Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Proof that this isn't a joke.

Shouldn't all of this be in the Comic Book discussion thread?

Khornholio wrote:Shouldn't all of this be in the Comic Book discussion thread?

I this discussion deserves it's own head.

Mike Noble wrote:

Proof that this isn't a joke.

TLCTugger.com?
In the immortal words of Admial Ackbar: "It's a trap!"

sebster wrote:

And you can't make it unexist!

Its the Phallas Palace!



yes?


No?




Am I doing this right?














Puns arnt my thing really

^^ Maybe Bag end?

It won't be schlong before the mainstream media grabs a hold of this story and milks it for all its worth.

I goo don't see that happening.

Edit: ...really?

If Circumcision Man and the Human Torch have a love child, will it have Cystitis?

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

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.

Fafnir wrote:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

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.

This thread blows.

Funnily enough this just showed up on CNN.com

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/sf-to-vote-on-male-circumcision-in-november/?hpt=T2



SF to vote on male circumcision in November

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!

lol ... Hastwick

Andrew1975 wrote:

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."

Honestly, I'm surprised this is an issue... Don't we have bigger problems... Like... corn, or something.

Fafnir wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

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 have to say when I was in my foreign exchange program, the women in Russia dug that I was cut.

Cheesecat wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

Fafnir wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

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?

San Francisco voters will decide whether to ban male circumcision in the November 8 municipal election.

That could be the end of singing, "I lost my hat in San Fransisco."

Mind you, I always felt that song was too cheesy.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That could be the end of singing, "I lost my hat in San Fransisco."

Don't expect me to go get it for you. SF is crazy, even by my standards

Cheesecat wrote:

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:

Cheesecat wrote:

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 ).

Funnily enough, I manage to keep my fingers clean without pulling out my fingernails...

Weird, eh?

Glad one doesn't need to clip the foreskin every so often!
Though the habit of chewing it could be intruiging

maybe not such a good habit to perform in public!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mother to little Jimmy:
If yer don't stop chewing your foreskin I'll put mustard on 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."

^^Agree point 2. Condoms are lame.

Point 1, it's "Shire" not "moot". Just a pet peeve.