Banning circumsicion

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some people must prefer the feel of their own skin over that of a vagina.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thousands of coiled fine touch receptors, branches of the dorsal nerve, 10-20k specialized erotogenic nerves endings of different types.  It removes the glide action that benefits both parties during intercourse.   This is why the nutball I mentioned earlier thought it would make us masturbate less.  It doesn't, ofc, it just makes it less fun.

To put a super funny nail in the coffin, what with all the worries about hygeine...it also removes the apparatus contained in the inner foreskin responsible... in undamaged dicks...for producing antibacterial and antiviral proteins as well as pathogen killing enzymes.  Our foreskins are not and never were a liability.  It's a critical part of the system and it's loss leads to diminished function.

No big deal, just, you know, all of that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You quoting yourself now?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, from pages ago - you did ask. I think this is ridiculous, beyond the fact that I'd already commented multiple times - and directly to you, on the question you asked. How much time would you spend asking me what possible loss of function there could be if I were to just snip the tips off your fingers off?

There are things the foreskin possesses and does, which people who have damaged or removed foreskins (redundant...), do not possess, and cannot do. It's not about "better". As with every elective cosmetic surgery, the whole point of doing it is that a good number of people think that the damaged dicks are better, somehow. Aesthetically, healthwise, whatever.

I guess if I was sitting in the ward, for example, thinking "I wanna know that when my son grows up, he can pound for days!" I might've considered it. Then rejected it on account of how slicing up infant dicks isn't my thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, from pages ago - you did ask.  I think this is ridiculous, beyond the fact that I'd already commented multiple times - and directly to you, on the question you asked.  How much time would you spend asking me what possible loss of function there could be if I were to just snip the tips off your fingers off?

There are things the foreskin possesses and does, which people who have damaged or removed foreskins (redundant...), do not possess, and cannot do.  It's not about "better".  As with every elective cosmetic surgery, the whole point of doing it is that a good number of people think that the damaged dicks are better, somehow.  Aesthetically, healthwise, whatever.

I guess if I was sitting in the ward, for example, thinking "I wanna know that when my son grows up, he can pound for days!" I might've considered it.  Then rejected it on account of how slicing up infant dicks isn't my thing.

You have the only valid opinion here. Via con diablos.

[The Grand Nudger]

The things that circumcision removes are not a matter of opinion, they are a material reality of human biology -though I do, ofc, have an opinion about lopping it off children. I have opinions, you have opinions we all have opinions. It's normalcy, for example. An opinion.

[Silver]

I can't miss something I never experienced.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can't miss something I never experienced.

Shame, that. But every prick has it's own pros and cons.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This thread demonstrates how much ego is wrapped up in the penis for some folk.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This thread demonstrates how much ego is wrapped up in the penis for some folk.

I satisfied that mine goes all the way to the end.