Khornholio wrote:I like how his alter ego has a beard, but foreskin man doesn't. Does he only fight circumcision every 2 to 3 weeks?
When your only super power is growing and shedding facial hair on command, you end up being kind of desperate for whatever schtick you can get your hands on.
So activist groups (no matter their cause) try and further their goal and create a new generation of supports with comic books. It didn't work for PETA, and it didn't work for various politicians/governments, and I doubt it'll work here.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Thanks for the new phrase, I'm off to jump on the wife and tell her how 'erotically sensitive' I am this morning.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Apparently studies exist multiple ways for this. I highly doubt 75% though or from a practical perspective most guys would quite literally explode a nut after their 10 seconds of glory.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Apparently studies exist multiple ways for this. I highly doubt 75% though or from a practical perspective most guys would quite literally explode a nut after their 10 seconds of glory.
I think he's been reading the comic.
I'm trying to imagine Rob Liefeld drawing this character. On second thought, no, I'm not.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Apparently studies exist multiple ways for this. I highly doubt 75% though or from a practical perspective most guys would quite literally explode a nut after their 10 seconds of glory.
Either way the article said there's no valid evidence, so no one can be sure if any of these circumcision myths are true or not.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Apparently studies exist multiple ways for this. I highly doubt 75% though or from a practical perspective most guys would quite literally explode a nut after their 10 seconds of glory.
Either way the article said there's no valid evidence, so no one can be sure if any of these circumcision myths are true or not.
The only real way to get evidence on this is to time travel, unfortunately. In the mean time, some men will have to douche while others don't. I know what team I'm on.
Back on topic: I've never met a manhood talk about this sort of thing on a 40k forum. This is a private matter. I never sausage blatant disregard of decency, for pete's snake. Let's disco stick tac toe or or something more appropriate (looks like I had to stretch for this one, but the rules are rigid so hopefully it's not too hard to swallow).
I see some possible anti-semitism here, the guy is against the cutting of the foreskin and has blond hair and blue eyes. The Aryan part is down and the fact that he fights people who circumsize others means he would be fighting the typical Jewish tradition of circumcision.
Mike Noble wrote:^ Your a little bit late on that but good call anyway. I didn't realize he was Aryan.
Glans to know I could help someone see something new. Speaking of which the guy's a total hippocrite. I mean he's against circumcision but he prefers a quick snip when he goes from mild mannered Richard Pennis into Circumcision man.
halonachos wrote:I see some possible anti-semitism here, the guy is against the cutting of the foreskin and has blond hair and blue eyes. The Aryan part is down and the fact that he fights people who circumsize others means he would be fighting the typical Jewish tradition of circumcision.
Yeah, I didn't notice that at first, but once it was mentioned on the other forum I saw this on I couldn't stop seeing it. On a second look, the evil circumcising doctor in the comic has Jewish traits, as well.
I don't think it's necessarily overt anti-semitism, though it wouldn't surprise me to find out the author comes from a movement with a heritage of anti-semitism, if you get what I mean.
I mean, ultimately I'm just really puzzled as to why a minor cosmetic procedure that no baby remembers would become this grand cause. If you're going to become very protective over the genitals of babies, wouldn't it be more worther to write a comic about the actual, real horrors of female genital mutilation?
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:You forgot to mention the higher chance for STD's...
Foreskin man isn't a superhero, he is a super VILLIAN!!!
You generally shouldn't be having sex without a condom anyway, so that point is mute.
Ahtman wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Apparently studies exist multiple ways for this. I highly doubt 75% though or from a practical perspective most guys would quite literally explode a nut after their 10 seconds of glory.
I think he's been reading the comic.
Sadly/thankfully, no. The foreskin contains about 20000 genital-end bulbs. That's a lot of nerve endings that are lost when the penis is circumcised. The loss of a large quantity of sensative nerve endings with the desensitization of the glans after circumcision makes the penis much less sexually sensative.
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:You forgot to mention the higher chance for STD's...
Foreskin man isn't a superhero, he is a super VILLIAN!!!
You generally shouldn't be having sex without a condom anyway, so that point is mute.
Ahtman wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:I'm circumcised it's not as bad as the comic makes it out to be.
Considering that a good 75% of the erotically sensitive nerve endings of the penis are contained in the foreskin, yeah, it is pretty bad not to have it. Not to mention natural lubrication.
Apparently studies exist multiple ways for this. I highly doubt 75% though or from a practical perspective most guys would quite literally explode a nut after their 10 seconds of glory.
I think he's been reading the comic.
Sadly/thankfully, no. The foreskin contains about 20000 genital-end bulbs. That's a lot of nerve endings that are lost when the penis is circumcised. The loss of a large quantity of sensative nerve endings with the desensitization of the glans after circumcision makes the penis much less sexually sensative.
San Francisco voters will decide whether to ban male circumcision in the November 8 municipal election.
Activists gathered enough signatures to put a proposal on the ballot, the city's election board confirmed Wednesday.
The measure aims to prohibit all male circumcisions in San Francisco. Led by Lloyd Schofield who is part of a Bay Area “inactivist” group, the advocates want to eliminate the surgery and liken it to "male genital mutilation."
Schofield and the "inactivists" seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco. Under the proposal, a person who violates the proposed ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000). Exemptions for religious reasons would not be allowed.
Column: Circumcising our son– how do we decide?
The measure faces huge hurdles: Legal, religious opposition and varying public opinion. It has brought up some interesting discussions about why we circumcise and whether there are any sound medical benefits.
Empowered Patient: Should teens make their own circumcision decision?
“We hope to get a greater outreach to the people in the city,” Schofield said Wednesday during a celebratory lunch. He said the activists would step up efforts to talk about the issue with residents. “We are willing and happy to talk to people who want a respectful conversation. We’re excited to do it.”
Looks like he's turned into a lawyer in San Francisco
The loss of a large quantity of sensative nerve endings with the desensitization of the glans after circumcision makes the penis much less sexually sensative.
Man I don't think I could handle it being even more sensitive!
The loss of a large quantity of sensative nerve endings with the desensitization of the glans after circumcision makes the penis much less sexually sensative.
Man I don't think I could handle it being even more sensitive!
I remember my human sexuality proffessor talking about circumcision, and he brought up the statement of a person who had to be circumcised after a car crash. The guy essentially said that sex after circumcision was like "fething with his elbow."
The loss of a large quantity of sensative nerve endings with the desensitization of the glans after circumcision makes the penis much less sexually sensative.
Man I don't think I could handle it being even more sensitive!
I remember my human sexuality proffessor talking about circumcision, and he brought up the statement of a person who had to be circumcised after a car crash. The guy essentially said that sex after circumcision was like "fething with his elbow."
Considering some of the other far-fetched stories you have referenced about your sexuality professor in the past, I find this hard to believe. Either way I know from my personal experience that my member seems to
rather sensitive towards visual, psychological and physical stimuli, also it's sensitivity feels nothing like my elbow.
The loss of a large quantity of sensative nerve endings with the desensitization of the glans after circumcision makes the penis much less sexually sensative.
Man I don't think I could handle it being even more sensitive!
I remember my human sexuality proffessor talking about circumcision, and he brought up the statement of a person who had to be circumcised after a car crash. The guy essentially said that sex after circumcision was like "fething with his elbow."
Considering some of the other far-fetched stories you have referenced about your sexuality professor in the past, I find this hard to believe. Either way I know from my personal experience that my member seems to
rather sensitive towards visual, psychological and physical stimuli, also it's sensitivity feels nothing like my elbow.
I never said it was an objective qualitative statement. It was just a story he heard from a man comparing sex before circumcision with sex after circumcision. Entirely anecdotal and not for scientific consideration in the least.
The loss of a large quantity of sensative nerve endings with the desensitization of the glans after circumcision makes the penis much less sexually sensative.
Man I don't think I could handle it being even more sensitive!
I remember my human sexuality proffessor talking about circumcision, and he brought up the statement of a person who had to be circumcised after a car crash. The guy essentially said that sex after circumcision was like "fething with his elbow."
Considering some of the other far-fetched stories you have referenced about your sexuality professor in the past, I find this hard to believe. Either way I know from my personal experience that my member seems to
rather sensitive towards visual, psychological and physical stimuli, also it's sensitivity feels nothing like my elbow.
I never said it was an objective qualitative statement. It was just a story he heard from a man comparing sex before circumcision with sex after circumcision. Entirely anecdotal and not for scientific consideration in the least.
Alright, fine by me but I still stand by my statement.
Explain what have I ever noted from that class that was far-fetched?
Oh, and on the subject of circumcision, it's worth noting that in Canada, circumcision is generally recommended against by doctors without medical cause, and in the US the general concensus is that of a neutral stance on circumcision.
Fafnir wrote:Explain what have I ever noted from that class that was far-fetched?
Oh, and on the subject of circumcision, it's worth noting that in Canada, circumcision is generally recommended against by doctors without medical cause, and in the US the general concensus is that of a neutral stance on circumcision.
I was a long time ago, I really not going to spend that much time digging through your message history (don't worry about it's not really a big deal anyways ). Either way I don't really have anything to add
other than what's the point of circumcision besides aesthetic or religious reasons?
Fafnir wrote:Explain what have I ever noted from that class that was far-fetched?
Oh, and on the subject of circumcision, it's worth noting that in Canada, circumcision is generally recommended against by doctors without medical cause, and in the US the general concensus is that of a neutral stance on circumcision.
I was a long time ago, I really not going to spend that much time digging through your message history (don't worry about it's not really a big deal anyways ). Either way I don't really have anything to add
other than what's the point of circumcision besides aesthetic or religious reasons?
The only real reason would be medical involving damage to the penis that requires removal of the foreskin to repair (which beats losing it entirely), infection requiring the same, or some sort of mutation which would cause the foreskin to block the urethral opening.
Otherwise, it's only really used as a way of marking someone as a group, generally a religious one. There used to be the reason of cleanliness, but we're not living in the desert anymore, and soap is easy to use and obtain these days. Dirt (which can lead to infection) and smegma can be avoided by applying normal hygenal practice (so if things are nasty down there, it's not because you're not circumcised, it's because you're just naturally disgusting).
Circumcision can also reduce the rate of transference of some STIs, but you should be wearing a condom anyway, which defeats that point entirely. Anyone who argues that this is a relevant argument for the support of circumcision is out of their mind. Circumcision is NOT a substitute for practicing safe sex.
Fafnir wrote:Explain what have I ever noted from that class that was far-fetched?
Oh, and on the subject of circumcision, it's worth noting that in Canada, circumcision is generally recommended against by doctors without medical cause, and in the US the general concensus is that of a neutral stance on circumcision.
I was a long time ago, I really not going to spend that much time digging through your message history (don't worry about it's not really a big deal anyways ). Either way I don't really have anything to add
other than what's the point of circumcision besides aesthetic or religious reasons?
The only real reason would be medical involving damage to the penis that requires removal of the foreskin to repair (which beats losing it entirely), infection requiring the same, or some sort of mutation which would cause the foreskin to block the urethral opening.
Otherwise, it's only really used as a way of marking someone as a group, generally a religious one. There used to be the reason of cleanliness, but we're not living in the desert anymore, and soap is easy to use and obtain these days. Dirt (which can lead to infection) and smegma can be avoided by applying normal hygenal practice (so if things are nasty down there, it's not because you're not circumcised, it's because you're just naturally disgusting).
Circumcision can also reduce the rate of transference of some STIs, but you should be wearing a condom anyway, which defeats that point entirely. Anyone who argues that this is a relevant argument for the support of circumcision is out of their mind. Circumcision is NOT a substitute for practicing safe sex.
Thanks for the info, at least now I have a reason to not wash down there (just kidding ).
Fafnir wrote:You generally shouldn't be having sex without a condom anyway, so that point is mute.
1) It's "moot", not "mute". No offense, it's just a pet peeve.
2) Believe it or not, lots of people have sex without using a condom. Your comment is like saying "women don't need the pill because men should be using a condom anyway."
Condoms are mandatory for me. I've told more than one person "not going there" because we didn't have any on hand. They didn't complain later, but I've had them be persistent at the time
Shadowbrand wrote:Cannot wait until I turn twenty one. Visectime. Feth kids and feth condoms. I can still get it up and no risk of screaming vag-spawns.
Shadowbrand is happy.
...But..the risk of STD's would still remain,so condoms would still be a "must use" unless you are in a "commited relationship" with one partner.
*This message brought to you by Homicidal Clowns for Safer Sex...Remember Kids.."Always wrap it Before you tap it".*
Fafnir wrote:You generally shouldn't be having sex without a condom anyway, so that point is mute.
1) It's "moot", not "mute". No offense, it's just a pet peeve.
2) Believe it or not, lots of people have sex without using a condom. Your comment is like saying "women don't need the pill because men should be using a condom anyway."
Thanks. I was about to quote it and argue the same point, pretty much
Fafnir wrote:You generally shouldn't be having sex without a condom anyway, so that point is mute.
2) Believe it or not, lots of people have sex without using a condom. Your comment is like saying "women don't need the pill because men should be using a condom anyway."
Regardless, you should be using some form of protection/knowledge that your partner is clean should be paramount. If you're in a committed, monogamous relationship with a partner who's sexual history you know fairly well, you won't need to use a condom nearly as much as a couple who are of the more promiscuous variety (contraception should still be used though!). I'm referencing more casual encounters, where STIs are easier to spread.
If you want to obsess over other peoples foreskin, well, that is no skin off my nose, but you seem like you were erecting these arguments before this thread ever even existed, which I find disconcerting.
purplefood wrote:We were trying in the first place?
We have poor standards...
Of course we were and it isn't sad. There were some great puns there and clever bits of word play and now we are at chicken = cock being the best we can muster. It was a great thread brought down.
