipples. I do not. Just the way I’m made… my nipples have virtually NO sensation whatsoever. I can’t even tell when something is touching them. You know what? I get on with my life. Sure I have a little bit less sensation for sexual stuff, but it’s like getting shorted a tablespoon of hot fudge on a sundae… the whole thing is still damn good.
I think, perhaps, that the little world of JDT revolves just a bit tightly around sex.
OpalCat said:
Guys on the subway must love you! 
OpalCat,
> I amputate parts of my body about once a week. Five on each hand and foot. I even have a handy amputation-device that only cost me 79 cents! <
The best evidence indicates that the foreskin is an organ unto itself. Do you amputate your organs all of the time?
> Ok, so there may be a little bit of loss of sensation. That is a fate worse than death? <
How do you know that circumcision leads to a "little bit of loss of sensation"?
> Most women have some erotic sensation in their nipples. <
That's interesting. The only women that I know that don't have sensations in their nipples are those who have suffered from another form of sexual mutilation known as breast enhancement.
> NO sensation whatsoever. I can’t even tell when something is touching them. You know what? I get on with my life. <
Have you had breast enhancement? If you haven't, you tell your man to put as much of one of your breasts as he can into his mouth. Then tell him to suck as hard as he possibly can and then to simultaneously flip his tongue from side to side on the erect nipple that is in his mouth. Then do the other breast and keep going back and forth until you can't take any more. If you don't get erotic sensations out of that, then I don't know what to think.
> Sure I have a little bit less sensation for sexual stuff, but it’s like getting shorted a tablespoon of hot fudge on a sundae… the whole thing is still damn good. <
The whole thing may still be good, but you are definitely missing out according to women that I have known. If you have not had your breasts sexually mutilated, then you almost definitely have erotic sensation there---a whole lot of it.
> I think, perhaps, that the little world of JDT revolves just a bit tightly around sex. <
I don't think so. But, it's possible.Jack:
Jack, this is published - it doesn’t mean that it’s reliable information or that I’m going to perform a home appendectomy. Maybe the foreskin has a lubricating function, maybe not; I’d like to see some reputable studies. (Admittedly, I haven’t followed all of your previously posted links, and am not about to go back to the cirp site.) Maybe the foreskin has a further function; again, I’d like to see some reputable double-blind studies.
I’ll keep that in mind.
It’s funny, Jack, but “people like me” (part of the Jewish establishment who refuse to accept your self-professed expertise as evidence of anything other than megalomania) will change our minds if presented with a rationale for doing so. Just because you call it “amputation”, or Acksiom calls it “genitalic reduction” (or something like that) doesn’t mean it’s bad. Look, for years appendectomies and tonsillectomies were performed relatively routinely, appendectomies when the abdomen was otherwise open for other surgery, and tonsillectomies in cases where kids got lots of infections. As evidence began to mount that perhaps the operations were unnecessary and possibly harmful (particularly in the case of tonsillectomies), the medical establishment changed its mind. That was only after evidence mounted for the change.
Circumcision has been around for thousands of years. (If its effects are as you describe them, wouldn’t you expect a higher percentage of Jewish criminals and football players (angry, testosterone-fueled)?) As many people here have indicated, the medical establishment now believes that there may be less benefit than once believed, and hospitals are no longer performing routine circumcision. This represents a change in medical thinking. Were there any evidence that removal of the foreskin were damaging - other than your ravings - the medical establishment would respond similarly.
As David B said, though, based on your posts to date, I doubt you’d accept any evidence that contradicted your world-view.
Acksiom, I’m still waiting for a response to my earlier post regarding the FGM statute.
Boy, not only does Jack know more about iampunha’s foreskin than iampunha does, he knows more about OpalCat’s nipples than Opal herself. Jack, I think you should ask the admins to change your screen name to “Omniscient”. It doesn’t have the gravity of “Jack Dean Taylor”, but it sure seems to describe your opinion of yourself.
:eek: Oh, no! Here we go again.
A question for Acksiom
In the first part of this thread, Jack Dean Tyler stated that the proper way for an uncircumcised man to have sex was as follows:
Later, he describes what the appropriate female response is during proper sex with an uncircumcised man: “When they are actually in the process of having coitus, they don’t make insanely exaggerated sounds. They don’t get wildly aggressive.”
Acksiom, do you concur with Mr. Tyler that this the proper way for an uncircumsized man to engage in sex and the appropriate female response?
Cantrip,
> Maybe the foreskin has a lubricating function, maybe not; I’d like to see some reputable studies. <
I don't believe that it is accurate to say that the foreskin has a lubricating function. In any event, I don't know of any studies that say that it does. Friction during intercourse is eliminated by the mechanical nature of an intact penis. The mucosa maybe puts out some little bit of mucous but it isn't' enough say that the foreskin is self-lubricating, IMO.
> (Admittedly, I haven’t followed all of your previously posted links, and am not about to go back to the cirp site.) <
There's a search engine at the cirp site. You can find what you want. You can search under "Taylor" if you want.
> Maybe the foreskin has a further function; again, I’d like to see some reputable double-blind studies. <
Do you want to pay for these studies? I'd like a free trip to Tahiti but I doubt if I'm going to get one.
> It’s funny, Jack, but “people like me” (part of the Jewish establishment who refuse to accept your self-professed expertise as evidence of anything other than megalomania) <
How are you part of the Jewish establishment? I think you're just the average-can't-face-the-reality-of-what-was-done-to-him Joe.
> will change our minds if presented with a rationale for doing so. <
Yes, and religious nuts say that they will change their minds when the skeptic proves that there is not a god. Don't hold your breath.
> Just because you call it “amputation”, or Acksiom calls it “genitalic reduction” (or something like that) doesn’t mean it’s bad. <
I don’t know why you would have a problem with terms like these since they are objective terms to describe the surgeries. I only use those nice objective terms when I’m talking to someone like you. Anytime else I call it what it is: circummutilation.
> Look, for years appendectomies and tonsillectomies were performed relatively routinely, appendectomies when the abdomen was otherwise open for other surgery, and tonsillectomies in cases where kids got lots of infections. <
Too bad that you are someone who can learn from past mistakes, isn't it?
> Circumcision has been around for thousands of years. (If its effects are as you describe them, wouldn’t you expect a higher percentage of Jewish criminals and football players (angry, testosterone-fueled)?) <
No one has ever studied this link that I know of. It would be an interesting study.That’s your idea of erotic sensations on the breast? Get thee a Kama Sutra…
Perhaps if you spent less time thinking about foreskins, you might experience some of that writhing and moaning that you belittle. It’s really not as bad as you seem to think.
JDT, if so little examination has been done on the foreskin, that how do you know that it’s the uber-organ you claim it to be?
andygirl,
> That’s your idea of erotic sensations on the breast? Get thee a Kama Sutra… <
This lady is insisting that she can't feel anything on her breasts. I think that her breasts just need a jumpstart.
> Perhaps if you spent less time thinking about foreskins, you might experience some of that writhing and moaning that you belittle. It’s really not as bad as you seem to think. <
I don't belittle writhing and moaning. That sounds pretty normal. What I'm talking about is the banshee sex where you can hear the woman announcing to the whole entire block that she's getting laid. A woman that's use to being put down properly doesn't have to do that.
> JDT, if so little examination has been done on the foreskin, that how do you know that it’s the uber-organ you claim it to be? <
My own personal research over the last two years. That's how I know what the foreskin is. That's not good enough for you, of course. But, it's just like a police detective will tell you: first you figure out who did it, then you figure out how to prove it. I know who did it.Is this research peer reviewed? Has this research been duplicatd? Are your results stastically acurate? Did you have an agenda going into the research? Do I have any bet takers as to the answers of those questions?
“put down” ? Nice euphemism :rolleyes:
ROFL. Is anyone other then me picturing UDD aproaching Opal with a pair of jumper cables? I mean, I know from your posts that you are quite comfortable with many different types of sex, Opal, but I think THAT one might hurt beyond reason.
Jack, and I ask you this quite seriously, did it ever occur to you that a woamn might WANT to react this way? People have different responses to sex. That does not make one that seems to you “unusual” to be invalid or bad. Also the last part- Being “put down” properly? When I was a child, we had to “put down” the dog because he was old and sick. If THIS is what you are refering to, then I agree. I would not expect a woman to react with shrieks of pleasure either.
Billdo inquired:
Of course not. If you’ll look back over my posts in this thread, you’ll see that I have consistently made it clear that I think Jack is given to flights of exaggeration and overstatement.
The ‘proper’ way to make love depends on what ones’ goals are. If you’re in it for impregnation, you damn well better ejaculate during intromission. If you’re aiming for a satori-type experience involving the extension of temporal perceptive experience (i.e. stretching minutes out so that they feel like hours, or simply removing the awareness of time’s passage itself) and playing with other alternatives in perceptive frameworks, you’re probably better off with tantric yoga techniques building up to meditative stillness while conjoined. If you’re after a particular role-playing fantasy, you ‘do’ whatever’s appropriate to that schema. And so on. The ‘right’ way to make love is to do what’s satisfying, enriching, and joyous. Sometimes that’s the same thing as it’s been before. Sometimes it’s not. Whatever.
What’s not acceptable is being denied any part of that range of potential experiences because somebody else thought you’d be better off without some of your relevant bits and had them removed. We all acknowledge and agree with this in the case of women. Why not men?
I’ve answered your question; now it’s your turn. Back on page 2 you’ll find the inquiry that so far has stumped every contender for over a year in various forums. I’d appreciate if you’d return the courtesy and take a shot yourself. Keyword: brass tacks
No.
Listen. I’m 28 and I’ve been married for 9 years. We’ve tried just about everything it’s legal to try, sexually. My nipples have NO SENSATION. Trust me on this. I can pinch them as hard as my fingers can pinch, and all I feel is a dull pressure. When I was a dancer, the law in my state said we had to wear liquid latex on our nipples. I was allergic to it. Every couple of months, my nipples would crack open and bleed. Want to know what it felt like? A vague itch. I think I could probably cut them off without noticing.
I hate to be the one to break this to you… but there isn’t “one right way” to have sex. Everybody likes something a little different, and most people like a pretty wide variety of things. If I was with a guy who was so limited, sexually, as the “intact man” in all of your posts… well let’s just say I’d find someone else.
Another thing, and this isn’t something I’m proud of… but uncircumcised penises are just kinda gross looking. Now, if I was in love with a man who wasn’t circumcised, I’m sure I could get used to it… but frankly it would take me a while to work up the stomach to touch it. Sorry! That is just how I feel. They just look icky to me. Plus things with creases in general scare me… I think of sweat and dirty and grossness… this includes the labia, btw, it’s not a man-only thing.