Deleted member 16048
🐴👞
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2021
- Posts
- 127
- Reputation
- 224
I see a lot of you circumcucks whining about how "muh sex isn't enjoyable because muh jews mutilated muh baby penis!!!" This is untrue and anything that you have heard about the foreskin being vital to enjoying sex is bs. Anyone claiming that they lost satisfaction after getting circumcised either has other penis problems (erectile dysfunction, only able to get off to weird ass shit thanks to their porn addiction) or it's a placebo (many people have gotten circumcised as an adult and haven't reported a difference in sexual satisfaction). Anyone claiming that they gained satisfaction after restoring foreskin is definitely from a placebo or they're bullshitting (Jfl the same people claiming that vital sensitive parts of the penis are ripped off due to circumcision are saying that their sensitivity came back just because they stretched their penis skin for a while. That's not how it works jfl ). I have heard some people say that they are literally suicidal because the jews took some skin off their penis like ffs that's just further playing into the jewish plan. Anyway here's why you're all over exaggerating
Many circumcucks claim that the foreskin contains over 20,000 highly erogenous nerve endings that causes the majority of the male's pleasure during sex, depriving up to 75% of their sexual pleasure. I would like to take a moment to ask any of you where this retarded claim comes from, because no one seems to know the actual source.
Circumcucks often refer to the Meissner's corpuscles, the fine touch sensory receptors. They compare the sensitivity of other body parts to demonstrate that the presence or absence of these fine touch receptors determine the level of sensitivity (for example, the back of your hand is far less sensitive to touch than the palm of your hand, due to a larger presence of these receptors in the front). This is autistic. A 2008 study by Indian researchers ranked eight hairless skin sites in terms of density of Meissner's corpuscles, and concluded that the foreskin is last on the list.
A 2016 study by Queens University PhD candidate Jennifer Bossio confirms that the foreskin is more sensitive to fine touch, but also measured other types of sensitivity. She found that the foreskin, while more sensitive to heat and pain than the glans, was not more sensitive than areas on the penile shaft. She concluded that "circumcision does not appear to remove the most sensitive part of the penis." Bossio explained that heat and pain are likely more relevant for sexual sensation than light touch. "We measured heat detection and heat pain by attaching a thermode to the penis. Men would indicate either when they would feel a change in temperature or when it hurt. The nerve fibers in the penis that are activated by temperature and pain are more relevant in sexual functioning — or the feel of a sexy touch — than the light touch that past researchers had done. Even though [the foreskin] is more sensitive to light touch, I suspect that isn't implicated in sexual pleasure.”
TL;DR: Not only does the foreskin contain fewer fine touch receptors than other areas of the body, but those fine touch receptors are unlikely to factor into erotic stimulation and pleasure.
Back to the retarded 20,000 nerve endings claim, it originated from physician and anti-circumcision advocate Paul Fless in a 1997 article in Mothering magazine. He claimed that “careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off … more than 20,000 nerve endings.” He cited his source as a 1932 paper by physiologist Henry Bazett. Nowhere on this paper does Bazett mention the presence of 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin. Bazett counted 212 nerve endings of all types in a single square centimeter. Only 2 of the 212 nerve endings were fine-touch receptors (i.e. Meissner’s corpuscles), and none were genital corpuscles, the ones that most experts attribute to erogenous sensation. Bazett had a sample size of 1 and no comparison to any other area of skin to provide a control. So we have no idea how representative the sample is – either across the entire body or among different individuals. Nerve ending density may vary from one part of the foreskin to another. But Bazett didn’t indicate the location on the foreskin for the sample that he used. And although nerve ending density may change with age, Bazett didn’t state the age of the donor. It’s likely that the sample came from a newborn – which would typically have the highest density – and which cannot indicate the nerve density in an adult.
TL;DR the 20,000 nerve endings claim is completely unsupported by evidence.
Last but not least for "muh less sensitivity!!!" claim is the ridged band. The ridged band refers to the very tip of the foreskin. Researcher John Taylor claimed to have found more nerves in the ridged band (sometimes referred to as “Taylor’s band”) than in the rest of the foreskin. However other researchers have not verified this observation. Taylor was firmly against circumcision, and he failed to provide any numbers or raw data or sufficiently define the term “ridged band.” So it’s difficult to know whether his claim is true, how much of a difference there is, and whether it has any significant effect on sexual pleasure.
I would go over the claims regarding how infant circumcision causes permanent changes to the brain (which is bullshit), but I don't want to make this post too long or you autists will be too intimidated by the long text and refuse to read it. There are also a host of other retarded claims that I can disprove if anyone wants to bring them up. NO, I am not pro-circumcision, I will not circumcise my children, but it is really not nearly as bad as some circumcucks say it is. The only things I have against circumcision are the fact that the child should be allowed to choose if they want to become circumcised for themself when they are older (and they almost certainly will not choose to be circumcised), and the fact that the jews want me to do it therefore I will do the opposite.
Just for the lolz: in 2002 Donald R Taves, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington, conducted an experiment to measure the effect of foreskin on the force necessary for vaginal penetration. Taves cut a quarter-size hole in the bottom of a Styrofoam cup to simulate a vaginal opening. He mounted the cup on a diet scale to measure the force needed for a man to enter his partner's vagina. The 76 year-old Taves penetrated the hole with his erect penis - six times with his glans exposed, and six more times with his foreskin covering the glans. Taves described penetration with his foreskin covering the glans as "comfortable", while penetration with his foreskin pulled back and his glans exposed was "uncomfortable". He concluded that circumcised men use ten times greater force to enter a female partner than their uncircumcised peers. JUST FUCKING LOL @ THESE PEOPLE.
TL;DR: KYS I tried to make the post as engaging as possible for you autists and your chicken fried dopamine receptors. But in conclusion, circumcision is not harming your sex life, it has not caused you brain damage (your brain damage came from somewhere else), and also there's the fact that circumcised penises are generally considered more aesthetically pleasing in the U.S. + less chance of infection (generally seen as cope, but it's still true).
Many circumcucks claim that the foreskin contains over 20,000 highly erogenous nerve endings that causes the majority of the male's pleasure during sex, depriving up to 75% of their sexual pleasure. I would like to take a moment to ask any of you where this retarded claim comes from, because no one seems to know the actual source.
Circumcucks often refer to the Meissner's corpuscles, the fine touch sensory receptors. They compare the sensitivity of other body parts to demonstrate that the presence or absence of these fine touch receptors determine the level of sensitivity (for example, the back of your hand is far less sensitive to touch than the palm of your hand, due to a larger presence of these receptors in the front). This is autistic. A 2008 study by Indian researchers ranked eight hairless skin sites in terms of density of Meissner's corpuscles, and concluded that the foreskin is last on the list.
A 2016 study by Queens University PhD candidate Jennifer Bossio confirms that the foreskin is more sensitive to fine touch, but also measured other types of sensitivity. She found that the foreskin, while more sensitive to heat and pain than the glans, was not more sensitive than areas on the penile shaft. She concluded that "circumcision does not appear to remove the most sensitive part of the penis." Bossio explained that heat and pain are likely more relevant for sexual sensation than light touch. "We measured heat detection and heat pain by attaching a thermode to the penis. Men would indicate either when they would feel a change in temperature or when it hurt. The nerve fibers in the penis that are activated by temperature and pain are more relevant in sexual functioning — or the feel of a sexy touch — than the light touch that past researchers had done. Even though [the foreskin] is more sensitive to light touch, I suspect that isn't implicated in sexual pleasure.”
TL;DR: Not only does the foreskin contain fewer fine touch receptors than other areas of the body, but those fine touch receptors are unlikely to factor into erotic stimulation and pleasure.
Back to the retarded 20,000 nerve endings claim, it originated from physician and anti-circumcision advocate Paul Fless in a 1997 article in Mothering magazine. He claimed that “careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off … more than 20,000 nerve endings.” He cited his source as a 1932 paper by physiologist Henry Bazett. Nowhere on this paper does Bazett mention the presence of 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin. Bazett counted 212 nerve endings of all types in a single square centimeter. Only 2 of the 212 nerve endings were fine-touch receptors (i.e. Meissner’s corpuscles), and none were genital corpuscles, the ones that most experts attribute to erogenous sensation. Bazett had a sample size of 1 and no comparison to any other area of skin to provide a control. So we have no idea how representative the sample is – either across the entire body or among different individuals. Nerve ending density may vary from one part of the foreskin to another. But Bazett didn’t indicate the location on the foreskin for the sample that he used. And although nerve ending density may change with age, Bazett didn’t state the age of the donor. It’s likely that the sample came from a newborn – which would typically have the highest density – and which cannot indicate the nerve density in an adult.
TL;DR the 20,000 nerve endings claim is completely unsupported by evidence.
Last but not least for "muh less sensitivity!!!" claim is the ridged band. The ridged band refers to the very tip of the foreskin. Researcher John Taylor claimed to have found more nerves in the ridged band (sometimes referred to as “Taylor’s band”) than in the rest of the foreskin. However other researchers have not verified this observation. Taylor was firmly against circumcision, and he failed to provide any numbers or raw data or sufficiently define the term “ridged band.” So it’s difficult to know whether his claim is true, how much of a difference there is, and whether it has any significant effect on sexual pleasure.
I would go over the claims regarding how infant circumcision causes permanent changes to the brain (which is bullshit), but I don't want to make this post too long or you autists will be too intimidated by the long text and refuse to read it. There are also a host of other retarded claims that I can disprove if anyone wants to bring them up. NO, I am not pro-circumcision, I will not circumcise my children, but it is really not nearly as bad as some circumcucks say it is. The only things I have against circumcision are the fact that the child should be allowed to choose if they want to become circumcised for themself when they are older (and they almost certainly will not choose to be circumcised), and the fact that the jews want me to do it therefore I will do the opposite.
Just for the lolz: in 2002 Donald R Taves, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington, conducted an experiment to measure the effect of foreskin on the force necessary for vaginal penetration. Taves cut a quarter-size hole in the bottom of a Styrofoam cup to simulate a vaginal opening. He mounted the cup on a diet scale to measure the force needed for a man to enter his partner's vagina. The 76 year-old Taves penetrated the hole with his erect penis - six times with his glans exposed, and six more times with his foreskin covering the glans. Taves described penetration with his foreskin covering the glans as "comfortable", while penetration with his foreskin pulled back and his glans exposed was "uncomfortable". He concluded that circumcised men use ten times greater force to enter a female partner than their uncircumcised peers. JUST FUCKING LOL @ THESE PEOPLE.
TL;DR: KYS I tried to make the post as engaging as possible for you autists and your chicken fried dopamine receptors. But in conclusion, circumcision is not harming your sex life, it has not caused you brain damage (your brain damage came from somewhere else), and also there's the fact that circumcised penises are generally considered more aesthetically pleasing in the U.S. + less chance of infection (generally seen as cope, but it's still true).
Last edited: