1. Post #121
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,356 Posts
    Are people honestly spouting that kind of nonsense as fact? If circumcised penis' are so mutilated or whatever you guys feel, why are a majority of porn actors circumcised? There are no notable side effects regarding performance, and anyone who tries to argue any differently is flat out wrong.
    Because the majority of them are American, genius.

    The fact that you're using things you see in porn as an argument is pretty fucking stupid and proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

    anyone who tries to argue any differently is flat out wrong.
    Good job you've exceeded Rick Santorum levels of ignorance by saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

  2. Post #122
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    It's strange that the same pro-life people who are all about protecting children are the ones lopping off parts of boys' dicks the instant they're born.

  3. Post #123
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Are people honestly spouting that kind of nonsense as fact? If circumcised penis' are so mutilated or whatever you guys feel, why are a majority of porn actors circumcised? There are no notable side effects regarding performance, and anyone who tries to argue any differently is flat out wrong.
    Do you know what biological purpose that particular organ serves?

  4. Post #124
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,535 Posts
    Because the majority of them are American, genius.

    The fact that you're using things you see in porn as an argument is pretty fucking stupid and proves you have no idea what you're talking about.


    Good job you've exceeded Rick Santorum levels of ignorance by saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
    So you're going to tell me straight to my face that because I'm circumcised I will never be as good of a lover as someone who's uncircumcised? Or that I have some kind of handicap because of something so undetrimental as a piece of skin was removed from my body?

    And how dare I use a 50 billion dollar industry as a reference for something. It's not like they're on the forefront of sexuality or anything.

    You're no better if you're trying to argue something without having the experience of both parties, just like any biased bigot.

  5. Post #125
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    So you're going to tell me straight to my face that because I'm circumcised I will never be as good of a lover as someone who's uncircumcised?
    Nobody said this.
    The only thing that has been said is that removing the foreskin makes the penis less sensitive and you have less powerful orgasms. It has no effect on the woman or man you're sleeping with.

    Edited:

    And how dare I use a 50 billion dollar industry as a reference for something. It's not like they're on the forefront of sexuality or anything.
    And the reason why American porn stars are circumcised is because they're American. Their parents didn't know they'd be in porn when they were born, so they snipped off their foreskin.

    There isn't that big of a pool of uncircumcised men in the US.

  6. Post #126
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,535 Posts
    Nobody said this.
    The only thing that has been said is that removing the foreskin makes the penis less sensitive and you have less powerful orgasms. It has no effect on the woman or man you're sleeping with.

    Edited:



    And the reason why American porn stars are circumcised is because they're American. Their parents didn't know they'd be in porn when they were born, so they snipped off their foreskin.

    There isn't that big of a pool of uncircumcised men in the US.
    I think that depends on the actual percentage of circumcised men in the U.S. The porn industry does hire the porn actors, and when most of those hired are circumcised it could be due to a customer preference for circumcised men. This point could be argued, however, given statistical data of a percentage of circumcised men.

  7. Post #127
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    I think that depends on the actual percentage of circumcised men in the U.S. The porn industry does hire the porn actors, and when most of those hired are circumcised it could be due to a customer preference for circumcised men. This point could be argued, however, given statistical data of a percentage of circumcised men.
    There is not any reliable data because there is no dick box on the US census.

    Estimates hover around ~80% of all men in the US are circumcised at birth, but the estimates vary wildly.

    The reason circumcised porn stars perform better is because the foreskin is absolutely full of thousands of nerve-endings and is one big erogenous zone. It is also hypothesized that the glans (head) of a circumcised male becomes much less sensitive due to exposure and over-stimulation, killing many of the near-surface nerve endings. Ultimately, it makes intercourse less pleasurable for the male, and makes it more difficult for the male to please his partner (due to a decreased ability to gauge where he and his partner are in relation to orgasm due to a lack of sensation.) Even more: the foreskin, when erect, provides a cushioning layer atop the phallus which decreases chafing and discomfort, and allows for greater sensation.

    Porn starts last longer because their dick cannot feel as much.

  8. Post #128
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    I think that depends on the actual percentage of circumcised men in the U.S. The porn industry does hire the porn actors, and when most of those hired are circumcised it could be due to a customer preference for circumcised men. This point could be argued, however, given statistical data of a percentage of circumcised men.
    The preference of the people viewing porn has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
    So what if most American men prefer circumcised male actors?
    That has nothing to do with the actor's own sexual pleasure.

  9. Post #129
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,535 Posts
    There is not any reliable data because there is no dick box on the US census.

    Estimates hover around ~80% of all men in the US are circumcised at birth, but the estimates vary wildly.
    Could that differ regionally? I feel like out here in the west it might not be as prevalent as in the east.

    Edited:

    The preference of the people viewing porn has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
    So what if most American men prefer circumcised male actors?
    That has nothing to do with the actor's own sexual pleasure.
    If circumcision so greatly reduces sexual pleasure why would so many people enjoy such mutilated penises?

  10. Post #130
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Could that differ regionally? I feel like out here in the west it might not be as prevalent as in the east.

    Edited:



    If circumcision so greatly reduces sexual pleasure why would so many people enjoy such mutilated penises?
    No good estimates that I can find.

    Edited above post:

    The reason circumcised porn stars perform better is because the foreskin is absolutely full of thousands of nerve-endings and is one big erogenous zone. It is also hypothesized that the glans (head) of a circumcised male becomes much less sensitive due to exposure and over-stimulation, killing many of the near-surface nerve endings. Ultimately, it makes intercourse less pleasurable for the male, and makes it more difficult for the male to please his partner (due to a decreased ability to gauge where he and his partner are in relation to orgasm due to a lack of sensation.) Even more: the foreskin, when erect, provides a cushioning layer atop the phallus which decreases chafing and discomfort, and allows for greater sensation.

    Porn starts last longer because their dick cannot feel as much. You enjoy mutilated genitals because they were mutilated from birth, before they were even finished developing. You've never experienced the other side of the equation. For a circumcised male, he has no idea what natural intercourse would feel like, and vice versa.

    The point is that this is not a decision parents should be making for their children, especially not on religious or cultural grounds. One could even argue it's a method of indoctrination, permanently marking the child with the religion of the parents.

    You can't give a newborn a coat of tattoos or breast implants. You shouldn't be able to chop the tip of their dick off.

  11. Post #131
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    If circumcision so greatly reduces sexual pleasure why would so many people enjoy such mutilated penises?
    The viewer of porn isn't participating in the act.
    He just sees what the penis looks like, he can't feel what the actor feels.

  12. Post #132
    a-k-t-w's Avatar
    March 2008
    3,186 Posts
    If circumcision so greatly reduces sexual pleasure why would so many people enjoy such mutilated penises?
    the same way you get a foot fetish, i imagine.

  13. Post #133
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,356 Posts
    If circumcision so greatly reduces sexual pleasure why would so many people enjoy such mutilated penises?
    What are you even trying to say with this post? You have horrifically broken English.

    What do they "enjoy" about it? More importantly, who? Fuck it i'll just give multiple explanations.

    The look? Penises are ugly as shit, they're meat sticks covered in veins with a bulb at the end, foreskin hides the ugliest part.
    The feel? Less nerves = less feelings, it's a fact.

  14. Post #134
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,535 Posts
    What are you even trying to say with this post? You have horrifically broken English.

    What do they "enjoy" about it? More importantly, who? Fuck it i'll just give multiple explanations.

    The look? Penises are ugly as shit, they're meat sticks covered in veins with a bulb at the end, foreskin hides the ugliest part.
    The feel? Less nerves = less feelings, it's a fact.
    Would you enjoy a porn actor with a amputated leg or one with a whole leg? Obviously you'd prefer the natural one. Then why doesn't this hold true to circumcision in pornography? I didn't realize I would have to spell things out for you.

    No good estimates that I can find.

    Edited above post:

    The reason circumcised porn stars perform better is because the foreskin is absolutely full of thousands of nerve-endings and is one big erogenous zone. It is also hypothesized that the glans (head) of a circumcised male becomes much less sensitive due to exposure and over-stimulation, killing many of the near-surface nerve endings. Ultimately, it makes intercourse less pleasurable for the male, and makes it more difficult for the male to please his partner (due to a decreased ability to gauge where he and his partner are in relation to orgasm due to a lack of sensation.) Even more: the foreskin, when erect, provides a cushioning layer atop the phallus which decreases chafing and discomfort, and allows for greater sensation.

    Porn starts last longer because their dick cannot feel as much. You enjoy mutilated genitals because they were mutilated from birth, before they were even finished developing. You've never experienced the other side of the equation. For a circumcised male, he has no idea what natural intercourse would feel like, and vice versa.

    The point is that this is not a decision parents should be making for their children, especially not on religious or cultural grounds. One could even argue it's a method of indoctrination, permanently marking the child with the religion of the parents.

    You can't give a newborn a coat of tattoos or breast implants. You shouldn't be able to chop the tip of their dick off.
    According to wikipedia:

    In January 2007, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [. . .] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[47] A 2010 review reported that "despite conflicting results in some of the historical observational studies, most recent articles do not show evidence of adverse effects on sexual function."[58] A review which analysed the data from eight clinical trials concluded that the "evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function."

  15. Post #135
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,356 Posts
    Would you enjoy a porn actor with a amputated leg or one with a whole leg? Obviously you'd prefer the natural one. Then why doesn't this hold true to circumcision in pornography? I didn't realize I would have to spell things out for you.
    You're incredibly dense if you think people buy and enjoy porn because the male actors have cut dicks, that has nothing to do with it, at all.

    You might as well be complaining about the color of the room they're in.

  16. Post #136
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    To address the core issue, parents ought to not have any say, outside of health reasoning, in any permanent decision that affects the child.

    This is because children are not property; parents are legally recognized guardians, with the duty to educate and care for a child, not make lasting decisions on a child's behalf.

  17. Post #137
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,535 Posts
    You're incredibly dense if you think people buy and enjoy porn because the male actors have cut dicks, that has nothing to do with it, at all.

    You might as well be complaining about the color of the room they're in.
    'You're incredibly dense if you think people buy and enjoy porn based on how the actors look. That has nothing to do with it, at all.'

    Also props to atlascore for being the first to completely stray from the debate at hand and try to insult me on a personal level.

  18. Post #138
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,356 Posts
    'You're incredibly dense if you think people buy and enjoy porn based on how the actors look. That has nothing to do with it, at all.'

    Also props to atlascore for being the first to completely stray from the debate at hand and try to insult me on a personal level.
    So you've given up on your terrible argument then?

    Bringing up pornography was stupid in the first place, comparing amputated limbs to circumcision was even stupider.

    No one gives a fuck what their dicks look like, if you're straight you'll be focusing on the girl, if you're gay you'll be focusing on the dude, either way their body (IE tits/ass) and face will be far more appealing than their genitals in that situation, or any situation involving nudity.

  19. Post #139
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,535 Posts
    So you've given up on your terrible argument then?

    Bringing up pornography was stupid in the first place, comparing amputated limbs to circumcision was even stupider.

    No one gives a fuck what their dicks look like, if you're straight you'll be focusing on the girl, if you're gay you'll be focusing on the dude, either way their body (IE tits/ass) and face will be far more appealing than their genitals in that situation, or any situation involving nudity.
    Considering there are entire porn sites dedicated to certain types of dicks I would have to disagree

  20. Post #140
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,356 Posts
    Considering there are entire porn sites dedicated to certain types of dicks I would have to disagree
    There are porn sites dedicated to everything, it doesn't mean it's popular, there are people into feet, that doesn't mean everyone is into feet or even cares about them.

  21. Post #141
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    Christ, how many times do I have to tell you the aesthetics of a penis has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.

  22. Post #142
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,724 Posts
    When erect doesn't a circumcised penis look like an uncircumcised one anyway? Which is why the whole appearance things go out the window.

    If your penis' flaccid appearance is really a detrimental effect on you, then I suspect you have deeper problems.

  23. Post #143
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,352 Posts
    When erect doesn't a circumcised penis look like an uncircumcised one anyway?
    no it looks different
    there's a whole layer of foreskin on top of it and it doesn't retract 100% to the back

    i'm a medical student, not a penis fanatic just an fyi

  24. Post #144
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    i am not a medical student i just look at a lot of dicks.

  25. Post #145
    froztshock's Avatar
    August 2009
    2,810 Posts
    But the fact remains that it IS harmful, regardless of its extent.
    Did I imply otherwise? If so it wasn't intentional.

  26. Post #146
    Silverspar's Avatar
    May 2009
    1,143 Posts
    You can't really say yes or no when you're a baby, can you?
    Also, aren't there ways to restore it later in life?

  27. Post #147
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    You can't really say yes or no when you're a baby, can you?
    Also, aren't there ways to restore it later in life?
    Cosmetically, but the nerves are gone forever.

  28. Post #148

    May 2012
    3 Posts
    nice post...............

    (User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - 2 in 1 day" - Megafan))

  29. Post #149
    fuck
    Transverse's Avatar
    February 2011
    441 Posts
    Cosmetically, but the nerves are gone forever.
    Get me a study that shows the difference of pleasure between circumcised and uncircumcised. I implore you.

  30. Post #150
    Killer99531's Avatar
    February 2010
    21 Posts
    No. Absolutely not. It bothers me how no-one sees that chopping off the foreskin of a child with no say in it is just a liiiittle bit wrong.

  31. Post #151
    Stinger21's Avatar
    August 2010
    293 Posts
    Arguing that circumcision of a baby is ok is almost like arguing that chopping off a baby's toe is ok. You'll go through life just fine without it, just like you'll be just fine without your foreskin. The problem is that you are removing something from their body without their consent which in any other case would be illegal. If you want to do it when you are older and can choose for yourself just like piercings or plastic surgery then more power to you.

  32. Post #152
    Idzo's Avatar
    October 2011
    1,320 Posts
    I never saw what was so good about circumcision,it is something that needs to die out.
    It should be the child's choice (which will be 100% no,because who want s to get skin cut from their penis for no reason).
    A lot of people say that it is "just" a piece of skin.
    Your eyelid is "just" a piece of skin too.

  33. Post #153
    i enjoy sucking pony dick
    Wolfie13's Avatar
    November 2006
    1,545 Posts
    No, circumcision is wrong because it doesn't meet the medical requirement of informed consent on the part of the patient. Maybe I'm just left-wing like this, but decisions about a child's healthcare should probably be made by an independent 3rd party. The parents are either not well enough educated or too emotionally clouded to make a fair judgement.


    In America this topic avoids proper debate because:
    1. Penises are icky and talking about them turns you gay. The issue is taboo and as a result nobody wants to go get the facts.
    2. It was literally a crackpot thing from the 50s when they thought jacking off would kill you, and like a lot of shit from the 50s ("Under god" guys, seriously?) they have trouble letting go.
    3. People are not as smart on average, sometimes seeking to have their children to be in image of them. ("I had no problems, they'll be fine", again this is an issue of not being informed)

    And yeah basically this being an entirely American phenomenon (beside africa, where it's being done for the 10% decrease in AIDS transmission, which is a genuinely worthwhile reduction because it can save 30,000 lives a year at current rates) gives away that the benefits are either moot or not universal.

    P.s any chance of death from a nonessential medical procedure is too much of a chance, and circumcision does carry a risk of infection and therefore death.

  34. Post #154
    Abrown516's Avatar
    November 2009
    3,863 Posts
    When erect doesn't a circumcised penis look like an uncircumcised one anyway? Which is why the whole appearance things go out the window.

    If your penis' flaccid appearance is really a detrimental effect on you, then I suspect you have deeper problems.
    First of all you said that backwards. Second, you can still pull the foreskin over the head of an erect uncircumcised penis. You have to stretch it to keep it back.

  35. Post #155
    Videopray's Avatar
    June 2007
    111 Posts
    When (if) I have a child I'll allow him to chose whether or not he wants a circumcision at a certain age, I dislike the idea that I'll never be able to experience sex naturally.

  36. Post #156
    Neolk's Avatar
    November 2007
    1,047 Posts
    The parent should be able to make an aesthetic choice regarding their child.

    Suppose your child is born with an extra ear, or an extra toe, or finger? Suppose the doctor says, "No worries, 0% risk of health complications as a result of the extra ___." Should the parents not be allowed to remove the extra toe/finger/ear from their child at birth?

    Before all of you who say, "It's different, foreskin isn't a deformity." Consider the reason parents remove the foreskin from their child - either for aesthetic or religious reasons, which means the motive for the removal is the same.

    So long as a trained professional is performing the procedure, I see nothing wrong with it.

  37. Post #157
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    The parent should be able to make an aesthetic choice regarding their child.

    Suppose your child is born with an extra ear, or an extra toe, or finger? Suppose the doctor says, "No worries, 0% risk of health complications as a result of the extra ___." Should the parents not be allowed to remove the extra toe/finger/ear from their child at birth?

    Before all of you who say, "It's different, foreskin isn't a deformity." Consider the reason parents remove the foreskin from their child - either for aesthetic or religious reasons, which means the motive for the removal is the same.

    So long as a trained professional is performing the procedure, I see nothing wrong with it.
    In that case, I assume you'd approve of parents getting their kids tattoos or other cosmetic surgeries without their consent?

  38. Post #158
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    The parent should be able to make an aesthetic choice regarding their child.

    Suppose your child is born with an extra ear, or an extra toe, or finger? Suppose the doctor says, "No worries, 0% risk of health complications as a result of the extra ___." Should the parents not be allowed to remove the extra toe/finger/ear from their child at birth?

    Before all of you who say, "It's different, foreskin isn't a deformity." Consider the reason parents remove the foreskin from their child - either for aesthetic or religious reasons, which means the motive for the removal is the same.

    So long as a trained professional is performing the procedure, I see nothing wrong with it.
    Do you consider children property?

  39. Post #159
    Gold Member
    Contag's Avatar
    July 2010
    11,828 Posts
    In that case, I assume you'd approve of parents getting their kids tattoos or other cosmetic surgeries without their consent?
    I'm anti-circumcision, but a significant number of children get braces and further orthodontic treatment. Plenty also have their ears pierced, and so on.

    We're pretty guilty in the West actually

  40. Post #160
    Neolk's Avatar
    November 2007
    1,047 Posts
    In that case, I assume you'd approve of parents getting their kids tattoos or other cosmetic surgeries without their consent?
    Obviously there are extremes to it, and you've named a few. I could tell you that I approve of parents piercing their kids ears. In this sense, the 'limits' to aesthetics seem to be based on "acceptable" cultural standards. I could ask you a similar question: are you again removing extra limbs, or surgically repairing things like cleft lips?

    Its a thin line, I'll admit. But I think circumcision, because it is such a small deal, can be grouped with the former and away from the extremes.

    Also @Bletotum, no I don't.