the debate

[tom sand]

im not down with the whole cheesy knob syndrome thing. i dont think its a justifiable argument. little boys are taught how to wash themselves properly from a young age, if theres cheese on the knob its because the owner of said knob, is a mank bag

agree with everything else though.

the sensitivity thing: if hes circumcised the head of his dick is always rubbing against his underroos from whenever he starts wearing them. surely it would be less sensitive with a lifetime of being rubbed on cloth all day, everyday?

serious question, ive always wondered.

good question
interesting

[f1 away]

Just keep fresh

[nitram]

should only be done for reasons as above.

what happened when you popped an unexpected boner, nitram? was there much pain?

how do you find the difference in sensitivity, now?

Getting an erection was ok (expected or otherwise) but the discomfort started when one tried to draw the foreskin back as it was no longer able to stretch sufficiently to allow the head of the penis to appear, if forced it became painful and the erection collapsed. As to sensitivity because there is no foreskin covering the top of the penis it does become slightly less sensitive as a result of constant direct contact with underpants, however, this can be a benefit as it can help a guy hold back longer to allow his partner come more often. One drawback is that after circumcision a guy must use some form of lube if he is on the receiving end of a hand job (self administered or otherwise) as a friction burn is very easy to obtain if one is not careful.
Having experienced sex before and after circumcision I would be very much against it being done to any male child unless it was medically necessary.

[MaryMcMagdalene]

Getting an erection was ok (expected or otherwise) but the discomfort started when one tried to draw the foreskin back as it was no longer able to stretch sufficiently to allow the head of the penis to appear, if forced it became painful and the erection collapsed. As to sensitivity because there is no foreskin covering the top of the penis it does become slightly less sensitive as a result of constant direct contact with underpants, however, this can be a benefit as it can help a guy hold back longer to allow his partner come more often. One drawback is that after circumcision a guy must use some form of lube if he is on the receiving end of a hand job (self administered or otherwise) as a friction burn is very easy to obtain if one is not careful.
Having experienced sex before and after circumcision I would be very much against it being done to any male child unless it was medically necessary.

that answered my question perfectly, thank you

[Jiberjabber]

Did imaginary skydaddy invent foreskin just so he could torture babies when it was taken from them without their consent?

They hung Saddam Hussein for a lot less.

[MidlifeCrisis]

that answered my question perfectly, thank you

I can read your posts now without getting a nosebleed! Thanks for changing the avatar.

[MaryMcMagdalene]

i still think youre all ridiculous over your protestations of the thing. it was tiny.

and i want proof of nosebleed, midlifecrisis

and women are the drama queens here, yeah?

[MidlifeCrisis]

i still think youre all ridiculous over your protestations of the thing. it was tiny.

and i want proof of nosebleed, midlifecrisis

and women are the drama queens here, yeah?

[MaryMcMagdalene]

[nonpareil]

i get the feeling circumcised as it is well known it's safer with sti's etc

An irrelevancy if condoms are used.

And I suspect the difference is marginal despite claims to the contrary.

Circumcised would only have any contribution to any sti reduction if you were dealing with a large monogamous population practicing unprotected sex, and In the modern world multiple lifetime partners seems the norm.
The STI question of circumcised v uncircumcised is not really relevant for most imo.