Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Circumcision???

Options
24567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    No foreskin = No cock cheese :pac:


  • Options
    #33
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,259 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    No foreskin = No cock cheese :pac:
    Wash = no cock cheese.....?


  • Options
    #34
    getuponthis
    Registered Users Posts: 202 ✭✭getuponthis


    Think id prefer to wash it to be honest.....


  • Options
    #35
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    For genuine medical reasons yes. Hell if you want to do it as an adult as a fetish thing, knock yourself out. Routine circumcision of newborns is IMHO an archaic religious blood rite excused by some societies medical types and better left in the bronze age where it belongs.

    Even the Jewish version wasn't always so extreme in removing the lot. Ancient Greek texts show that Jewish men could "pass for" uncircumcised greeks and enter the annual games so some was left. The Jewish elders then required removal of the lot so this would be impossible. The Greeks and later the Romans considered it a barbarity of primitive peoples, hence alone among the Mark 2 Jewish faiths and unlike Muslims, Christians are not required to have it as a religious duty. Ditto for food restrictions. The Greeks and Romans thought them a bit daft(good luck in stopping an Italian eating pork). Yay for the Greeks and Romans on a few scores.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #36
    kfallon
    Registered Users Posts: 25,775 ✭✭✭✭kfallon


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    Is it true the sometimes eat the bit that's cut off or something:eek::confused::eek::confused:

    Yeah that's why foreskin is known as "The Jewish Chewing Gum"

    :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    I imagine it's be great sex, but not so great if you want to have a casual **** as you'd need lube all the time. Also, you'd have to make sure you're trimmed down there because when you're walking about you don't want to get hairs stuck under there - it'd be quite uncomfortable.


  • Options
    #38
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    I imagine it's be great sex
    Its the opposite of great sex, its crap sex:

    Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.

    Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).

    Myth: "Being circumcised doesn't affect my sex life."

    Reality check: Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007).


  • Options
    #39
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Genital mutilation of a minor for any reason than an absolutely necessary medical intervention should be 100%, completely, and totally illegal.

    For those who claim this violates religious freedom, if a religion mandates human sacrifice do we get rid of murder laws to accommodate it? Ridiculous strawman. Circumcision for non essential reasons is absolutely barbaric and the fact that it is still allowed in so many Western countries disgusts me.


  • Options
    #40
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm[/B] (O'Hara 1999).

    Eh.... how would presence of a foreskin or a lack thereof affect a woman reaching orgasm?


  • Options
    #41
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    Eh.... how would presence of a foreskin or a lack thereof affect a woman reaching orgasm?
    Its only about six posts back...

    Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

    Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I have to say I find the above arguments irrelevant and a bit sick too. Imagine if we were talking about surgical intervention, of ANY king, on female infants "because it will feel better for the guys they have sex with later" or "because men prefer it that way"? :mad:

    It would be rightly regarded as obscene.


  • Options
    #43
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Its the opposite of great sex, its crap sex:

    Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.

    Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).

    Irrelevant to most men really. It's ourselves we're thinking about, not women. Great sex for the man, not so much maybe for the woman.


  • Options
    #44
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Irrelevant to most men really. It's ourselves we're thinking about, not women. Great sex for the man, not so much maybe for the woman.
    If you think so superglue your foreskin to your shaft and let us know how you get on.


  • Options
    #45
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Its only about six posts back...

    Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

    Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

    Excellent news - I shall stop clitorial stimulation henceforth and inform the ladies that my foreskin is all they shall need!

    Thank you doctor - you've saved my wrist!


  • Options
    #46
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    Thank you doctor - you've saved my wrist!
    Surely you mean your fingers.


  • Options
    #47
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Surely you mean your fingers.

    I gots mad technique yo!


  • Options
    #48
    cocoshovel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭cocoshovel


    Im not for or against it, I just dont give a toss.


  • Options
    #49
    Teyla Emmagan
    Registered Users Posts: 5,641 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    It's multilation, of a baby. And in nearly all cases there's no medical reason for it.

    So that's a 'no' then.


  • Options
    #50
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    A mate of mine got it done in his 20's because he kept ripping his banjo string. A few years on he can thump it off a hard surface and barely feel a thing, he says he'd have it back on in a flash.


  • Options
    #51
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Oh c'mon. Sexual simulation comes from friction on the glads (head). If you take away the foreskin, that mean more stimulation/friction on the head which in turn means more pleasure.
    By that logic sticking your flute in front of a sandblaster should be ecstasy.
    Dr. Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) advocated circumcision for pubescent boys and girls to stop masturbation: "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement" (Kellogg 1877)
    So the Mengele of masturbation advised circumcision to prevent said activity, because the friction causes discomfort and pain in males. Circumcised males experience more friction during sex, in a similar manner to the experience during masturbation, and no doubt with similar results.

    Erectile dysfunction, a calloused helmet, desentisivity, premature ejaculation, and making it harder to please a lady.

    Oh where do I sign up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Oh c'mon. Sexual simulation comes from friction on the glads (head). If you take away the foreskin, that mean more stimulation/friction on the head which in turn means more pleasure.
    Eh, the foreskin retracts(or should) during intercourse fully revealing the sensitive glans. That's its job. Before and after it covers same to protect and lubricate it. If removed said glans dries out as it's always exposed, which can lead to less sensitivity. Ask any intact man to retract his foreskin and walk own the road with it rubbing against his clothes and watch same man grimacing and walking like John Wayne. Yet circumcised men do that every day and feel nada. So which has the more sensitive willy? Plus speaking personally the foreskin itself is sensitive and the old frenulum(often removed) is really sensitive.

    Of course if your penis doesn't function correctly in the first place and the foreskin doesn't retract or is painful to do so, removal will naturally feel better and fair play if surgical intervention is the only way forward. However a fully functioning penis and foreskin is the better bet. It evolved that way over millions of years for a reason. And no it's not a vestigial piece of tissue(it contains specialised tissue). So au natural is best, non functioning is defo worst, with cut in the middle.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #53
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Its only about six posts back...

    Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

    Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

    yet plenty of women I know prefer sex with someone circumcised, go figure


  • Options
    #54
    Spread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Spread


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    Excellent news - I shall stop clitorial stimulation henceforth and inform the ladies that my foreskin is all they shall need!

    Thank you doctor - you've saved my wrist!

    Or young Jewish boys should be presented with their preserved foreskin by the mohel that gave the unkindest cut. It should be kept at the bottom of the fridge-freezer. Then, no need for dipping the wick ........ just pick it up between thumb and forefinger and attack her peanut like a boar at a mangle :D


  • Options
    #55
    teddansonswig
    Registered Users Posts: 427 ✭✭teddansonswig


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Oh c'mon. Sexual simulation comes from friction on the glads (head). If you take away the foreskin, that mean more stimulation/friction on the head which in turn means more pleasure.

    until the head gets used to these feelings and gets desensitised caus of constant contact with clothes and underwear?!
    did you not read that a few posts ago?


  • Options
    #56
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    krudler wrote: »
    yet plenty of women I know prefer sex with someone circumcised, go figure
    I'll be taking that study over your anecdeote if its all the same.


  • Options
    #57
    Raging_Ninja
    Registered Users Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    i am circumcised. i had a bad case of phimosis as a child and it had to be removed as i was in great pain.

    to be honest, i don't miss it (but then again can't miss what you don't remember having)

    i don't consider myself mutilated, and my girlfriend seems to enjoy it.


  • Options
    #58
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    I'll be taking that study over your anecdeote if its all the same.

    like I said unless you've experienced it both ways how are you to know? I've never had issues with anything you've listed as seemingly happening to most circumcised men, maybe I'm just lucky


  • Options
    #59
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    krudler wrote: »
    like I said unless you've experienced it both ways how are you to know? I've never had issues with anything you've listed as seemingly happening to most circumcised men, maybe I'm just lucky
    If you say so.


  • Options
    #60
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    If you say so.

    I do, its never been an issue with either lack of sensitivity or the reverse, or with the girl having issues, now granted not all women can climax through penetration but the ones I've been with who can have never had an issue with it. you're basically saying all circumcised men have crap sex lives, I say bullsh1t.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I have to say I find the above arguments irrelevant and a bit sick too. Imagine if we were talking about surgical intervention, of ANY king, on female infants "because it will feel better for the guys they have sex with later" or "because men prefer it that way"? :mad:

    It would be rightly regarded as obscene.

    That's a very good point.

    I don't know how anyone can say that circumcising infants for reasons other than medical ones; is acceptable. Having your kid cut just because in your own experience sex is better that way is bizarre. It's a pretty messed up thought process imo.


Advertisement