Keithambrose Posted March 10 Posted March 10 3 minutes ago, 10tazione said: The question is, do you remember how it was before and can you compare it? Difficult, I was 2 weeks old! Hadn't had much sex at that point! numerito and TMax 2 Quote
10tazione Posted March 10 Posted March 10 8 minutes ago, Keithambrose said: Hadn't had much sex at that point! I guess that changed at some point reader 1 Quote
Keithambrose Posted March 10 Posted March 10 2 minutes ago, 10tazione said: I guess that changed at some point Luckily, yes! Quote
Members unicorn Posted March 10 Members Posted March 10 7 hours ago, 10tazione said: ...the group of men who gets circumcised as an adult is a highly biased one. Either they had a medical circumstance (phimosis, balanitis, condyloma... Really, now. These men obviously didn't always have phimosis, etc. They can certainly remember how the sex (or masturbation) was before and how it was after. Not at all complicated, nor difficult to understand. Marc in Calif 1 Quote
Members unicorn Posted March 10 Members Posted March 10 7 hours ago, 10tazione said: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17378847/ Obviously silly study by someone desperate to prove a point. Real-life studies are obviously what are important. Marc in Calif 1 Quote
10tazione Posted March 10 Posted March 10 4 hours ago, unicorn said: Obviously silly study by someone desperate to prove a point. Real-life studies are obviously what are important. Really? Objectively measuring and comparing sensitivity between 2 groups is silly? And you pray science? reader, Marc in Calif and unicorn 1 2 Quote
Members unicorn Posted March 11 Members Posted March 11 5 hours ago, 10tazione said: Really? Objectively measuring and comparing sensitivity between 2 groups is silly? And you pray science? Well, not quite objective since obviously this was not a blinded study. Also, even if the results are accurate, and not just someone trying to prove a point, they're absolutely meaningless since the real-life facts from men who've actually had the procedure rule out any significance to the findings. The myth of any significant loss of sensitivity has been thoroughly discredited from multiple real-life studies. Removing the foreskin does not, as he suggests, damage the nerves going to the glans. What a pile of crap! Someone simply doesn't know the basic anatomy (prepuce refers to the foreskin): As usual, just a bunch of BS from people trying to confuse others with outright lies. Reminds me of those MAGA idiots: Quote
10tazione Posted March 11 Posted March 11 We have already more than enough MAGA threads in this forum. If people can't stay calm in a discussion, I am out of this thread. It was my fault to ask a question in a thread that was already heated up from the beginning. Quote
Members unicorn Posted March 11 Members Posted March 11 11 hours ago, 10tazione said: We have already more than enough MAGA threads in this forum. If people can't stay calm in a discussion, I am out of this thread. It was my fault to ask a question in a thread that was already heated up from the beginning. If you were truly putting posts up because you were interested in finding out more about the procedure from a scientific/medical perspective, then I apologize. Unfortunately, that's not how your posts came off to me. In particular, the post in which you wrote: "Really? Objectively measuring and comparing sensitivity between 2 groups is silly? And you pray science?" came off as hostile and provocative. I felt similarly about the post in which you implied that men who'd had circumcisions as adults couldn't possibly remember what sex was like before they developed the condition which forced them to have a circumcision. I found it difficult to believe that you actually believed that contention as well. I do feel these specious arguments are quite similar to those who make false claims about the election being stolen, by using bogus videos or other "evidence" purporting to show election workers cheating. Those who made those false claims were tried and convicted, and had to compensate their victims. When examined with an unbiased mind, the facts will ultimately win out. Trump has so far been able to use legal machinations to avoid his criminal trials so far, but probably will eventually get his just deserts. It certainly gets tiring to keep hearing the same bogus arguments, promulgated by those who embrace either willful ignorance, or intentional deceit. These false statements have all been discredit by scientific scrutiny. One of my prior links has references to the multiple studies on these matters. Circumcision does not cut the nerves going to the glans, nor does it cause any form of sexual dysfunction (impotence, premature ejaculation, difficulties with orgasm, and so on). Anyone who maintains otherwise is either ignoring the science or willfully lying. The health benefits of circumcision have also been well-documented by countless studies, and accepted by professional medical societies. Ultimately, of course, most parents simply opt to choose to consent or decline the procedure based on the appearance of the father's genitals--and that's fine. No one is suggesting that parents be vilified for declining the procedure. Quote
reader Posted March 12 Posted March 12 In the end, both versions seem to function quite well. Never had a reason to reject one that appeared in good health. Given the average age of members, the next one they come head to head with won't be their first rodeo. They pretty much know how they work. Confidence is high you'll come away satisfied. unicorn and vinapu 2 Quote
vinapu Posted March 12 Posted March 12 1 hour ago, reader said: In the end, both versions seem to function quite well. you got that right ! Quote
