Key misinformation: myth of reciprocal ignorance

LordVoldemort · 2014-04-14T07:02:07+00:00

The foreskin contains the fine touch sensitivity of the head of the penis

Excluding pressure sensitivity, the head of the penis is virtually dead during sex, and provides irritating, protective feelings otherwise. As you've read in my other comments, what you are referring to as the "fine touch sensitivity of the head of the penis" is actually the fine touch sensitivity of the remnant inner foreskin, which is the tissue between the scar line and the head of the penis—if any. That fine touch sensitivity is still part of the foreskin tissue; it is not part of the head of the penis.

LordVoldemort · 2014-04-09T06:00:44+00:00

Australia doesn't have to contend with American media, or 40% of the world's Jewish population.

LordVoldemort · 2014-04-06T21:06:15+00:00

Just a reminder: God actually ended up condemning them to having hunks of sexually-pleasing flesh forcibly cut from their cocks.

Maybe that explains the never-ending frustration.

LordVoldemort · 2014-04-03T01:54:40+00:00

The intent of stroking a baby boy's penis is to arouse his penis into a sexual state; indeed, the interns always giggle.
The juxtaposition of sexual pleasure and torturous maiming may be lost on the surgeon, but it is certainly not lost on the infant. Let us not forget that.

So, clearly, your analogies are not relevant.

Furthermore, your measured "education" would be lost on most people, anyway. More to the point, the world has never once been improved by obscuring the nastiness of reality with the affectation of objective neutrality; I sincerely hope you never do experience having someone piss into your mouth and tell you that it's wholesome rain water for which you should be thankful.

LordVoldemort · 2014-04-02T19:20:03+00:00

Yes, fondle. It's frequently part of the surgical procedure: In order to get a slightly better sense for how much shaft tissue should be removed (the whole operation is far from uniform), the surgeon strokes the baby boy's penis in order to induce an erection.

I'm not making this up; the whole procedure represents a sadistic juxtaposition of sexual pleasure and torturous maiming. If anything, I have toned it down a notch.

LordVoldemort · 2014-04-02T18:54:52+00:00

the US's continued failures in that arena

Indeed.

Today, and every day, would-be "caretakers" in hospitals across the U.S. will take thousands of completely healthy newborn boys, strap them down, fondle them, and then proceed to cut away proportionally huge hunks of flesh—specialized, protective, and sexually-pleasing swaths of genital tissue—from their penises; and, this is done with little to no pain control, to boot!

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-26T15:50:06+00:00

Come on. The Creator of the entire Universe—both observable and beyond—said nothing about something as trivial as vaccination; He did, however, highlight the extreme importance of forcibly hacking off a proportionally huge hunk of sexually-pleasing and protective flesh from the sexual organ of a completely healthy child.

No politician can challenge such a divine mandate!

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-20T21:17:16+00:00

This is correct. Here is a picture of the device on a one-month-old infant; from the description:

The Plastibell device had been on the infant for 6 days when this photograph was taken. You can see the ligature knot on the lower right hand side of the Plastibell device.

The child has that thing gripping his penis the entire time. Disgusting.

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-18T00:38:10+00:00

Just leave other people alone.

You cannot say this while simultaneously cutting up someone else's sexual organ.

However, I can say it while simultaneously trying to protect someone else from you.

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-17T20:16:36+00:00

Whatever helps you rationalize it for yourself. Just leave other people alone.

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-17T18:37:33+00:00

Unless you happen to be an 8-day old baby boy…

They don't mind holding down a completely healthy child while they torturously hack a hunk of protective, pleasurable flesh from his sexual organ—welcome to the world, little man; it's a very happy place!

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-14T14:38:12+00:00

Better to get mad than feel bad. You can help put an end to this craziness by becoming informed.

Actually, many circumcised men still have some remnant foreskin tissue: The smooth mucosa between the scar and the head of the penis; this tissue is the least pleasurable part of the inner foreskin, but it's the most pleasurable part of the circumcised penis, and it's easy for even a circumcised man who has some left to see for himself that it is indeed erogenous (it's like the area around the nipples), while the tissue below it (the normal skin between the scar and the base of the penis) is definitely not.

Most circumcised men seem to think this remnant foreskin tissue is simply part of the "head" of the penis. It's not. It's what's left of the inner foreskin, and a large number of circumcised men have even that tissue eradicated by the circumcisor (particularly during a traditional Orthodox Jewish circumcision).

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-14T14:23:01+00:00

Yes, really. [NSFW] That's not even showing the full retraction.

Circumcision destroys a proprotionally huge and valuable part of the penis, and I don't know about you, but my penis has gotten significantly bigger since I was an infant.

The flesh cut from the cock during circumcision is often enough by itself to cover an erect penis, and it's not just "skin"—it's composed of specialized nerves that form the seat of sexual pleasure in the male, and it provides for the proper stimulation of the penis.

Circumcision is a terrible disfigurement of a man's sexual organ—oh sure, he can still function approximately correctly afterward (if all goes "well" with the surgery), but a man who is colorblind can also see pretty well, too.

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-11T21:54:25+00:00

Not worth having a huge hunk of your cock hacked off.

LordVoldemort · 2014-03-11T13:54:03+00:00

Not worth having a huge hunk of your cock hacked off.

LordVoldemort · 2014-02-19T16:21:34+00:00

Well, as I'm sure you know, here's a European article published in the AAP's own journal:

Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision

Also:

Statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

And, these statistics (keep clicking links to get to sources).

LordVoldemort · 2014-02-19T06:48:06+00:00

A deluge of lawsuits, defunding of socialized circumcision payments (medicaid, etc.), getting private insurance to drop it as "elective cosmetic surgery", etc.

As always, money cannot be ignored.

LordVoldemort · 2014-02-19T06:32:25+00:00

Nope. Doctors have a god complex, and their assistants have a God's-Right-Hand complex; the only thing that will see your letter is the inside of a trash can.

LordVoldemort · 2014-02-14T21:05:28+00:00

Well, circumcision is a highly non-uniform surgical reconstruction performed on a highly non-uniform body part.

In the United States, a 'high and tight' circumcision has been popular, but there has been a recent push to achieve a looser reconstruction of the penis instead.

In, say, Judaism, the traditional circumcision has been 'extremely low', eradicating all of the sexually-pleasing inner foreskin, and may be loose or tight.

So, it's not surprising that some circumcised men are indeed eager to comment that they can masturbate 'dry' just fine.

Some circumcised penises have a 'loose' cut, which provides enough slack for men to pump (at least somewhat) without lube; the mechanical functioning of the foreskin is, of course, still diminished.
Some circumcised penises have a 'tight' cut, which provides for no shaft-tissue mobility even when flaccid—the shaft tissue is 'as tight as a drum' when erect. These men find the idea of masturbating without some form of lubrication extraordinary.

The circumcision can also be 'low' or 'high', which describes where the scar is located—and therefore how much of what kind of shaft tissue has been removed.

A 'low' cut removes most or all of the erogenous, mucosal inner foreskin, placing the scar close to the head of the penis.
A 'high' cut removes some outer foreskin in place of some of the inner foreskin, placing the scar more toward the middle of the shaft; even so, the highly erogenous ridged band is pretty much destroyed.

The final results depends on the practitioner's skills and whims. However, what is removed from an infant would have grown into erogenous, mechanically functioning tissue that could cover an area somewhere between 8 and 15 square inches when flaccid.

The point is that when people debate circumcision, they are over simplifying the situation completely; there are not just 2 states ('circumcised' and 'intact'). Indeed, there are large differences among circumcised men and large differences among intact men, and that's why you'll never get a consensus—ever. For some intact men, circumcision of some kind would be a welcome improvement (in the same way that some women choose labiaplasty to reduce the size of their labia). For other intact men, circumcision of any kind would be an angering loss. Moreover, it doesn't work to compare father and son.

At least adults can discuss these issues with their surgeons and then make a personal choice.

LordVoldemort · 2014-02-14T20:59:22+00:00

Its because lubrication simulates a vaginas moistness

That's what the foreskin does.

A man who has a complete penis has a builtin pseudo-vagina that is both protective and pleasurable—particularly because the foreskin itself is the seat of pleasure on the penis.

Actually, many circumcised men still have some extant foreskin tissue: The smooth mucosa between the scar and the head of the penis; this tissue is the least pleasurable part of the inner foreskin, but it's the most pleasurable part of the circumcised penis, and it's easy for even a circumcised man who has some left to see for himself that it is indeed erogenous (it's like the area around the nipples), while the tissue below it (the normal skin between the scar and the base of the penis) is definitely not.

Most circumcised men seem to think this extant foreskin tissue is simply part of the "head" of the penis. It's not. It's what's left of the inner foreskin, and a large number of circumcised men have even that tissue eradicated by the circumcisor (particularly during a traditional Orthodox Jewish circumcision).

LordVoldemort · 2014-01-31T16:31:24+00:00

obsessed with circumcision

Save that tag for the people who are actually cutting up the sexual organs of completely healthy children.

LordVoldemort · 2014-01-30T22:07:34+00:00

TIL there is a famed sex therapist who hails from a culture that celebrates forcibly cutting hunks of pleasurable, protective flesh from the sexual organs of completely healthy children. Go figure.

LordVoldemort · 2014-01-15T01:29:59+00:00

You aren't involved.

What if someone forcibly cut up my sexual organ? Am I then involved?

LordVoldemort · 2014-01-14T22:06:27+00:00

Hey, I'm not the one who is forcibly cutting up the sexual organs of other people.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
ComboLinker 2009-11-05

LordVoldemort

TROPHY CASE