1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I wouldn't want my sexual stimulation halved, but if that isn't an issue for you, then great.

 

Anyone can be circumcised if they want, but I don't think it's a good idea to lie about it.

Not halved. Proven false. You got no idea.

12 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Half the pleasure is lost when you have part of your penis removed.

 

5 minutes ago, susanlea said:

False claims.

OK then how much pleasure do you think is lost?

Just now, Bday Prang said:

 

OK then how much pleasure do you think is lost?

Read the science. 

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Anyone can be circumcised if they want, but I don't think it's a good idea to lie about it.

Not ideal as an adult, hard for some men to cope with

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I wouldn't want my sexual stimulation halved, but if that isn't an issue for you, then great.

If it's so great why are so many men on ED drugs? you take viagra/kamagra etc? i doubt you'd admit it anyway

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

OK then how much pleasure do you think is lost?

Same question to you, If it's so great why are so many men on ED drugs? you take viagra/kamagra etc? i doubt you'd admit it anyway

3 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Not ideal as an adult, hard for some men to cope with

about 2 weeks of pain and few more some itching. Moses did it with sharp stones onto himself and every men he could catch nearby.

9 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Anyone can be circumcised if they want, but I don't think it's a good idea to lie about it.

I agree so stop lying and apologise for it. 

10 minutes ago, susanlea said:

The consensus of the highest quality literature is that MC has minimal or no adverse effect, and in some studies, it has benefits on sexual functions, sensation, satisfaction, and pleasure for males circumcised neonatally or in adulthood.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240

 

Sounds a little broad and unconclusive.  Try these:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X13002684

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/male-circumcision-tied-to-less-sexual-pleasure-idUSBRE91D1CP/

3 minutes ago, susanlea said:

I agree so stop lying and apologise for it. 

 

You're lying about it, why should I apologise for your lies?

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

You're lying about it, why should I apologise for your lies?

You are the liar. Just admit it. 

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Sounds a little broad and unconclusive.  Try these:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X13002684

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/male-circumcision-tied-to-less-sexual-pleasure-idUSBRE91D1CP/

From your link

 

"For example, uncircumcised men reported an average sensitivity score of 3.72 when they or their partner stroked the top part of their penis's glans, compared to 3.31 amongst circumcised men."

 

Where did you get half from?

 

you are a liar.

8 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Same question to you, If it's so great why are so many men on ED drugs?

 

If foreskin is great, why are men on ED drugs?  I'm not sure what that even means.

 

8 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

you take viagra/kamagra etc? i doubt you'd admit it anyway

 

What does that have to do with foreskin?  Isn't that the opposite problem to ED?

 

I'm not sure what points you're trying to make.

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

If foreskin is great, why are men on ED drugs?  I'm not sure what that even means.

 

 

What does that have to do with foreskin?  Isn't that the opposite problem to ED?

 

I'm not sure what points you're trying to make.

Might be linked to brain function as well.

1 minute ago, susanlea said:

Where did you get half from?

 

you are a liar.

 

From the part of the penis being removed.  🙄

 

The glans aren't removed.

 

You're the liar here.

Just now, susanlea said:

Might be linked to brain function as well.

 

You must have had more than four removed then... 🙄

Just now, susanlea said:

Read the science. 

There is no "science", Its just rubbish made up (after the event of course)  purely for the purposes of justifying mutilation and appeasing the ignorant barbarians who support the practice .  It also helps the victims , like you, feel less like they are missing out on certain aspects of sexual pleasure. It was probably intended to be part of the healing process, or rather as near as possible to the healing process, as healing is impossible

Did a scientific study precede the onset of circumcision ?  Of course not  so to suggest any scientific basis for  circumcision , is clearly nothing other than your personal twisted fantasy 

           There are similar positive reports on the benefits of cutting women too (produced specifically to keep the muzzers happy) What are your "educated" views on FGM I wonder  What does "the science" tell you about that ?  Does it really remove the fishy odour?

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

From the part of the penis being removed.  🙄

 

The glans aren't removed.

 

You're the liar here.

50% 

 

Your link showed 11%

 

Embarrassing

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

If foreskin is great, why are men on ED drugs?  I'm not sure what that even means.

 

 

What does that have to do with foreskin?  Isn't that the opposite problem to ED?

 

I'm not sure what points you're trying to make.

Simple isn't it, you are saying foreskin has more sensitivity so getting and maintaining an erection should be easier, but so many men in Thailand use ED drugs, understand now? you use them?

1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

There is no "science", Its just rubbish made up (after the event of course)  purely for the purposes of justifying mutilation and appeasing the ignorant barbarians who support the practice .  It also helps the victims , like you, feel less like they are missing out on certain aspects of sexual pleasure. It was probably intended to be part of the healing process, or rather as near as possible to the healing process, as healing is impossible

Did a scientific study precede the onset of circumcision ?  Of course not  so to suggest any scientific basis for  circumcision , is clearly nothing other than your personal twisted fantasy 

           There are similar positive reports on the benefits of cutting women too (produced specifically to keep the muzzers happy) What are your "educated" views on FGM I wonder  What does "the science" tell you about that ?  Does it really remove the fishy odour?

Gibberish. Most men and women prefer circumsized. 

1 minute ago, susanlea said:

50% 

 

Your link showed 11%

 

Embarrassing

 

Were they testing the part that was removed?  How would you even do that?  The studies appear to be flawed.

 

Embarrassing.

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

There is no "science", Its just rubbish made up (after the event of course)  purely for the purposes of justifying mutilation and appeasing the ignorant barbarians who support the practice .  It also helps the victims , like you, feel less like they are missing out on certain aspects of sexual pleasure. It was probably intended to be part of the healing process, or rather as near as possible to the healing process, as healing is impossible

Did a scientific study precede the onset of circumcision ?  Of course not  so to suggest any scientific basis for  circumcision , is clearly nothing other than your personal twisted fantasy 

           There are similar positive reports on the benefits of cutting women too (produced specifically to keep the muzzers happy) What are your "educated" views on FGM I wonder  What does "the science" tell you about that ?  Does it really remove the fishy odour?

 
Cutting women or men when nature provides them with adequate tools seems brutal to me. But it's freedom of choice unless you are the subject of brutal religious rules.

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

Simple isn't it, you are saying foreskin has more sensitivity so getting and maintaining an erection should be easier

 

That seems like an odd leap to make.  Why should that be so?

2 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Simple isn't it, you are saying foreskin has more sensitivity so getting and maintaining an erection should be easier, but so many men in Thailand use ED drugs, understand now? you use them?

Too funny. Mr sensitive cant get it up.

2 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Gibberish. Most men and women prefer circumsized. 

 Data? Links? How can you say that? In all my decades of happy travelling, no woman has mentioned it. No problem if a guy wants to do that, but it's not natural - obviously.

2 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Gibberish. Most men and women prefer circumsized. 

 

Nah.  They don't mind.

 

Intact is better.

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Were they testing the part that was removed?  How would you even do that?  The studies appear to be flawed.

 

Embarrassing.

You falsely claimed 50% with no proof. Then your link says 11%. Now you say studies are flawed. You are a fool. 

Just now, susanlea said:

Too funny. Mr sensitive cant get it up.

 

Lol.  Sorry you're so mad for losing half your sexual stimulation.  🤷‍♂️

Just now, BobBKK said:

 Data? Links? How can you say that? In all my decades of happy travelling, no woman has mentioned it. No problem if a guy wants to do that, but it's not natural - obviously.

Links above.

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

That seems like an odd leap to make.  Why should that be so?

why can't you work it out? I'll assume you're on ED drugs as you haven't said either way