- Joined
- Jul 7, 2022
Is it easier to eat the ass of a circ'd dude or a non-circ'd dude?It's easier to handjob a guy who has foreskin and it's slightly cleaner to blow a guy without foreskin, though
Come on @Stan, you gotta tell us!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is it easier to eat the ass of a circ'd dude or a non-circ'd dude?It's easier to handjob a guy who has foreskin and it's slightly cleaner to blow a guy without foreskin, though
Does circumcision affect the flavor of the ass? The people demand to know!Is it easier to eat the ass of a circ'd dude or a non-circ'd dude?
Come on @Stan, you gotta tell us!
Because Kellog the cereal magnate thought it would make boys masturbate less and somehow convinced most of society to go along with this. He also invented corn flakes because he thought they would make boys masturbate less. That fruitcake spent a lot of time thinking about boys masturbating.Why are so many Americans circumcized? Sounds like cultural appropriation if you ask me.
It's still astounding to me that a single grifter got an entire country to mutilate their dongs without it being a religious thing.Because Kellog the cereal magnate thought it would make boys masturbate less and somehow convinced most of society to go along with this. He also invented corn flakes because he thought they would make boys masturbate less. That fruitcake spent a lot of time thinking about boys masturbating.
There was a religious puritanical element to it and I'm pretty sure that's how it got big.It's still astounding to me that a single grifter got an entire country to mutilate their dongs without it being a religious thing.
Yeah but it's not like something that was prescribed in a holy book thousands of years ago. It capitalized on existing religious notions, but the concept was new.There was a religious puritanical element to it and I'm pretty sure that's how it got big.
The act is meant to reduce sexual pleasure in Judaism. Quoting Maimonides:Is it true that getting circ'd decreases sexual pleasure or is that an intactivist cope line?
Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
I'm glad we now have an expert on the matter!Oh are we talking about which we like better? This is a very gay topic @Gog & Magog
In light of the Stonetoss circumcision thing. I see these anti-circumcision activists doing IRL rallies and stuff, and I literally see nothing wrong with it and I appreciate their efforts, but the foreskin restoration research (which Stonetoss is pouring a lot of money into, IIRC) just seems like cope to me.There's no need for us to fight each other, there there is a 3rd party we can bully: Those that were circumcised and are now attempting to "regrow" a foreskin.
Yeah, I don't care if brown people circumcise their kids, but Europeans definitely shouldn't be partaking in such things.In the end, I just don't care much.
The circumcised Semites do so much more crap I despise that to moan about the foreskin of their babies would be a loss of time.
Just expropriate their banks and wealth and remove them from Hollywood and big tech, then deport all Muslims too, for good measure.
Then we can discuss foreskins, and even then, I'll still not care.
Forget what I said. Proper foreskin restoration does, infact de-keratinize the glans and restore foreskin nerve functionaity.In light of the Stonetoss circumcision thing. I see these anti-circumcision activists doing IRL rallies and stuff, and I literally see nothing wrong with it and I appreciate their efforts, but the foreskin restoration research (which Stonetoss is pouring a lot of money into, IIRC) just seems like cope to me.
You can make a fake foreskin, but you can't restore the lost nerves or de-keratinize your glans. The research should really be going into doing those things as well, or else the fake foreskin serves no purpose except aesthetic window-dressing. I don't know if foreskin restoration focuses on those aspects.
Also, I am not circumcised, and I'm very grateful to have my foreskin intact. Apparently, a Jewish doctor told my mom not to have it done, which is surprising to me.