Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

yeah I think weve preety much established the whole cleanleness argument is retarded, same as the ladys will like you better arguement.

the only arguement that might have any merit is they higher chance of cacthing stds one, but I still say isnt worth it if you have to sacrifice sensitivity.

idk, I have some buddys who are circumcised and say they couldnt"cum" for like 2 hours straight.

At 1/9/09 11:17 PM, TheGuyAtYourWindow wrote:

Keep 'em clean, fellas. Us lady-types really appreciate it.

no offense there, but lady types should keep outta penis policy lol, i wont jump in your vagina, dont jump on my rod haha

Interesting no one's brought up female circumcision yet...

At 1/10/09 02:27 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Interesting no one's brought up female circumcision yet...

Interesting you didn't read the whole thread.

At 1/9/09 11:44 PM, thedo12 wrote: idk, I have some buddys who are circumcised and say they couldnt"cum" for like 2 hours straight.

Were they inebriated? Were the girls not very attractive? Was there starting and stopping?

Hell... it's a challenge for me to last as much as 30 minutes on a continuous run.

How many of your buddies have the same 'like 2 hour' story?

Are they familiar with the refractory period?

Cause really... unless the doctors fucked up these buddies... the 2 hour problem ain't circumcision.

At 1/10/09 02:53 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 1/10/09 02:27 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Interesting no one's brought up female circumcision yet...

Interesting you didn't read the whole thread.

Hey, it's late and I'm typing with a mouse. I'm just a tad impatient at the moment.

At 1/9/09 11:44 PM, thedo12 wrote: yeah I think weve preety much established the whole cleanleness argument is retarded, same as the ladys will like you better arguement.

No I garantee I probably wouldn't get sex 1/4 as much as I do now if I had nasty foreskin.

Girls in the US don't like it.

And my parents didn't do it for religious reasons since they are both people who don't practice religion.

At 1/10/09 02:54 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: How many of your buddies have the same 'like 2 hour' story?

;;;;;;
I have found in some instances smoking pot, can make one 'last longer'.
Actually I find that it always helps you ....put off , if you will coming. I just never thought to get out a stop watch...although I have been completely unable to get off, but still be hard.
You just make her as happy as you can.
When she begs you to stop...get some sleep & finish when you wak eup ;)

At 1/9/09 11:17 PM, TheGuyAtYourWindow wrote: no offense there, but lady types should keep outta penis policy lol, i wont jump in your vagina, dont jump on my rod haha

I never took a position on circumcision, and I still haven't, champ.

At 1/10/09 04:23 AM, Acid wrote: No I garantee I probably wouldn't get sex 1/4 as much as I do now if I had nasty foreskin.

Girls in the US don't like it.

This is bullshit. Women as a whole are not like this. The ones who would refuse to sleep with you because you were uncircumcised are like the guys who would refuse to have sex with a girl because she has big nipples or something - shallow, and not as common as you think. Unless you're only having sex with incredibly shallow women, in which case you might want to rethink that for other reasons.

At 1/10/09 12:23 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/10/09 02:54 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: How many of your buddies have the same 'like 2 hour' story?

;;;;;;
I have found in some instances smoking pot, can make one 'last longer'.

well my buddies do smoke alot of pot, so maybe thats it.

Personally, I am glad I'm not circumsized, cause apparently it's very painful. Can we force others to snip at their peepees to be clean, if they forget about it later on? Hmmm, tough one.

Personally i can't complain about having a diseased and dirty rod... Never had trouble with that.

On the note of STD's: AIDS uses ruptures in the skin and internal vagina while having sex to infect one another. With or without foreskin should not affect this.

At 1/10/09 05:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: On the note of STD's: AIDS uses ruptures in the skin and internal vagina while having sex to infect one another. With or without foreskin should not affect this.

Statistically speaking, uncircumcised men are more likely to contract AIDS. Whether or not it "should" affect their susceptibility is irrelevant. There is a correlation.

At 1/10/09 05:13 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/10/09 05:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

Statistically speaking, uncircumcised men are more likely to contract AIDS. Whether or not it "should" affect their susceptibility is irrelevant. There is a correlation.

personaly I think its just a matter of suface area,
its the same reason why women are more likely to get stds from there partners then then men, so if someone has a huge dick theres probaly a better chance there gonna get stds 0_0

At 1/10/09 05:13 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Statistically speaking, uncircumcised men are more likely to contract AIDS. Whether or not it "should" affect their susceptibility is irrelevant. There is a correlation.

do these statistics take other variables into account or solely the foreskin, or lack thereof?

At 1/10/09 05:31 PM, thedo12 wrote: personaly I think its just a matter of suface area,

Are you a medical doctor? Your opinion on this is uninformed, and, from everything I've seen, blatantly incorrect.

its the same reason why women are more likely to get stds from there partners then then men, so if someone has a huge dick theres probaly a better chance there gonna get stds 0_0

Women are more likely to get STDs than men because the surface area inside their vagina is not impermeable like skin, it's quite permeable. You don't have to have an open wound in your vagina to get an STD.

At 1/10/09 05:45 PM, SolInvictus wrote: do these statistics take other variables into account or solely the foreskin, or lack thereof?

I haven't read extensively into the studies, so I don't know. I would assume that if they're serious medical professionals they would try to sample a group whose risk factors are the same, with the exception of foreskin status, but who knows, they could be quacks.

At 1/10/09 06:37 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/10/09 05:31 PM, thedo12 wrote: its the same reason why women are more likely to get stds from there partners then then men, so if someone has a huge dick theres probaly a better chance there gonna get stds 0_0

Women are more likely to get STDs than men because the surface area inside their vagina is not impermeable like skin, it's quite permeable. You don't have to have an open wound in your vagina to get an STD.

Hence the probable reason we have foreskin there in the first place. Skin is supposed to protect us; that's what it exists for. It probably served its purpose very well before we started bathing every day; and you never know when you might need that kind of protection in a post-armageddon world. :P

At 1/10/09 08:15 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 1/10/09 06:37 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/10/09 05:31 PM, thedo12 wrote: its the same reason why women are more likely to get stds from there partners then then men, so if someone has a huge dick theres probaly a better chance there gonna get stds 0_0

Women are more likely to get STDs than men because the surface area inside their vagina is not impermeable like skin, it's quite permeable. You don't have to have an open wound in your vagina to get an STD.

Hence the probable reason we have foreskin there in the first place. Skin is supposed to protect us; that's what it exists for. It probably served its purpose very well before we started bathing every day; and you never know when you might need that kind of protection in a post-armageddon world. :P

Just because a body part used to have a purpose doesn't mean it still does.

tonsils
appendix
tail bone
middle toes

*note I have never taken a position on circumcision.

I thought circumcision was only for us Jews.
However, I really don't see how circumcision can lower the chance of STD's. It's cutting off the foreskin, it makes no difference. The only thing it might do is keep the genitals cleaner since there's less places for dirt to lodge in.

At 1/9/09 11:09 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Now that we've had the requisite back and forth discussion about smegma, may I bring up something else? Yes, gentleman, I am referring to all the circumcised men out there who take the fact that they don't get cheesy buildup in their rods to mean that they don't have to wash down there.

I haven't heard anyone argue this. Most rational people still keep it clean - it's just a matter of whether or not one wants to deal with an extra stretch of skin to clean.

At 1/10/09 08:18 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/10/09 08:15 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

::Skin is supposed to protect us; that's what it exists for. It probably served its purpose very well before we started bathing every day; and you never know when you might need that kind of protection in a post-armageddon world. :P

Just because a body part used to have a purpose doesn't mean it still does.

tonsils
appendix
tail bone
middle toes

*note I have never taken a position on circumcision.

Was the "protection in a post-armageddon world" part not clear enough? Chances are you'll be a little too busy trying to survive to keep up proper hygiene. Tonsils and appendices can mutate themselves out of existence, but from my standpoint foreskin still has a purpose.

At 1/10/09 11:59 PM, dySWN wrote: I haven't heard anyone argue this. Most rational people still keep it clean - it's just a matter of whether or not one wants to deal with an extra stretch of skin to clean.

I've had my face in more crotches than you, then, because a LOT of guys do not keep themselves appropriately clean down there. Both from my own experience and the complaints of many female acquaintances.

So you're one of those circumsized or nono gals..

At 1/11/09 12:58 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Was the "protection in a post-armageddon world" part not clear enough? Chances are you'll be a little too busy trying to survive to keep up proper hygiene. Tonsils and appendices can mutate themselves out of existence, but from my standpoint foreskin still has a purpose.

First off foreskin requires MORE cleaning, not less.

As for your armegeddon bit. You're joking right? IF in our lifetime the world infastructure does collapse, our foreskin is going to have a negligable effect on our survival. I suppose we should have savings either, cause what good will that do when the end comes. Gotta be prepared for everything - zombies too!

REGARDLESS OF BENEFITS, the decision to have parts of YOUR BODY removed, is your own, AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

// end

At 1/11/09 04:08 PM, poxpower wrote: REGARDLESS OF BENEFITS, the decision to have parts of YOUR BODY removed, is your own, AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

// end

Alright. So how about just putting lacerations in the foreskin?

No that's not ok either. Ok, so it's not just removal, it's alteration.

How about corrective surgery? Is that wrong too if the baby doesn't consent? No, because it helps!

The beauty of circumcision is that it neither helps nor hinders in any major way, so it's a perfect realm to inject 'unconditional' moral paradigms - there's not realy any strong argument otherwise governing the decision. But the problem here then is that such a paradigm doesn't take into account that it's dealing with something inconsequential.

At 1/11/09 03:55 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: So you're one of those circumsized or nono gals..

Um...what the fuck does this mean?

I've never been with an uncircumcised guy, but I wouldn't NOT have sex with someone if I was in a relationship with him and he still happened to have a foreskin. And I certainly didn't make the state of a guy's penis one of the questions on the first date, or anything. Like I said, I think penises in general are kind of ugly, but once a guy's aroused there's not much difference between circumcised and uncircumcised. In the dark I probably wouldn't even be able to tell. I just haven't happened to wind up dating anybody who wasn't circumcised.

The men I'm referring to whose groin areas have been too foul for words were all circumcised. The fact that their penises didn't gather junk under a foreskin seemed like an excuse to not bother washing that general area.

At 1/11/09 04:08 PM, poxpower wrote: REGARDLESS OF BENEFITS, the decision to have parts of YOUR BODY removed, is your own, AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

// end

Well what if it is something that really was necessary to remove? What if a young baby had appendicitis?

At 1/11/09 04:17 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: The men I'm referring to whose groin areas have been too foul for words were all circumcised. The fact that their penises didn't gather junk under a foreskin seemed like an excuse to not bother washing that general area.

;;;;;;
Skunky....How the hell did you get yourself anywhere near something like that?
I mean generally if some guy's don't wash their crutch...they're not washing much else either.

Oh yeah, If I was going to bed with you ,I would be freshly showered & I'd leave a light on ;)

When you date geeks, sometimes you encounter the geek reek.

I dunno, it was just like "Well, I wash my pits, and the soapy water kind of runs all over me, so I don't need to scrub the rest of my body, right?" Some of my female friends have had absolute horror stories, far worse than mine. I had a long-term boyfriend who was for the most part clean, but every so often he'd want to fool around after he'd been working on a school project for three days or playing MGS3 for 48 hours and hadn't showered. I was young and stupid and hadn't learned to be assertive enough to tell him "Get your disgusting ass in the shower or I will not touch you."

I didn't get circumsized because my doctor was against it.

This makes me very sad because circumcision makes your cock look like 3 inches longer. I'D HAVE 10 INCHES.

:( I hate my doctor.

And now I can't go get it done cause it will fucking hurt!!!

Then again, my dick looks like a torpedo so that's pretty cool :D

At 1/11/09 07:21 PM, Strategize wrote:
And now I can't go get it done cause it will fucking hurt!!!

You can use anesthetic.