Another Study: Women Prefer Circumcision

Exactly! Why remove ANY part of the body that has a natural, beneficial function? It's kind of insane, if you think about it. What makes it even more of a crime is that the foreskin contains nearly all of the erogenous tissue of the penis. That's not an opinion or some crazy internet snippet of info, that's a fact.

It sucks to realize that we've been robbed of something so valuable for the profit of some greedy industry-- and if you don't want to think about that, it's okay. Just make sure you don't let them do the same thing to your sons.

I agree - circumcision doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it's certainly not necessary. I've said that all along, it's in the posts time and again.

Same as cutting off eyelids? No way, the eyes can't function without eyelids. A man can have a 100% fully functioning happy and healthy penis with a circumcision.

Take Kong for example. He's a circumcised man and he's proclaimed that his sex life is totally awsome at the moment.

If the vast majority of erogenous tissue is taken with the foreskin then most men in this country would be effectively sexually disfunctional, and most of you reading this understand this isn't the case.

If you believe in evolution, than you know that the foreskin's primary function is protection of the penis and to facilitate easier penetration for fast sex in primitive times (didn't have a lot of time to stroke it when wild animals and other guys might be trying to kill you, especially if you weren't a dominant male).

It didn't develop as a pleasure mechanism, that's incidental because it's on the tip of the penis, where nerve response is centered so our more instinctual ancestors had desire to stick it in a warm wet place. Its role in male pleasure is certainly not primary, and probably little or at all for women. Procreation, in evolutionary terms, was all about making it work, not feel great. Instinct takes care of all that.

If you believe in evolution, than you know that the foreskin's primary function is protection of the penis and to facilitate easier penetration for fast sex in primitive times (didn't have a lot of time to stroke it when wild animals and other guys might be trying to kill you, especially if you weren't a dominant male).

It didn't develop as a pleasure mechanism, that's incidental because it's on the tip of the penis, where nerve response is centered so our more instinctual ancestors had desire to stick it in a warm wet place. Its role in male pleasure is certainly not primary, and probably little or at all for women. Procreation, in evolutionary terms, was all about making it work, not feel great. Instinct takes care of all that.

I think you are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong about this. Pleasure, of course, would be just as important as functionality, in that the caveman who enjoyed sex more would be more likely to fuck, and thus procreate. Natural selection would favor the caveman who was more of a horndog and loved fucking and did it every chance he got. Also, we were social creatures who lived in groups, and protected one another. As such, I don't think sex was quite as hazardous as you might believe. Not so run and gun as much as a social bonding thing.

The most important item mentioned in the study is that all of the women had given birth to a son, and 89% of these women had their newborn son circumcised. Women who choose to circumcise their son for aesthetics surely would defend their decision.

I'm willing to bet that virtually none of these women has ever heard a reasonable anti-circ arguement in their entire life. My wife would have had our son circumcised if I hadn't convinced her otherwise. She would have done it just because she "heard" that it's better, and because I am.

MDC said:

The most important item mentioned in the study is that all of the women had given birth to a son, and 89% of these women had their newborn son circumcised. Women who choose to circumcise their son for aesthetics surely would defend their decision.

I'm willing to bet that virtually none of these women has ever heard a reasonable anti-circ arguement in their entire life. My wife would have had our son circumcised if I hadn't convinced her otherwise. She would have done it just because she "heard" that it's better, and because I am.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I feel this whole study is suspect for the above reason, and for two more reasons: 1) 85% of the women in the survey hadn't even been with a guy who was uncut and 2) they asked them what the "ideal" penis is, which brings social acceptance into the equation. In the study I presented, the women were required to have been experienced with both cut and uncut men, and there were no shady factors like having just birthed a son, who was more than likely circumcised.

kong1971 said:

Exactly. I feel this whole study is suspect for the above reason, and for two more reasons: 1) 85% of the women in the survey hadn't even been with a guy who was uncut and 2) they asked them what the "ideal" penis is, which brings social acceptance into the equation. In the study I presented, the women were required to have been experienced with both cut and uncut men, and there were no shady factors like having just birthed a son, who was more than likely circumcised.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but Swank presented it. Therefore it is more valid.