› ›
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Circumcision does not reduce sensitivity

1…5681011…22

Posts

  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Picardathon wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Why is your apathy about this issue superior to caring about it?

    Maybe, just maybe, its because no one should give a fuck about a little vestigal flap of skin that no one will ever notice anyway?

    You already said that line dipshit, and someone already called you on it.

    The foreskin is not vestigial.

    What is it used for?

    That has nothing to do with whether its vestigial or not.

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

    • Agree Awesome
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Fallout wrote: »
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Why is your apathy about this issue superior to caring about it?

    Because it's not worth caring about.

    It is worth not giving a fuck about, however. If you think it decreases sensation regardless of the outcome of the scientific study in the OP, sure, keep it, whatever. If you want to have it done to yourself or your kid, it will have zero impact on their life, ever, so snip it off, whatever.

    And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

    Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.
    Full circle!

    So there you have it - you don't care, that other people do - apparently - you don't care about. Me me me me me. Anyone who disagrees is clearly retarded!

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
    • Agree Awesome
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Picardathon wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Why is your apathy about this issue superior to caring about it?

    Maybe, just maybe, its because no one should give a fuck about a little vestigal flap of skin that no one will ever notice anyway?

    You already said that line dipshit, and someone already called you on it.

    The foreskin is not vestigial.

    What is it used for?
    I do imagine it's purpose was to protect the glans of the penis from incidental environmental damage, sunburn that sort of thing. As it stands it is a handy masturbation aid at the minimum.

    But its already erect anyway?
    Whatever.
    I say its vestigal because it was useful once and is not anymore, because there are millions of useful devices that are used by nearly all males in the world for protecting their wang. These devices are called pants. In case these fail many wear backup devices called underpants.
    Therefore DarkPrimus, you are the dipshit.

    Spoiler:
    • Agree Awesome
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Picardathon wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Why is your apathy about this issue superior to caring about it?

    Maybe, just maybe, its because no one should give a fuck about a little vestigal flap of skin that no one will ever notice anyway?

    You already said that line dipshit, and someone already called you on it.

    The foreskin is not vestigial.

    What is it used for?

    It's a sheath designed to protect an extremely sensitive part of the body.

    If only someone would invent underwear, or pants.

    xcomsig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    Fallout wrote: »
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

    Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.
    I have to agree. I think the benefits of being uncircumcised come from maturing from birth with the "feature". Forcefully growing foreskin later in life just doesn't seem reasonable.

    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Picardathon wrote: »
    People who don't want circumcision oppose in on a moral basis and, if allowed, would enact legislation preventing it for the sake of a bunch of tiny babies who wont remember it anyway.
    I want to circumcise any sons I have, but I don't have any problem if you don't, because I shouldn't have control over your life.

    Do you think that it's right that people have to tell the hospital "No, don't circumcise my child"?

    Unnecessary surgery should not be the default practice.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Picardathon wrote: »
    But its already erect anyway?
    Whatever.
    I say its vestigal because it was useful once and is not anymore, because there are millions of useful devices that are used by nearly all males in the world for protecting their wang. These devices are called pants. In case these fail many wear backup devices called underpants.
    Therefore DarkPrimus, you are the dipshit.
    And yet funnily enough regardless of it's vestigial nature or not (something clearly not well defined in the literature) you have yet to show why the better option is clearly to remove choice from people.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
    • Agree Awesome
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Why is your apathy about this issue superior to caring about it?

    Because it's not worth caring about.

    It is worth not giving a fuck about, however. If you think it decreases sensation regardless of the outcome of the scientific study in the OP, sure, keep it, whatever. If you want to have it done to yourself or your kid, it will have zero impact on their life, ever, so snip it off, whatever.

    And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

    Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.
    Full circle!

    So there you have it - you don't care, that other people do - apparently - you don't care about. Me me me me me. Anyone who disagrees is clearly retarded!

    Yes, that is exactly what I said.

    :roll:

    A dude who tries to regrow his fucking foreskin has some mental issues.

    why are you so passionate about this, again? aside from "IF WE DON'T SOLVE THE MINOR PHILISOPHICAL ISSUES HOW CAN WE SOLVE THE BIG ONES" which is also stupid as hell, and not just because I disagree with it.

    xcomsig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Registered User regular
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    • Agree Awesome
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Hoz wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

    Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.
    I have to agree. I think the benefits of being uncircumcised come from maturing from birth with the "feature". Forcefully growing foreskin later in life just doesn't seem reasonable.
    People ultimately do lots of things that aren't reasonable. Provided it doesn't impact on others then I'm largely concerned with whether it makes them happier. And they would say, it does.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
    • Agree Awesome
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
    • Agree Awesome
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Why is your apathy about this issue superior to caring about it?

    Because it's not worth caring about.

    It is worth not giving a fuck about, however. If you think it decreases sensation regardless of the outcome of the scientific study in the OP, sure, keep it, whatever. If you want to have it done to yourself or your kid, it will have zero impact on their life, ever, so snip it off, whatever.

    And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

    Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.
    Full circle!

    So there you have it - you don't care, that other people do - apparently - you don't care about. Me me me me me. Anyone who disagrees is clearly retarded!
    How many people care so much about a fucking foreskin that they put in so much time and effort to recover it anyway? And how many of these people are masochists? No one is willing to answer this because it throws a wrench into their idea that foreskins are divine tools and the most useful part of the body, and therefore you would want to undergo 1-5 years of pain to recover one.

    Spoiler:
    • Agree Awesome
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Picardathon wrote: »
    People who don't want circumcision oppose in on a moral basis and, if allowed, would enact legislation preventing it for the sake of a bunch of tiny babies who wont remember it anyway.
    I want to circumcise any sons I have, but I don't have any problem if you don't, because I shouldn't have control over your life.

    Do you think that it's right that people have to tell the hospital "No, don't circumcise my child"?

    Unnecessary surgery should not be the default practice.

    I'll agree with this at least.

    Jewish conspiracy!

    xcomsig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    it has caused a few problems

    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Picardathon wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Its a shame that underwear is made of barbed wire and thatch that will turn the head of your penis into a bleeding mass without a foreskin.
    Oh, wait, underwear is soft.

    Spoiler:
    • Agree Awesome
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    xcomsig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    Meh, I'm just happy that my foreskin is probably helping out a burn victim, or something of the like. They do use that flap, right?

    • Agree Awesome
  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User
    Well the problem with circumcision is an unnecessary operation is being performed on someone without their consent. Granted its a minor operation but dosen't that still strike you as being a little wrong?

    • Agree Awesome
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    oh come on

    you cannot tell me you haven't worn really nice underwear and like
    well
    had to pretend to drop your books?

    • Agree Awesome
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
    • Agree Awesome
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    Picardathon wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Its a shame that underwear is made of barbed wire and thatch that will turn the head of your penis into a bleeding mass without a foreskin.
    Oh, wait, underwear is soft.
    Not soft enough for an uncircumcised person to feel comfortable going about with their foreskin pulled back.

    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Picardathon wrote: »
    How many people care so much about a fucking foreskin that they put in so much time and effort to recover it anyway? And how many of these people are masochists? No one is willing to answer this because it throws a wrench into their idea that foreskins are divine tools and the most useful part of the body, and therefore you would want to undergo 1-5 years of pain to recover one.
    Why don't you go and post the statistic on how many are masochists, coz you know I'm not the one making the positive claim about that one. The fact is people do, and you've yet to show me why we should ignore their desires?

    Why is it so important to you that we allow people to arbitrarily impose this little bit of unnecessary coercion on people, for a completely optional procedure that can in fact be performed any time in a man's life, but which cannot be easily reversed and does in fact cause emotional and/or psychological distress to people that could otherwise be completely avoided?

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
    • Agree Awesome
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

    It's the part "under the mushroom", so to speak. I don't recall the scientific term for it and I don't want to look at a bunch of wangs looking up the term on Wikipedia.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Registered User regular
    Picardathon wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Its a shame that underwear is made of barbed wire and thatch that will turn the head of your penis into a bleeding mass without a foreskin.
    Oh, wait, underwear is soft.

    Could you hi-light the bit where I said that happens?

    Thanks.

    Yes, it's soft, but that skin is a lot softer. It is irritating to some, others don't notice it. If you rub your wang against cloth like that, it will eventually dry out and get irritated. Which is what your doing, very, very slowly with underwear. This isn't really important, it's just another reason. Really, the important ones are:

    It's unnecessary surgery.
    It can't really be reversed, and it's being performed without the consent of the patient.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    • Agree Awesome
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

    And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."

    Edit: also agree that it shouldn't be the default, but something that is done with parental consent.

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
    • Agree Awesome
  • Alchemist449Alchemist449 Registered User
    I'm circumcised, but my kid won't be. I empathize with my my parents probably chose this (I don't want to know exactly, that'd be the worst. conversation. ever.) but I don't think it's all that important for my spawn to undergo this procedure.

    Also, if you insecure enough about yourself to the point where you stretch the skin of your penis to repair damage done to you by your evil parents....you've got bigger problems than a less sensitive meatstick.

    • Agree Awesome
  • VariableVariable The Excellence of Execution Calgary, Albert CARegistered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

    yes but that's not where it's cut from.

    The best there is, the best there was, the best there ever will be
    Sig%20-%20Bret%20And%20Owen%20Hart.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Picardathon wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.

    Spoiler:
    • Agree Awesome
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Registered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    It can make for some pretty awkward situations depending on your pants, your penis, and the way you move.

    I've had my share of awkward moments from getting my glans rubbed on a warm day.

    And oh geeze if that happens when you're moving fast.... that's one place you do not want to chafe.

    freefallagent.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

    And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."

    Edit: also agree that it shouldn't be the default, but something that is done with parental consent.

    If it wasn't the default, I would wager good money that the number of children who are circumcised when they are infants would drop dramatically.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    So, at worst, and assuming I have these imaginary calluses on my dick, I last longer with a female.

    Terror!

    xcomsig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY EVERY DAYRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    It can make for some pretty awkward situations depending on your pants, your penis, and the way you move.

    I've had my share of awkward moments from getting my glans rubbed on a warm day.

    And oh geeze if that happens when you're moving fast.... that's one place you do not want to chafe.

    Never ever in my entire life, even once, has my dong gotten chafed.

    xcomsig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."

    The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

    I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

    Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

    And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
    Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
    • Agree Awesome
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

    Could a foreskin really have helped you there? That sounds kind of serious.

    Spoiler:
    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Picardathon wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Picardathon wrote: »
    I say its vestigal

    You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.

    Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
    Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.

    It is not useless. Several people have already told you why it's there.

    I can't walk around with my foreskin pulled back because the skin there is too sensitive to be rubbing against my underwear.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Fallout wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Fallout wrote: »
    INeedNoSalt wrote: »
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

    Does that cause anyone trouble?

    I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

    For me? Not even a little bit.

    And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

    So, at worst, and assuming I have these imaginary calluses on my dick, I last longer with a female.

    Terror!

    You seem to be under the impression that scar tissue = horrific looking mutilations. No, sorry, scars don't always look abnormal.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
    • Agree Awesome
This discussion has been closed.
› ›