[Ferrer]

Originally posted by IBeMe

just did !

get that promo gal

It's such a beautiful song and I thought I'd recommend it to you since it's about the fear of getting old.

[Celebrate]

Oh wow, this is the debate regarding circumcision, just in time for my paper. ATRL its helpfulness

----

Personally I didn't realize the extra foreskin removal was symbolic then for the purpose one sees it in growing up (and using it).

[Neonika]

Originally posted by Blatboy

Also, why the **** is yall saying you're not here for this when these kids wont be legal for 18 years. Yall some nasty ass bitches. CATCH YOU ON DATELINE HEAUXZ

henry teas

[Ferrer]

Originally posted by Meowster

Yes. It's horrific. And I believe it is horrific for a male too, only slightly less.

Female circumcision is WAY WAY WAY WAY worse than male circumcision!!!

[Ryanicorn]

Originally posted by Mezter

They're way to passionate about how they like their dick served

[LilyAllen]

I really dont think its necessary. It was intended to be there

[Ferrer]

Originally posted by KingSebert

But it does. It's there to keep the head protected (so that it's not wrinkly and dried out like cut guys), provide lubrication, and it makes sex overall more enjoyable.

It provides lubrication?

That I honestly didn't know

Still think uncuts are unattractive though...

Sad part is most Europeans are uncut aren't they?

[Callisto.]

Look is uncut more pleasurable or not
Your answers will determine whether or not I need to have a talk with my mother.

[swissman]

Originally posted by Ferrer

I thought that it wasn't proven that a man loses pleasure down there due to being circumcised...

Well I've never seen a scared penis that was cut...

I'm not familiar with the studies but I do know that a lot of uncut men are not comfortable having their foreskin pulled back all day in their underwear. It is too sensitive. But a circumcised male has no problem with the head rubbing against the fabric of his underwear. Thus, it would seem even if sensitivity hasn't been lost by removing the foreskin, the head of the penis is desensitized.

[swissman]

Originally posted by Ferrer

It provides lubrication?

That I honestly didn't know.

It doesn't provide lubrication by definition but it provides you with the ability to not need lubrication.

Firstly, the foreskin glides up and down the shaft freely, so you have the same effect that a lubricated penis would (there is no pulling or tugging).

Secondly, any lubrication your body does produce is better contained within the foreskin and put to better use.

[somehomo]

Originally posted by Abyss

Good. Totally unnecessary unless it's for genuine medical reasons.

[Ferrer]

Originally posted by swissman

I'm not familiar with the studies but I do know that a lot of uncut men are not comfortable having their foreskin pulled back all day in their underwear. It is too sensitive. But a circumcised male has no problem with the head rubbing against the fabric of his underwear. Thus, it would seem even if sensitivity hasn't been lost by removing the foreskin, the head of the penis is desensitized.

Very interesting if that's true...

I'm cut and I felt that my head is very sensitive but if it can actually be MORE sensitive...

[MissAmericanDream]

Originally posted by Blatboy

Also, why the **** is yall saying you're not here for this when these kids wont be legal for 18 years. Yall some nasty ass bitches. CATCH YOU ON DATELINE HEAUXZ

Uhh if you have a kid now its the norm for them to be circumcised but if rates keep increasing in the future it will be considered abnormal and you would be inclined to leave your child as is, even though you may consider less appealing. Its UGLY. Dont be presst because no one finds excess foreskin cute.

[Ferrer]

Originally posted by swissman

It doesn't provide lubrication by definition but it provides you with the ability to not need lubrication.

Firstly, the foreskin glides up and down the shaft freely, so you have the same effect that a lubricated penis would (there is no pulling or tugging).

Secondly, any lubrication your body does produce is better contained within the foreskin and put to better use.

You seem very educated in this field!

[Nikolai.]

Originally posted by Ferrer

It provides lubrication?

That I honestly didn't know

Still think uncuts are unattractive though...

Sad part is most Europeans are uncut aren't they?

Yes most of them aren't mutilated. Along with most of the world.

[Mimie]

There is no need for a debate
Boys should be cut because anteater looking dicks are UGLY, and that's that

[Ryanicorn]

Originally posted by swissman

I'm not familiar with the studies but I do know that a lot of uncut men are not comfortable having their foreskin pulled back all day in their underwear. It is too sensitive. But a circumcised male has no problem with the head rubbing against the fabric of his underwear. Thus, it would seem even if sensitivity hasn't been lost by removing the foreskin, the head of the penis is desensitized.

That's not necessarily true for everyone. I'm cut and sometimes there is a problem with mine rubbing against the fabric because it's a little too sensitive

[Nikolai.]

Originally posted by MissAmericanDream

Uhh if you have a kid now its the norm for them to be circumcised but if rates keep increasing in the future it will be considered abnormal and you would be inclined to leave your child as is, even though you may consider less appealing. Its UGLY. Dont be presst because no one finds excess foreskin cute.

But the only people that don't find them attractive are ignorant people like you

[Callisto.]

Originally posted by MiMiLamb

There is no need for a debate
Boys should be cut because anteater looking dicks are UGLY, and that's that

They are kinda ugly and cheesy looking tbh.

[MissAmericanDream]

Originally posted by KingSebert

But the only people that don't find them attractive are ignorant people like you

Well apparently 77% of America is ignorant along with me so I'm okrr with that.