Belgium kicks Mohammedans in their putrid faces; burqas banned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

AAlso, isn't the intention to prevent females from sexual interest, thereby ensuring fidelity ot their husband?

---

Also the intent of male circumcision, as practiced in America, by non-Jews.

Look it up - pioneered and championed by Kellog as a way of keeping American boys from the sin of masturbation, by reducing sexual pleasure.

*Exactly* the same as the idea behind female genital mutilation.

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

It's nothing more than corporal punishment, for the sin of masturbation. Permanently scar your kid for life, because sex is evil!!!

Ive asked some girls and they said they couldnt particularly tell the difference, which i was somewhat surprised by.

Then again they apparently cant tell much if a guy is wearing a condom or not. I would have thought the condom/butchered sex would be more frictiony, and the unbutchered would be less so. Thats how it has felt whenever ive worn a condom anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Also the intent of male circumcision, as practiced in America, by non-Jews.

Look it up - pioneered and championed by Kellog as a way of keeping American boys from the sin of masturbation, by reducing sexual pleasure.

*Exactly* the same as the idea behind female genital mutilation.

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

It's nothing more than corporal punishment, for the sin of masturbation. Permanently scar your kid for life, because sex is evil!!!

---

This was the same master-mind who figured that yoghurt enemas were a good treatment for various mental illNesses. Dread's in great company as usual!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Ive asked some girls and they said they couldnt particularly tell the difference, which i was somewhat surprised by.

Then again they apparently cant tell much if a guy is wearing a condom or not. I would have thought the condom/butchered sex would be more frictiony, and the unbutchered would be less so. Thats how it has felt whenever ive worn a condom anyway.

---

Man, what's up with that? Are you having sex with the lights off, or only with/while intoxicated? :bulb:

As a general rule, the erect penis looks the same, cut or not. It's the flaccid penis with lots of foreskin that makes a difference in appearance, if the prepuce covers the head. Only a non-observant woman could miss that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Ive asked some girls and they said they couldnt particularly tell the difference, which i was somewhat surprised by.

---

Really?

Doesn't surprise me, given that it looks exactly the same when it's "in the locked and upright position" - you know, the state where women actually experiences the joys of the penis. I always thought it was somewhat of a given - they can't tell the difference, because there is no difference (from their perspective), by the time the women gets around to using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

This was the same master-mind who figured that yoghurt enemas were a good treatment for various mental illNesses. Dread's in great company as usual!

---

One mountain at a time, my dear. First we'll address his crazy penis beliefs, then we can tackle the problem of explaining to him why shoving yogurt up someone's ass doesn't cure Schizophrenia. (And, actually, is probably an aggravating factor... he'd probably have some crazy delusions too if a doctor tried to shove breakfast up his sphincter! :o)

That's called the Special K. Think of that every time you see a Kellogg's cereal commercial, or Tony the Tiger. :eek:

To be fair, it was the brother of the nut-job who popularized the breakfast cereal. He had the bright idea of adding sugar, you see. The doctor Kellogg intended for his soggy, milk-soaked and flavourless corn flakes to combat the evils of wanking by boring the kids to a stupor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Really?

Doesn't surprise me, given that it looks exactly the same when it's "in the locked and upright position"

---

Er, couldnt tell the difference between how butchered vs non-butchered felt, during the act, not how it looked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Er, couldnt tell the difference between how butchered vs non-butchered felt, during the act, not how it looked.

---

Because most condoms are lubed, or women use lube more often now that it comes with "female pleasure enhancements"?

(Hi, Spawnie :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Er, couldnt tell the difference between how butchered vs non-butchered felt, during the act, not how it looked.

---

I got that... it's just, I guess... well, when I'm engaged in coitus, my genitals aren't telegraphing back textural details and whatnot. Or if they are, those signals are kind of overwhelmed by the rest of the experience, so I don't notice. (Condom, or no condom.) I assume it's kind of a similar situation for women.

Hm. I can tell, especially at the start.

Towards the end you can pretty much slam it in a door and i wouldnt flinch.

(Actually i flinched while writing that...)

I still thought it would be obvious. Sex with a condom is a different sensation than without, and not just because it numbs the whole process, but because the thrusting involves (slightly) more friction, and i assume being butchered would feel like that.

Hey Geeg.

While we are on the sticky subject itself - a girl i knew told me she used lube during sex, and not because she was dry or anything like that. She got wet as much as anyone, but she just added lube because it was better, and there was that look in here eyes as she said it...

So im wondering if it really does make a diff. I know that when you make a girl come sometimes it gets so slippery that you cant feel a fucking thing...

Hmmm

I only know about american lubes, and it's got all sorts of chemicals in it to increase the sensation of warmth. That can be kind of irritating, though....depending on her mucus membranes, clitoral/urethral anatomy, and all that.

KY has tv adverts here for a lube that's got stuff for him AND her. Clever commercials, I guess.

I only know what other men have told me, I'm a virgin you know. Some say the cut penis gets dry with long sessions, almost chapped. Regardless of the female's moisture. The foreskin has a purpose besides just sensation---it's also for lubrication for HIM.

It is, thats kind of what i was saying with my comment before. The main bit of the cock moves inside the foreskin, which is inside the woman. Without one, it would, i imagine, feel like wearing a condom, that being that there is more friction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Ive asked some girls and they said they couldnt particularly tell the difference, which i was somewhat surprised by.

Then again they apparently cant tell much if a guy is wearing a condom or not. I would have thought the condom/butchered sex would be more frictiony, and the unbutchered would be less so. Thats how it has felt whenever ive worn a condom anyway.

---

IDK, my ex said she really felt the difference between condom or no condom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

It is, thats kind of what i was saying with my comment before. The main bit of the cock moves inside the foreskin, which is inside the woman. Without one, it would, i imagine, feel like wearing a condom, that being that there is more friction.

---

Depends on the amount of foreskin, and ya know, erectile tissue will change even during coitus. That's why they added "ribbed condoms", for the woman, to simulate an uncut penis that has some skin moving around (hence the ribs).

And that's why uncut men supposedly feel more pleasure, from their foreskin moving around the penis shaft itself, near the head (which is where the cut man is now naked) even while inside another. A visual would be like....the penis is pleasuring itself while also pleasuring the partner, like jacking off while fucking, the best of both worlds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

So let's compare it with the parents lopping off the earlobes. Or the left pinky toe. PRO-TIP: Both would net the loving parents an assault charge

Heheh, tip

---

Well, we pierce kid's ears, don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Well, we pierce kid's ears, don't we?

---

Not by forcibly strapping them down to a board and hacking away at their ears with a knife, we don't. Generally, dumbass kiddies *ASK* to have their ears pierced. (PIERCED, not skinned.) Even retarded kids aren't dumd enough to think that having bits of their dick hacked off is a good idea. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Well, we pierce kid's ears, don't we?

---

Rut roh, Ominous might come along to defend piercing his infant daughter's ears. Like that's the same thing as penile circumcision.

:bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Also the intent of male circumcision, as practiced in America, by non-Jews.

Look it up - pioneered and championed by Kellog as a way of keeping American boys from the sin of masturbation, by reducing sexual pleasure.

*Exactly* the same as the idea behind female genital mutilation.

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

It's nothing more than corporal punishment, for the sin of masturbation. Permanently scar your kid for life, because sex is evil!!!

---

Meh, I'm not convinced. Just because you can cite a nutjob who endorses something for bizarre reasons doesn't mean the activity is unreasonable.

Me, I find it to be a bizarre religious ritual that turned out to have some public health benefits along with its psychological downside. Female circumcision is a bizarre religious ritual whose sole purpose is to subjugate one of the genders to the other (not the effect of Kellogg's intent, I'll note), and has no redeeming qualities.

Is it black and white? Nope. But y'all are stretching to equate the two. Now if they cut the penis OFF in circumcision, they would be equal.

iirc the Army preferred men to be circumsized because they worried about STDs. Or maybe it was men in the trenches who didn't know how to clean their foreskin, and got bacterial or yeast infections or UTIs.

Some of that attitude prevailed over the years, about "cleanliness". Now we have reverse research, trying to figure out if there's a correlation between circs and prostate problems, or HIV. Sometimes it seems like science is simply trying to make the millions of western men who got cut "feel better" about it.

Wouldn't it be nice if so much time, money and research was spent on women's issues, including mammary glands and hormones, as men's erectile, penile and spermie issues? It's pathetic that we know more about male EDS, with pharmaceuticals to help, than lifetime female needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Meh, I'm not convinced. Just because you can cite a nutjob who endorses something for bizarre reasons doesn't mean the activity is unreasonable.

Me, I find it to be a bizarre religious ritual that turned out to have some public health benefits along with its psychological downside. Female circumcision is a bizarre religious ritual whose sole purpose is to subjugate one of the genders to the other (not the effect of Kellogg's intent, I'll note), and has no redeeming qualities.

---

And if we treated women like property, and had "honor killings," we'd reap the public health benefits of lower rates of STDs and fewer teen pregnancies. So clearly, we ought to institute Sharia law in this country. You know, because we'd reap "public health benefits," and it's really no more extreme than advocating genital mutilation to reap minuscule and largely irrelevant reductions in AIDS transmission.

But you'll note I specifically said that the decision shouldn't be made based on public health benefits: "Agreed, although really that shouldn't matter in principle, since an ethical call on genital mutilation has to be made in the absence of any "benefits." But you do insist on stampeding to extreme interpretations, don't you? It's a gray area. Male circumcision is light gray, female circumcision dark gray. But feel free to dramatically conflate the two, and maybe demand that some medical licenses be yanked as well.

Will do!

You two are so cute when you're angry at each other.

:heart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Well, we pierce kid's ears, don't we?

---

If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?

No, but I don't feel the need to legislate against recreational base jumping from designated bridges.

Damn, I picked a tricky analogy. Uhh, would you have issues with parents flinging their off the designated bridge? Particularly if the chute was designed so that the child would be injured enough to knock off, say, 5 points from their IQ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...emot-dance.gif

Cleansing Europe of Mohammedan filth one law at a time! Hopefully, anyway.

---

There's a better way.

Oh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Oh?

---

Oh... Yeah.