circumcised? Your risk of hetrosexually transmitted HIV just went down by 70%

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: moshquerade
it's cool Poindexter, we can agree to disagree.

I don't really care how you label the parts of the penis, but you're still avoiding the issue of the perfection of the circumcised penis. Yes, I know they work fine, in the same sense that a refrigerator that one buys at a discount because it's missing the plastic cover for one of the hinges and has a few dents from shipping, "works fine." However, no one would argue that the latter is "perfect."

Well you're wrong anyways.

It's pretty much common knowledge that humans are extremely imperfect.

So projecting perfect conditions onto an imperfect platform means your just some guy who likes discussing penises at the end of the day.

QFT

Natural IS NOT Perfect. Nor is circumcised.

Moshqurade = likes circumcised
+
Moshqurade = woman
-------------------------------------------------------------
Women = likes circumcised

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i don't. the penis is not damaged. it works fine.
yes, the parts are altered but there still is perfection.

Some men cut the head of their penis into two pieces, and derive pleasure from that. They would argue that it "works fine". Would you say that there is still perfection in that?

you can't compare that act to a circumsion.

Oh yes you can. Both acts physically change the penis.

oh no you can't. that is like comparing excising of some unneeded tissue to cutting off a hand.

No. It's like comparing someone cutting off a finger to someone cutting off a thumb.

there is no appendage cut off during a circumcision.

and calling removal of the foreskin the same as a finger removal is just silly.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: moshquerade
it's cool Poindexter, we can agree to disagree.

I don't really care how you label the parts of the penis, but you're still avoiding the issue of the perfection of the circumcised penis. Yes, I know they work fine, in the same sense that a refrigerator that one buys at a discount because it's missing the plastic cover for one of the hinges and has a few dents from shipping, "works fine." However, no one would argue that the latter is "perfect."

the comparisons you people are making are really funny and bit off.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i don't. the penis is not damaged. it works fine.
yes, the parts are altered but there still is perfection.

Some men cut the head of their penis into two pieces, and derive pleasure from that. They would argue that it "works fine". Would you say that there is still perfection in that?

you can't compare that act to a circumsion.

Why not? Both involve cutting the penis.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: notfred
Don't sleep with HIV infected people? Your risk of heterosexually transmitted HIV just went down 100%.

That's so dumb.

And victims of rape should just not get attacked by rapists!

People should just not be around when a terrorist blows themselves up and I should just pick the right numbers in the lotto to be rich!

So you're saying every male must be circumcised because some might be potential rapists? That's the logical conclusion of your argument, you know...

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i don't. the penis is not damaged. it works fine.
yes, the parts are altered but there still is perfection.

Some men cut the head of their penis into two pieces, and derive pleasure from that. They would argue that it "works fine". Would you say that there is still perfection in that?

you can't compare that act to a circumsion.

Oh yes you can. Both acts physically change the penis.

oh no you can't. that is like comparing excising of some unneeded tissue to cutting off a hand.

No. It's like comparing someone cutting off a finger to someone cutting off a thumb.

there is no appendage cut off during a circumcision.

and calling removal of the foreskin the same as a finger removal is just silly.

Um, yes there is. The foreskin is a part of the penis. Circumcision removes that. Very analogous to removing a finger from a hand.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i don't. the penis is not damaged. it works fine.
yes, the parts are altered but there still is perfection.

Some men cut the head of their penis into two pieces, and derive pleasure from that. They would argue that it "works fine". Would you say that there is still perfection in that?

you can't compare that act to a circumsion.

Oh yes you can. Both acts physically change the penis.

oh no you can't. that is like comparing excising of some unneeded tissue to cutting off a hand.

No. It's like comparing someone cutting off a finger to someone cutting off a thumb.

there is no appendage cut off during a circumcision.

and calling removal of the foreskin the same as a finger removal is just silly.

Not to me it isn't. If you're missing a finger, your hand will still work "just fine." If you're missing your foreskin, your penis will still work "just fine."

I don't care that a finger is called an appendage... it's as much of a hand as a foreskin is a part of a penis.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
Natural IS NOT Perfect. Nor is circumcised.

If perfect = without flaw, then that is correct. If perfect = complete, then that is incorrect. We need to use other words to be more precise, but some want to keep using "perfect" regardless...

Moshqurade = likes circumcised
+
Moshqurade = woman
-------------------------------------------------------------
Women = likes circumcised

Logical fallacy much? Woman != Women. If you had polled a group of women, you could say that in your country / state / province / city / etc a majority of the women prefer circumcised men, but it is not reasonable to make a statement about all women without polling all women.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i don't. the penis is not damaged. it works fine.
yes, the parts are altered but there still is perfection.

Some men cut the head of their penis into two pieces, and derive pleasure from that. They would argue that it "works fine". Would you say that there is still perfection in that?

you can't compare that act to a circumsion.

Oh yes you can. Both acts physically change the penis.

oh no you can't. that is like comparing excising of some unneeded tissue to cutting off a hand.

No. It's like comparing someone cutting off a finger to someone cutting off a thumb.

there is no appendage cut off during a circumcision.

and calling removal of the foreskin the same as a finger removal is just silly.

Not to me it isn't. If you're missing a finger, your hand will still work "just fine." If you're missing your foreskin, your penis will still work "just fine."

I don't care that a finger is called an appendage... it's as much of a hand as a foreskin is a part of a penis.

no way you are pulling that one off. go ask anyone if they liken foreskin removal to having a digit removed from your hand.

it ain't flying. :laugh:

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i don't. the penis is not damaged. it works fine.
yes, the parts are altered but there still is perfection.

Some men cut the head of their penis into two pieces, and derive pleasure from that. They would argue that it "works fine". Would you say that there is still perfection in that?

you can't compare that act to a circumsion.

Oh yes you can. Both acts physically change the penis.

oh no you can't. that is like comparing excising of some unneeded tissue to cutting off a hand.

No. It's like comparing someone cutting off a finger to someone cutting off a thumb.

there is no appendage cut off during a circumcision.

and calling removal of the foreskin the same as a finger removal is just silly.

Not to me it isn't. If you're missing a finger, your hand will still work "just fine." If you're missing your foreskin, your penis will still work "just fine."

I don't care that a finger is called an appendage... it's as much of a hand as a foreskin is a part of a penis.

no way you are pulling that one off. go ask anyone if they liken foreskin removal to having a digit removed from your hand.

it ain't flying. :laugh:

Believe whatever the heck you want. I know MANY men that are circumsized, and some that aren't. I've also talked to a couple of men that were circumsized after they were adults. They regretted the loss, but they did it for medical reasons.

I'm cut, but luckily enough, there's enough skin to act as a 'partial' foreskin. Two of my close friends don't have that luxury - they've both said that they very much wish they had foreskins.

<edit> I liken it to losing a finger because that's how *I* feel about it. If I were to lose any more skin from my penis, then whomever removd that skin (the doctor, assuming I were to be circumsized even tighter than I am now) would probably wind up dead in short order.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no way you are pulling that one off. go ask anyone if they liken foreskin removal to having a digit removed from your hand.
it ain't flying. :laugh:

Have you ever experienced 1) losing a finger, or 2) losing a foreskin?

I have not experienced #1, but I have experienced #2, at an age at which I can remember what it felt like. You may not want to hear this, but it was most certainly not a laughing matter. Of course, the pain only lasted for a month or so, but I would speculate that having a finger amputated under anesthesia would be less painful during recovery, because it's easier to avoid using one's finger a few times per day than it is one's penis (you've got to piss sometime). Regardless, I'm sure if we cut off a baby's 5th finger a few days after birth, s/he wouldn't remember the pain. Why not?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i don't. the penis is not damaged. it works fine.
yes, the parts are altered but there still is perfection.

Some men cut the head of their penis into two pieces, and derive pleasure from that. They would argue that it "works fine". Would you say that there is still perfection in that?

you can't compare that act to a circumsion.

Oh yes you can. Both acts physically change the penis.

oh no you can't. that is like comparing excising of some unneeded tissue to cutting off a hand.

No. It's like comparing someone cutting off a finger to someone cutting off a thumb.

there is no appendage cut off during a circumcision.

and calling removal of the foreskin the same as a finger removal is just silly.

Not to me it isn't. If you're missing a finger, your hand will still work "just fine." If you're missing your foreskin, your penis will still work "just fine."

I don't care that a finger is called an appendage... it's as much of a hand as a foreskin is a part of a penis.

no way you are pulling that one off. go ask anyone if they liken foreskin removal to having a digit removed from your hand.

it ain't flying. :laugh:

Believe whatever the heck you want. I know MANY men that are circumsized, and some that aren't. I've also talked to a couple of men that were circumsized after they were adults. They regretted the loss, but they did it for medical reasons.

I'm cut, but luckily enough, there's enough skin to act as a 'partial' foreskin. Two of my close friends don't have that luxury - they've both said that they very much wish they had foreskins.

why are you telling me this? my original point was that circumcision is not mutilation.
i never said i favored circumcised over uncircumsized.

and what begs the question now is why are you talking to so many guys about their penises?

 

[DidlySquat]

For the last time, to all you uncircumcised neanderthals, circumcision is just removal of a layer of skin overhanging the corona. It is just like surgeries to remove a mole or other skin imperfections for cosmetic and health reasons. It is NOT mutilation or "cutting off an organ". Circumcised is asthetically more pleasing because it looks less shriveled (= more excited).

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
For the last time, to all you uncircumcised neanderthals, circumcision is just removal of a layer of skin overhanging the corona. It is just like surgeries to remove a mole or other skin imperfections for cosmetic and health reasons. Circumcised is asthetically more pleasing because it looks less shriveled (= more excited).

To all of those who can not afford to lose a debate and thus must drop to insults, I am still waiting on valid proof of these supposed health "benefits" of circumcision.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no way you are pulling that one off. go ask anyone if they liken foreskin removal to having a digit removed from your hand.
it ain't flying. :laugh:

Have you ever experienced 1) losing a finger, or 2) losing a foreskin?

I have not experienced #1, but I have experienced #2, at an age at which I can remember what it felt like. You may not want to hear this, but it was most certainly not a laughing matter. Of course, the pain only lasted for a month or so, but I would speculate that having a finger amputated under anesthesia would be less painful during recovery, because it's easier to avoid using one's finger a few times per day than it is one's penis (you've got to piss sometime). Regardless, I'm sure if we cut off a baby's 5th finger a few days after birth, s/he wouldn't remember the pain. Why not?

get it straight: they still aren't the same, and i don't have to experience either procedure to realize that.

and i wasn't laughing at the procedure of circumcision only at the lame comparison.
get that straight, too.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
For the last time, to all you uncircumcised neanderthals, circumcision is just removal of a layer of skin overhanging the corona. It is just like surgeries to remove a mole or other skin imperfections for cosmetic and health reasons. It is NOT mutilation or "cutting off an organ". Circumcised is asthetically more pleasing because it looks less shriveled (= more excited).

Idiot. Say that to a crowd of European males... they wouldn't take too kindly to being called neanderthals.

Most of the world = uncircumcised.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
get it straight: they still aren't the same, and i don't have to experience either procedure to realize that.

and i wasn't laughing at the procedure of circumcision only at the lame comparison.
get that straight, too.

Until someone can prove that circumcision has more health benefits than removing a finger (hey, one less fingernail to catch dirt and germs!), I will continue to compare the two based on the pain factor, which in either case certainly ranks up to at least "undesirable" (disregarding the opinions of those who like S&M).

 

[Noriaki]

Originally posted by: sxr7171
It is the circumsized penis that is more likely to keratinize as a result of rubbing against underwear all the time. The uncircumsized penis does not need to as it is always protected by foreskin.

Ah crap. That was a fairly significant typo. That is what it was suppose to say.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no way you are pulling that one off. go ask anyone if they liken foreskin removal to having a digit removed from your hand.
it ain't flying. :laugh:

Have you ever experienced 1) losing a finger, or 2) losing a foreskin?

I have not experienced #1, but I have experienced #2, at an age at which I can remember what it felt like. You may not want to hear this, but it was most certainly not a laughing matter. Of course, the pain only lasted for a month or so, but I would speculate that having a finger amputated under anesthesia would be less painful during recovery, because it's easier to avoid using one's finger a few times per day than it is one's penis (you've got to piss sometime). Regardless, I'm sure if we cut off a baby's 5th finger a few days after birth, s/he wouldn't remember the pain. Why not?

get it straight: they still aren't the same, and i don't have to experience either procedure to realize that.

and i wasn't laughing at the procedure of circumcision only at the lame comparison.
get that straight, too.

Ok, if circumcision is so great, why not get yourself circumcised? I'm sure you could find a nice witch doctor to take care of it for you. After all, your labia is only vestigal skin... its doesn't serve any function, like protecting the vagina from dirt, right? :roll:

Before you jump on me about FGM, in most cases, they remove the labia as well as the clitoris. Google it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: moshquerade
get it straight: they still aren't the same, and i don't have to experience either procedure to realize that.

and i wasn't laughing at the procedure of circumcision only at the lame comparison.
get that straight, too.

Until someone can prove that circumcision has more health benefits than removing a finger (hey, one less fingernail to catch dirt and germs!), I will continue to compare the two based on the pain factor, which in either case certainly ranks up to at least "undesirable" (disregarding the opinions of those who like S&M).

we weren't even talking "health benefits" at that point. GeekDrew was trying to claim that removing a finger and removing foreskin were comparable. they are not.

 

[Noriaki]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
and what begs the question now is why are you talking to so many guys about their penises?

Oooooh I know! Because he's a very gay man?

Was that suppose to be the implication? Do I get a cookie for connecting the dots?

Edit: Maybe guys just like discussing their dicks. I think this thread is a pretty good indication that this is indeed the case.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
we weren't even talking "health benefits" at that point. GeekDrew was trying to claim that removing a finger and removing foreskin were comparable. they are not.

Either way, I have lost a part of my body. Either way, I have to deal with tremendous pain for a certain time. Either way, I gain nothing (and arguably lose something, though the degree of usefulness that I could have had may never be known if I lose the item early on in life). No analogy is without flaws, because when comparing two different things there will by nature be differences, but I don't think the comparison is as far fetched as you seem to think.

 

[aircooled]

Hi Mosh! I like mine the way it is..... I think my doc did a good cut.... don't you think?

 

[gigapet]

wooohooo lets give it up for c0cks can I get a round of applause for the incredible edible penis???

<applaud>

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no way you are pulling that one off. go ask anyone if they liken foreskin removal to having a digit removed from your hand.
it ain't flying. :laugh:

Have you ever experienced 1) losing a finger, or 2) losing a foreskin?

I have not experienced #1, but I have experienced #2, at an age at which I can remember what it felt like. You may not want to hear this, but it was most certainly not a laughing matter. Of course, the pain only lasted for a month or so, but I would speculate that having a finger amputated under anesthesia would be less painful during recovery, because it's easier to avoid using one's finger a few times per day than it is one's penis (you've got to piss sometime). Regardless, I'm sure if we cut off a baby's 5th finger a few days after birth, s/he wouldn't remember the pain. Why not?

get it straight: they still aren't the same, and i don't have to experience either procedure to realize that.

and i wasn't laughing at the procedure of circumcision only at the lame comparison.
get that straight, too.

Ok, if circumcision is so great, why not get yourself circumcised? I'm sure you could find a nice witch doctor to take care of it for you. After all, your labia is only vestigal skin... its doesn't serve any function, like protecting the vagina from dirt, right? :roll:

Before you jump on me about FGM, in most cases, they remove the labia as well as the clitoris. Google it.

why change the subject? ahhhh, because that is what you do when a valid point is stated.

we are talking about circumcision of a male. i am not a male. i am not speaking out against one's desire not to be circumcised. i am against calling circumcision mutilation.

stay on topic.