|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:41:41 GMT
Sexual pleasure is not affected by male circumcision (I think that's something uncut dudes say to themselves to as a confidence booster), so there is no reason to put a reason not based on fact as the reason. Sorry dude but you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is a proven fact that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis and has the most nerve endings. Common sense should tell you that if you cut that off, you’re going to lose sensation. The idea that your cut penis could work as efficiently as one that was designed as normal is most likely something cut guys just tell themselves to give them a confidence boost. An intact guy wouldn’t need a confidence boost anyway. Seriously, where is the logic in that anyway? If a guy wants to get part of his dick cut off, he can just go make an appointment at the doctor. If a circumcised guy wants part of his dick back, he’s fucked! Again, common sense. In any case guys who get circumcised later in life (without a medical reason) more often than no lt regret the decision, and end up noticing a loss in sensitivity. Pretending that that type of surgery would have no effect on sensation or function is cognitive dissonance! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:43:29 GMT
You’re speaking from the standpoint of tolerance and acceptance, and I appreciate that. But the problem I see here is you’re using “logic” to rationalize your religious belief, one that is presumably based on biblical scripture (correct me if I’m wrong). But the Bible uses no such logic! It doesn’t say whether God would be okay with that at all. In fact, many passages strongly suggest the opposite. Furthermore, it gives no reason why God is not okay with gay relationships, or sexual relationships outside of marriage. It simply says they are “sins” (not directly, but strongly implied). So how do you justify such a belief logically when there is no biblical basis for your interpretation? Just seems to me if God is ultra against gay relationships there would be more passages admonishing the behavior than there are and we'd read of Jesus Himself speaking out against it. As it is there is significantly more admonishing hetero sexual behavior. The Christian answer to that is simple: it’s ALL sin outside of heterosexual marriage. To that, you say what? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 6, 2017 12:47:20 GMT
Just seems to me if God is ultra against gay relationships there would be more passages admonishing the behavior than there are and we'd read of Jesus Himself speaking out against it. As it is there is significantly more admonishing hetero sexual behavior. The Christian answer to that is simple: it’s ALL sin outside of heterosexual marriage. To that, you say what? Respectfully I think I was pretty clear with my views before. I'm not sure what you're looking for. Nothing new I can really add. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:48:23 GMT
I'm saying an uncut dude is an idiot if they think they can gauge the sexual pleasure of a circumcised dude. It's not even something that should be a concern for whoever it is, like Bryce, who thinks about it. Tons of circumcised dudes are having plenty of gratifying sex, or as the OP defines it, masturbating freely. The “idiot” in this conversation is the one who cannot follow basic reasoning. But then, you never really have in the past either, so this does not come as a shocker. The argument is that circumcised guys cannot have gratifying sex or masturbate freely. Obviously we know they do! The argument rather is that they experience less pleasure, and that it (and masturbation) usually require much more effort (since some of the natural function and sensation has been lost). If you think that this isn’t true then you are absolutely delusional! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:50:06 GMT
The Christian answer to that is simple: it’s ALL sin outside of heterosexual marriage. To that, you say what? Respectfully I think I was pretty clear with my views before. I'm not sure what you're looking for. Nothing new I can really add. It’s a simple question (not really that difficult, so I’m not sure why you are so hesitant to answer). I didn’t ask if you personally thought that God was more okay with one sin than another. The question is: Is homosexual sex, and sex outside of marriage sin - yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 6, 2017 12:56:08 GMT
Respectfully I think I was pretty clear with my views before. I'm not sure what you're looking for. Nothing new I can really add. It’s a simple question (not really that difficult, so I’m not sure why you are so hesitant to answer). I didn’t ask if you personally thought that God was more okay with one sin than another. The question is: Is homosexual sex, and sex outside of marriage sin - yes or no? We all know the bible and church says it is. |
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Oct 6, 2017 12:58:34 GMT
I'm circumcised, but if I received any more pleasure from sex than I already do, I'd never do anything but have sex and masturbate all day long. There's your answer then.
And welcome to my world.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 13:01:37 GMT
It’s a simple question (not really that difficult, so I’m not sure why you are so hesitant to answer). I didn’t ask if you personally thought that God was more okay with one sin than another. The question is: Is homosexual sex, and sex outside of marriage sin - yes or no? We all know the bible and church says it is. So you’re willing to concede that you’re belief is in fact in conflict with what your religion teaches? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 13:02:56 GMT
I'm circumcised, but if I received any more pleasure from sex than I already do, I'd never do anything but have sex and masturbate all day long. There's your answer then.
And welcome to my world.
I didn’t see that quote, but the person who said it acts like that’s a bad thing. Lol! |
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Oct 6, 2017 13:03:23 GMT
This question is mostly for theists (particularly Jews and some Christians) who believe that God commanded you to cut your foreskin off. Why did God "create you" with foreskin, but then demand that you cut it off? Isn't it possible that people feared that sexual pleasure would encourage the "sin" of masturbation, and appropriated that ancient Egyptian practice of circumcision (disguised as a command from God) in order to impede your sinful masturbatory habits? Discuss! It's a control mechanism!
If you suffer such severe pain as a baby, and the first thing you see when you look up is your parents, you're going to believe whatever they tell you to believe.
It's true that a baby's brain changes 'almost' beyond all recognition by the time they become toddlers, let alone teens, but that deeply ingrained control mechanism is going to stay with you for the rest of your life.
If your parents tell you to believe in (insert deity here) you're definitely going to believe in him!
|
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Oct 6, 2017 13:04:40 GMT
There's your answer then.
And welcome to my world.
I didn’t see that quote, but the person who said it acts like that’s a bad thing. Lol! Fap, fap, fap, fap, sorry; I'm a bit busy it the moment, fap, fap, fap...
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 6, 2017 13:08:33 GMT
We all know the bible and church says it is. So you’re willing to concede that you’re belief is in fact in conflict with what your religion teaches? If what I said before wasn't clear or obvious enough to answer this the answer is yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 6, 2017 13:12:54 GMT
There's your answer then.
And welcome to my world.
I didn’t see that quote, but the person who said it acts like that’s a bad thing. Lol! Well, there are other things I want to do, too, and I at least need to be able to earn money for porn and so that I have a place to have sex and masturbate. Also, I wouldn't want to be ready to blow my load in two seconds when having sex. If I were any more sensitive than I am, that would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 13:25:15 GMT
I'm saying an uncut dude is an idiot if they think they can gauge the sexual pleasure of a circumcised dude. It's not even something that should be a concern for whoever it is, like Bryce, who thinks about it. Tons of circumcised dudes are having plenty of gratifying sex, or as the OP defines it, masturbating freely. The “idiot” in this conversation is the one who cannot follow basic reasoning. But then, you never really have in the past either, so this does not come as a shocker. The argument is that circumcised guys cannot have gratifying sex or masturbate freely. Obviously we know they do! The argument rather is that they experience less pleasure, and that it (and masturbation) usually require much more effort (since some of the natural function and sensation has been lost). If you think that this isn’t true then you are absolutely delusional! You're missing the point.
It's not an argument in the first place so the person pretending it is one has mental issues.
I'm not saying that's you necessarily since I doubt very seriously that you are capable of coming up with an original thought whether fiction or nonfiction.
However, if it is you, then you're a moron that needs to move on from other people's [fantasy] penis problems.
Now if you want to debate his on a logical basis, then I will school you on that too. It's pretty easy to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 13:29:21 GMT
Sexual pleasure is not affected by male circumcision (I think that's something uncut dudes say to themselves to as a confidence booster), so there is no reason to put a reason not based on fact as the reason. Sorry dude but you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is a proven fact that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis and has the most nerve endings. Common sense should tell you that if you cut that off, you’re going to lose sensation. The idea that your cut penis could work as efficiently as one that was designed as normal is most likely something cut guys just tell themselves to give them a confidence boost. An intact guy wouldn’t need a confidence boost anyway. Seriously, where is the logic in that anyway? If a guy wants to get part of his dick cut off, he can just go make an appointment at the doctor. If a circumcised guy wants part of his dick back, he’s fucked! Again, common sense. In any case guys who get circumcised later in life (without a medical reason) more often than no lt regret the decision, and end up noticing a loss in sensitivity. Pretending that that type of surgery would have no effect on sensation or function is cognitive dissonance! Let's pretend this is true.
It doesn't matter since there is more than enough sensitivity that people for thousands of years have managed to enjoy sex as often as they can get it from a willing partner, or as in your case, with your hand since masturbation is so important to you, but also to the point of ejaculating all over the place.
If one likes sex, then sex is fantastic regardless of foreskin existence and lack of foreskin has not stopped even one jerkoff session if that's what one is wanting to do with their free sexy time.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 13:43:38 GMT
Theist lol. Anyway, for this to be accurate is to assume guys circumcised guys aren't experiencing pleasure. I can't speak for all of us, but I have sex almost exclusively for pleasure. But thanks for thinking about my long lost foreskin!  Well there is no doubt that generally speaking it has the effect of reducing sensitivity. And it is well known that this was one of the main reasons it was popularized in mainstream America in the late 1800s (when doctors sold it on the merits of preventing masturbation). Regardless, I’m speaking more towards the motivation of those who invented this seemingly barbaric ritual. But thanks for letting everyone know you are circumcised! Finally, you seem to being making a broad generalization that is basically
Loss of foreskin = Loss of sensitivity = No pleasure
If this is so, then your equivalency skills are deficient.
If it's not true, then what's the issue?
Now back to the ridiculous religious argument
The reasons given for circumcision are abundantly clear in the Bible.
There are few if any verses that indicate sexual pleasure is a bad thing or even that sex is meant exclusively for childbearing, meaning the assumption is sex can be for sex.
So if Scripture has never indicated that circumcision is meant to curb pleasure, brings out examples of it not curbing pleasure, & circumcised dudes since Bible times have loved boinking specifically for the pleasurable feeling it provides, then how does one become so stupid as to assume God invented (Which you seem to indicate was invented by Egyptians anyway...) to curb sexual pleasure by preventing masturbation sessions?
Now the masturbation part may be valid in that God forbids his followers from fornication as well as giving into sexual urges which could lead to sex out of wedlock, gay sex, &/or rampant jerkoff sessions, but all of that is in light of the fact that desire + pleasure leads to those acts even for circumcised dudes.
There's another obvious reason too but I don't think OP will be able to hold up to theses, so I'll let it be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 6, 2017 13:53:16 GMT
It didn't work.  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 6, 2017 13:57:44 GMT
I don't doubt that circumcised penises are less sensitive, but I'm not joking that I wouldn't want to be any more sensitive than I am as a circumcised man. I'd imagine I would have had serious premature ejaculation problems if I'd been more sensitive, for example. As it is, I've had to use "think about baseball" and similar tricks plenty. And even as someone in my 50s, if I wanted to, I could easily cum while masturbating very quickly. I'm actually able to really well control when I orgasm, and I usually want it to last awhile, but I have no problem orgasming quickly when I need to.
At that, though, it's not that I'm in favor of routine circumcision, but unless I'm weird, I can't imagine that being far more sensitive than I am wouldn't be more difficult to cope with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 14:17:23 GMT
He invented it because uncut dongs look so weird in porn. He was just planning ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 14:58:01 GMT
The “idiot” in this conversation is the one who cannot follow basic reasoning. But then, you never really have in the past either, so this does not come as a shocker. The argument is that circumcised guys cannot have gratifying sex or masturbate freely. Obviously we know they do! The argument rather is that they experience less pleasure, and that it (and masturbation) usually require much more effort (since some of the natural function and sensation has been lost). If you think that this isn’t true then you are absolutely delusional! You're missing the point.
It's not an argument in the first place so the person pretending it is one has mental issues.
I'm not saying that's you necessarily since I doubt very seriously that you are capable of coming up with an original thought whether fiction or nonfiction.
However, if it is you, then you're a moron that needs to move on from other people's [fantasy] penis problems.
Now if you want to debate his on a logical basis, then I will school you on that too. It's pretty easy to do.
Fair enough. I don’t like to put words in other people’s mouths or risk straw man arguments; hence why I was pressing you a bit. But then the next obvious question becomes, why claim that as your religion at all if you can just pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe, and which parts to reject? |
|
