Male Circumcision for Atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2012, 04:19 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 04:05 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Now back to our regularly scheduled program.......

That's two references now that I've seen that refer to un-circumcised penises as "fully functioning" Are people under the impression that a circumcised penis does not function as it should? And with regard to it's ease of use, until you've actually had both, I'm gonna go with my personal experience and say it's just as easy to use a toque as it is to use a helmet.

Not saying it isn't easy to use, it's all good. Smile

Ok, I think I have given enough thought to penises for a day. Big Grin

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 04:18 PM)frankiej Wrote:  
(04-10-2012 04:05 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  That's two references now that I've seen that refer to un-circumcised penises as "fully functioning" Are people under the impression that a circumcised penis does not function as it should? And with regard to it's ease of use, until you've actually had both, I'm gonna go with my personal experience and say it's just as easy to use a toque as it is to use a helmet.

I said it as a joke, dude.

Although, as I said fully functioning, well, I think I did... I'm rather drunk rigth now so I dunno... anyway, someone who is circumcised doesn't have the function of the foreskin, so could you call it a fully functioning penis?

Oh, I had drunken thought... having a foreskin means there are more nerve endings, right? Would that mean that it is potentially more pleasurable? This is a genuine question... although I think I'll read this all tomorrow and facepalm at my rambling...

Yes that is a fact. There is nerves and more pleasurable experience to be had in an uncircumcised penis... I got screwed on that instance, figuratively Weeping

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
04-10-2012, 05:31 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(04-10-2012 04:18 PM)frankiej Wrote:  I said it as a joke, dude.

Although, as I said fully functioning, well, I think I did... I'm rather drunk rigth now so I dunno... anyway, someone who is circumcised doesn't have the function of the foreskin, so could you call it a fully functioning penis?

Oh, I had drunken thought... having a foreskin means there are more nerve endings, right? Would that mean that it is potentially more pleasurable? This is a genuine question... although I think I'll read this all tomorrow and facepalm at my rambling...

Yes that is a fact. There is nerves and more pleasurable experience to be had in an uncircumcised penis... I got screwed on that instance, figuratively Weeping

Nope. Not a fact at all. I have a more pleasurable experience with my circumcised penis than I did before my circumcision. And that is referring to BEFORE I had problems.

It may be true that your individual experience says otherwise, and it is true that there are nerves in the foreskin, but that doesn't mean that uncut is more pleasurable than cut. It only means that YOU have more pleasurable experiences with an uncut penis.



(I know the argument is that you were referring to the nerves in the foreskin being a fact, but ya gotta be careful what you follow with. Your statement makes it look like you are saying it's a fact that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable, instead of stating that it's an opinion based on individual experience)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2012, 05:33 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 05:31 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(04-10-2012 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes that is a fact. There is nerves and more pleasurable experience to be had in an uncircumcised penis... I got screwed on that instance, figuratively Weeping

Nope. Not a fact at all. I have a more pleasurable experience with my circumcised penis than I did before my circumcision. And that is referring to BEFORE I had problems.

It may be true that your individual experience says otherwise, and it is true that there are nerves in the foreskin, but that doesn't mean that uncut is more pleasurable than cut. It only means that YOU have more pleasurable experiences with an uncut penis.



(I know the argument is that you were referring to the nerves in the foreskin being a fact, but ya gotta be careful what you follow with. Your statement makes it look like you are saying it's a fact that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable, instead of stating that it's an opinion based on individual experience)

Umm, not to seem gay or anything close, but would you say that you felt more comfortable with a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised one?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2012, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 05:40 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
Oh lookey, another circumcision thread. Tongue

Feels like vuja de all over again. Made me search what Girly has had to say in the past on this very important topic critical to the survival of the species.

I think it was a woman's idea.

I still think it was a woman's idea.

Foreskin restoration? No

It's a fucking joke you humorless fucks.

(04-10-2012 12:34 PM)frankiej Wrote:  Well, it won't be surprising to hear that I am not. It is pretty damn rare over here.

Well, duh. If you didn't have your foreskin every time you put on that damn wool kilt you'd think you were fucking a sheep again. ... Fuckin' Scots ... Clann Frisealach here. Blush

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2012, 05:41 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 05:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Well, duh. If you didn't have your foreskin every time you put on that damn wool kilt you'd think you were fucking a sheep again. ... Fuckin' Scots ...

Man, you guys really don't know the difference between Aberdonians and the rest of Scotland. Us in Dundee are either teenage mothers and/or heroin addicts... get your stereotypes right.

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like frankiej's post
04-10-2012, 06:05 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 05:33 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(04-10-2012 05:31 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Nope. Not a fact at all. I have a more pleasurable experience with my circumcised penis than I did before my circumcision. And that is referring to BEFORE I had problems.

It may be true that your individual experience says otherwise, and it is true that there are nerves in the foreskin, but that doesn't mean that uncut is more pleasurable than cut. It only means that YOU have more pleasurable experiences with an uncut penis.



(I know the argument is that you were referring to the nerves in the foreskin being a fact, but ya gotta be careful what you follow with. Your statement makes it look like you are saying it's a fact that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable, instead of stating that it's an opinion based on individual experience)

Umm, not to seem gay or anything close, but would you say that you felt more comfortable with a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised one?

I've always been circumcised if that's some confusion on my previous posts, I did mention having an old friend who was circumcised later in life, but it's been for birth for me.

If ya mean comfortable in a social way, I've always felt socially fine about it. There's a lingering anger about it happening, but it's not anything I care deeply about it. I know another guy who was mad about it, but I'm probably been brainwashed listening to Dr. Drew on Loveline for years who advocated for it; I think he still does.

My previous post was a bit odd. yes there is nerves in the head. I suppose it can go either way. I've always heard on various topics how it's more sensitive via the foreskin and because it protects the sensitivity of the tip. That could be an issue with over-sensitivity or other things. I think it's more often more pleasurable or people are just lying in videos about it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2012, 06:46 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 05:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Oh lookey, another circumcision thread. Tongue

That's odd. I did a search before starting a new topic and found nothing on the subject. Apologies.

"To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all creeds." — Robert Ingersoll
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2012, 07:04 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
Well, I need to stay away from here, I don't even have a penis!

However, here goes:

The head is more sensitive. The foreskin protects it. That's why all the creatures with penises outside their bodies have foreskins.

For intercourse, it's a never no mind for either party. Except, according to my gay buddies, during anal intercourse. Which doesn't really make sense to me, but I am not going to argue with them.

Diseases, if you don't slide the foreskin back when you shower to wash under it, maybe you could get some crud in there and hence an infection. Just like the religious stuff, this belongs to a time and place when people barely ever washed, had no showers and probably had smelly, cruddy penises. Probably stoning people to death for extra marital affairs also came from that - don't pass the possible infections around in the population.

If I had a penis, I would want my foreskin too. Keep it nice and snug in there.

So when is everyone going to discuss vaginas? Tongue

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Dom's post
04-10-2012, 07:06 PM
RE: Male Circumcision for Atheists?
(04-10-2012 07:04 PM)Dom Wrote:  Well, I need to stay away from here, I don't even have a penis!

However, here goes:

The head is more sensitive. The foreskin protects it. That's why all the creatures with penises outside their bodies have foreskins.

For intercourse, it's a never no mind for either party. Except, according to my gay buddies, during anal intercourse. Which doesn't really make sense to me, but I am not going to argue with them.

Diseases, if you don't slide the foreskin back when you shower to wash under it, maybe you could get some crud in there and hence an infection. Just like the religious stuff, this belongs to a time and place when people barely ever washed, had no showers and probably had smelly, cruddy penises.

If I had a penis, I would want my foreskin too. Keep it nice and snug in there.

So when is everyone going to discuss vaginas? Tongue
Maybe if you make a thread, we would have at it. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: