|
On February 19 2013 09:33 Burrfoot wrote:
I like to put my wife's finger/thumb on my flaccid penis and wrap my foreskin all the way up! She however, does not like this.
But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery!
It's been a long time since I literally read a post and laughed aloud. Hats off to you, good sir.
|
On February 19 2013 08:43 fight_or_flight wrote:
I'm circumcised and view certain personal tendencies as potentially related to what I'm talking about. People don't normally question a lot of the things they do, and why they are the way they are, but it's an important thing to do.
Nice username.
|
@AnachronisticAnarchy
I definitely don't think it's a conscious thing, either on the side of the parents or the children. But most of the foundation of our lives is not conscious to us.
I don't believe my post proved anything, nor do I believe I can prove anything to anyone. I'm just giving my opinion on what I think the significance of it is based on my personal knowledge and experience.
|
On February 19 2013 09:34 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 09:22 Scarecrow wrote:On February 19 2013 09:16 deathly rat wrote:On February 19 2013 09:10 Scarecrow wrote:
In times when sanitation/hygiene were poor, boys with long foreskins got more/worse infections, so they learned to cut them off. Seems more plausible to me. Plus, this theory goes right in the face of evolution and survival of the fittest, not that this means much to most people in favour of the act. Yes, because any medical procedure is about survival of the fittest -.- If people with foreskins got more / worse infections, they would be less likely to survive to pass their genes onto the next generation.
Yet everyone has foreskins, not every part of the human body is ideal.
|
On February 19 2013 10:44 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 09:34 deathly rat wrote:On February 19 2013 09:22 Scarecrow wrote:On February 19 2013 09:16 deathly rat wrote:On February 19 2013 09:10 Scarecrow wrote:
In times when sanitation/hygiene were poor, boys with long foreskins got more/worse infections, so they learned to cut them off. Seems more plausible to me. Plus, this theory goes right in the face of evolution and survival of the fittest, not that this means much to most people in favour of the act. Yes, because any medical procedure is about survival of the fittest -.- If people with foreskins got more / worse infections, they would be less likely to survive to pass their genes onto the next generation. Yet everyone has foreskins, not every part of the human body is ideal.
The conclusion you should be reaching is that foreskins are favourable to our survival. We are still finding out how perfect and and ideal the human body is, so it's pretty arrogant to say that you know better than millions of years of evolution (or even god for that matter).
|
On February 19 2013 09:33 Burrfoot wrote:
I like to put my wife's finger/thumb on my flaccid penis and wrap my foreskin all the way up! She however, does not like this.
But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery!
I KNEW I WASN'T THE ONLY ONE THAT DID THIS
|
On February 19 2013 08:43 fight_or_flight wrote:
I think it's a way to propagate violence. Notice that the circumcised cultures in our world (American, Jewish, and Islamic) are the violent ones...
I believe it makes sexual relations rougher and less sensitive...
I'm circumcised and view certain personal tendencies as potentially related to what I'm talking about.
Using circumcision to justify your sexual problems... it could be any number of things but I doubt it's from the loss of a bit of skin when you were a few days old.
There's also plenty of relatively non-violent countries that practice circumcision. Korea for example is mainly circumcised and has really low levels of violence. Ancient Rome and Greece produced conquering warrior cultures whilst refusing circumcision. It's just a bit of skin, and its ridiculous to assert it's why modern day America/Israel and Islamic nations are violent. Something that happens so early in development is unlikely to have any impact imo. We get plenty of painful immune shots but I don't remember them till much later and the friend that says they remember stuff from when they were 4 days old is full of shit.
On February 19 2013 10:54 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 10:44 Scarecrow wrote:On February 19 2013 09:34 deathly rat wrote:On February 19 2013 09:22 Scarecrow wrote:On February 19 2013 09:16 deathly rat wrote:On February 19 2013 09:10 Scarecrow wrote:
In times when sanitation/hygiene were poor, boys with long foreskins got more/worse infections, so they learned to cut them off. Seems more plausible to me. Plus, this theory goes right in the face of evolution and survival of the fittest, not that this means much to most people in favour of the act. Yes, because any medical procedure is about survival of the fittest -.- If people with foreskins got more / worse infections, they would be less likely to survive to pass their genes onto the next generation. Yet everyone has foreskins, not every part of the human body is ideal. The conclusion you should be reaching is that foreskins are favourable to our survival. We are still finding out how perfect and and ideal the human body is, so it's pretty arrogant to say that you know better than millions of years of evolution (or even god for that matter).
If anything I feel like foreskins are irrelevant to our survival and thus unlikely to be impacted by evolution. The human body is ideal in terms of survival but there'll always be parts that are ancestral relics that don't affect our survival (appendixes, coccyx, plantaris muscle, wisdom teeth, male nipples etc). Besides I'm not saying circumcision is/was actually necessary for health, just that's how I believe the procedure was originally justified.
|
On February 19 2013 10:58 Scarecrow wrote:
If anything I feel like foreskins are irrelevant to our survival.
It prevents things from entering the ureta. Every hole in the human body has some of mechanism to prevent unwanted things from entering and causing trouble, for the penis it's the foreskin.
|
On February 19 2013 11:10 Bengui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 10:58 Scarecrow wrote:
If anything I feel like foreskins are irrelevant to our survival.
It prevents things from entering the ureta. Every hole in the human body has some of mechanism to prevent unwanted things from entering and causing trouble, for the penis it's the foreskin.
Maybe when we we were walking around naked it had some use, though it doesn't cover mine. With the advent of clothes it seems pretty useless, it's not like the Egyptians and Hebrews died out from infected urethras.
|
Foreskin removal, especially the bris is because of Abraham. We can theory craft all day long, but in the bible, that is what it said. That said, people can think of biological reasons all day long since there are several to get a circumcision. There are reasons they are popular. Also yes, unlike a lot of the comments in here, people died all the time of random infections back when circumcision had its inception. Circumcision isn't solely a religious action, but its main purpose, at least for Jews, is religious. I'd like to point out that people have been getting rid of parts of the body since forever, piercings, circumcisions, etc. People hate on circumcision because it has religious consequences, but really all types of mutilation of the body (including things that most people consider harmless, like piercings) are based on what people like too look at.
|
Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy.
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html
What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its
archeological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice.
Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html
http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name
|
On February 19 2013 09:33 Burrfoot wrote:
I like to put my wife's finger/thumb on my flaccid penis and wrap my foreskin all the way up! She however, does not like this.
But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery!
LOL this is fucking amazing.
|
I'm not going to touch the religious aspect of this, but circumcision is scientifically proven to decrease pleasure during sex because it numbs the area of the penis that the foreskin is intended to cover. The foreskin has a purpose: to cover the head of the penis so as to heighten sensitivity instead of (in the case of circumcision) constant rubbing/contact which leads to numbness and less pleasure/sensitivity
I'm not circumcised but my brother is, and I feel bad for him sometimes
|
On February 19 2013 14:23 I_Love_Katheryn wrote:
I'm not going to touch the religious aspect of this, but circumcision is scientifically proven to decrease pleasure during sex because it numbs the area of the penis that the foreskin is intended to cover. The foreskin has a purpose: to cover the head of the penis so as to heighten sensitivity instead of (in the case of circumcision) constant rubbing/contact which leads to numbness and less pleasure/sensitivity
I'm not circumcised but my brother is, and I feel bad for him sometimes
That's fairly interesting - I imagine that parents who would have one kid circumcised would be likely to circumcise their other kid too. What happened?
|
On February 19 2013 14:09 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 09:33 Burrfoot wrote:
I like to put my wife's finger/thumb on my flaccid penis and wrap my foreskin all the way up! She however, does not like this.
But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery! LOL this is fucking amazing.
It was more amazing once I fell in love and decided to ask her to marry me to hide the ring at the base of my shaft under the foreskin so at the moment of climax I gave her face twice the love. Plus she is saying "yes" anyways, so it's sort of entrapment, but it worked for me!
|
On February 19 2013 18:44 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 14:23 I_Love_Katheryn wrote:
I'm not going to touch the religious aspect of this, but circumcision is scientifically proven to decrease pleasure during sex because it numbs the area of the penis that the foreskin is intended to cover. The foreskin has a purpose: to cover the head of the penis so as to heighten sensitivity instead of (in the case of circumcision) constant rubbing/contact which leads to numbness and less pleasure/sensitivity
I'm not circumcised but my brother is, and I feel bad for him sometimes That's fairly interesting - I imagine that parents who would have one kid circumcised would be likely to circumcise their other kid too. What happened?
I was born in another country where circumcision is not as widely practiced. When I was about 2 years old, my dad went to America for his job, leaving me and my mom behind. My uncle wanted to bring me to the hospital to get me circumcised but my mom was unsure about the whole idea and never asked my father about it, which is why it never happened. We came to America when I was about 4. My brother, on the other hand, was born in America and the doctors performed the procedure on him right there
|
I can't say I've ever really given a shit that my penis doesn't have a foreskin.
|
Or it reminds you that even God can't protect your penis.
|
|
|
On February 19 2013 07:30 Mothra wrote:
I've often wondered why circumcision of children started in the first place. Today a plausible reasoning of why its first adopters might have done it occurred to me. See what you guys think.
The circumciser takes on the role of God, and he gives a message to the child:
"This scar on your body will always remind you that I am all powerful and you are powerless. It will remind you that your body is not yours. It belongs to me, and what I give I can take away."
If this is what they meant, I must admit, it is a forceful, elegant way to exert power, and to command fear and obedience. Do you think something like this might have been running through their minds?
actually was invented because sand would infiltrate the prepus and hurt the man (was mostly found originately in desertic places).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
