You will NEVER make a foid orgasm if ur circumsized

[wishIwasSalludon]

Foids orgasm FAR more with uncircumcised men then circumcised. lol fucking Jews stole my foreskin fauajrpiwboxgmkeofogjjertoov

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Foids orgasm FAR more with circumcised men then uncircumcised. lol fucking Jews stole my foreskin fauajrpiwboxgmkeofogjjertoov

0

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Foids orgasm FAR more with uncircumcised men then circumcised. lol fucking Jews stole my foreskin fauajrpiwboxgmkeofogjjertoov

Over for americans to be honest europeans foreskin mog us hard man

@Orc please give me ur foreskin

 

[AlexBrown84]

cope

 

[vrilmaxxer]

where u frm?

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

cope

Lmao he’s fucking right

 

[Deleted member 60483]

Who cares you won’t be fucking anyway, bhenchod

 

[Deleted member 60483]

Lmao he’s fucking right
View attachment 2692566

fuck you

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

where u frm?

Jewmerica

 

[vrilmaxxer]

Jewmerica

 

[ihatereddit]

kill the doctor who circumcised u

 

[anthony111553]

Lmao he’s fucking right
View attachment 2692566

how does that prove him right tho

 

[mayo mogger]

Lmao he’s fucking right
View attachment 2692566

vedic cock or death

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

how does that prove him right tho

Because the cockologists did a study on it u moron. Just ask HEAD cockologist @Gengar. He’ll fill you(and ur asshole) in

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Foids orgasm FAR more with uncircumcised men then circumcised. lol fucking Jews stole my foreskin fauajrpiwboxgmkeofogjjertoov

Circumcised men are built to be cucked by uncut chads

 

[anthony111553]

Because the cockologists did a study on it u moron. Just ask HEAD cockologist @Gengar. He’ll fill you(and ur asshole) in

sure bro...

 

[anthony111553]

Circumcised men are built to be cucked by uncut chads

"kay, people, before you post links to four year old press releases from advocacy groups such as the International Coalition for Genital Integrity in the science sub-reddit, could you perhaps trouble yourself to examine the source of the claims that are made?

The press release links to an article at the 'Circumcision Information and Resource Pages', which was a letter entitled 'Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm' sent the the New Zealand Medical Journal by Gillian A. Bensley and Gregory J. Boyle, professors of Psychology at Bond University in Queensland, Australia. They were reporting a few details from a study of theirs that they thought would be of interest, namely that they had conducted a study of 35 women and concluded that "male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse."

All well and good, save for two things. These are psychologists, whom one should never, never trust to do good science unsupervised, and the paper which they are citing was published in a book, and online, but not in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Which is, to wit, unsupervised.

I tracked down their paper, and found that the population of 35 women that they are discussing were the only female responses to a distribution of 553 'Sexual Awareness Surveys' via unnamed men's groups, a men's health clinic in Brisbane, the Brisbane Gay Pride festival, and further unnamed community groups. The target groups for the study were (1) self-reporting circumcised and "intact" (their word) men, and (2) & (3) women and men having experience with both circumcised and uncircumcised partners, "many of whom distributed further surveys to their own friends and acquaintances."

This is, to put it mildly, what one would call a 'self-selecting' population. The study's data has about as much integrity as an online click poll.

But of course, we are for the most part interested in this shocking article not because of our poor dry vaginas but because we have read the teaser line, "Women are Twice as likely to Experience Orgasm if their Male Partner is UNCIRCUMCISED." thoughtfully provided by w-smith. Where, in this study — over which our good sirs Bensley and Boyle have earnestly troubled and diligently toiled — does one find this assertion?

Ahem. Well, actually, they are not really citing their own study when they share this information with us. As heavily referenced in the letter as their own material is a study entitled "The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner," by K O'Hare and J O'Hare, which appeared in the journal BJU International in 1999. In case you were wondering, this is short for "the British Journal of Urology International" which for some reason they prefer not to dwell upon.

This study, like the article, is also hosted by the 'Circumcision Information and Resource Pages.' The CIRP has helpfully inserted a note towards the top directing the reader to a book written by the authors, Sex As Nature Intended It.

In general the article tends to veer between scrupulous scientific introspection and assertions of fact barely sustained by their inappropriate (i.e., non-scientific) sources — Maimonides, amongst others. This, however, paled in comparison to the first paragraph of the Methodology section.

Women having sexual experience with both circumcised and anatomically complete partners were recruited through classified advertisements in magazines and an announcement in an anti-circumcision newletter. Respondents to the advertisements were mailed a survey to complete and return, the comments then compiled and the responses analysed statistically. The survey is continuing and this article reports the preliminary results.

[my emphasis].

The conclusion of the study attempts to defend this by saying that there was 'no difference' between the anti-circumcision responses and the rest, but doesn't back this up with anything; nor does it do a good job of justifying the self-selection bias of the survey method to begin with. 20 of the 139 respondents preferred sex with circumcised partners, but their data is never displayed comparatively with the 119 "normal" (their word) preferring women; again, many assertions, no tables.

Not that women aren't twice as likely to experience orgasm with uncircumcised men; just that this is demonstrably, thoroughly unproven.

Please, for the love of god, in the future save me the agony of laboriously typing all this out in a suitably pompous and condescending tone of voice by using just a little bit of common sense when you link to scientific 'articles'. Look at the methodology and consider the source.

[edit: apologies for the length of time it took to get the formatting right. I wish reddit had preview.]"

 

[ElTruecel]

Jews stole my foreskin

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

"kay, people, before you post links to four year old press releases from advocacy groups such as the International Coalition for Genital Integrity in the science sub-reddit, could you perhaps trouble yourself to examine the source of the claims that are made?

The press release links to an article at the 'Circumcision Information and Resource Pages', which was a letter entitled 'Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm' sent the the New Zealand Medical Journal by Gillian A. Bensley and Gregory J. Boyle, professors of Psychology at Bond University in Queensland, Australia. They were reporting a few details from a study of theirs that they thought would be of interest, namely that they had conducted a study of 35 women and concluded that "male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse."

All well and good, save for two things. These are psychologists, whom one should never, never trust to do good science unsupervised, and the paper which they are citing was published in a book, and online, but not in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Which is, to wit, unsupervised.

I tracked down their paper, and found that the population of 35 women that they are discussing were the only female responses to a distribution of 553 'Sexual Awareness Surveys' via unnamed men's groups, a men's health clinic in Brisbane, the Brisbane Gay Pride festival, and further unnamed community groups. The target groups for the study were (1) self-reporting circumcised and "intact" (their word) men, and (2) & (3) women and men having experience with both circumcised and uncircumcised partners, "many of whom distributed further surveys to their own friends and acquaintances."

This is, to put it mildly, what one would call a 'self-selecting' population. The study's data has about as much integrity as an online click poll.

But of course, we are for the most part interested in this shocking article not because of our poor dry vaginas but because we have read the teaser line, "Women are Twice as likely to Experience Orgasm if their Male Partner is UNCIRCUMCISED." thoughtfully provided by w-smith. Where, in this study — over which our good sirs Bensley and Boyle have earnestly troubled and diligently toiled — does one find this assertion?

Ahem. Well, actually, they are not really citing their own study when they share this information with us. As heavily referenced in the letter as their own material is a study entitled "The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner," by K O'Hare and J O'Hare, which appeared in the journal BJU International in 1999. In case you were wondering, this is short for "the British Journal of Urology International" which for some reason they prefer not to dwell upon.

This study, like the article, is also hosted by the 'Circumcision Information and Resource Pages.' The CIRP has helpfully inserted a note towards the top directing the reader to a book written by the authors, Sex As Nature Intended It.

In general the article tends to veer between scrupulous scientific introspection and assertions of fact barely sustained by their inappropriate (i.e., non-scientific) sources — Maimonides, amongst others. This, however, paled in comparison to the first paragraph of the Methodology section.


[my emphasis].

The conclusion of the study attempts to defend this by saying that there was 'no difference' between the anti-circumcision responses and the rest, but doesn't back this up with anything; nor does it do a good job of justifying the self-selection bias of the survey method to begin with. 20 of the 139 respondents preferred sex with circumcised partners, but their data is never displayed comparatively with the 119 "normal" (their word) preferring women; again, many assertions, no tables.

Not that women aren't twice as likely to experience orgasm with uncircumcised men; just that this is demonstrably, thoroughly unproven.

Please, for the love of god, in the future save me the agony of laboriously typing all this out in a suitably pompous and condescending tone of voice by using just a little bit of common sense when you link to scientific 'articles'. Look at the methodology and consider the source.

[edit: apologies for the length of time it took to get the formatting right. I wish reddit had preview.]"

 

[anthony111553]

Jews stole my foreskin

no foreskin is defualt in america...if you cut in europe it's over.

 

[Deleted member 46404]

actually an indian stole my foreskin, i remember his lying ass