Enjoy your double cancer burger and foreskin fries. WTF!

>> ^Sagemind:

Ya, I'm having a bad day
I think the stress is getting to me...
Sigh...
>> ^Fade:
If it was a foreskin joke I'd see your point Sage but this is poking fun at a common fear that men have of losing their balls in a beautiful woman. Did I say in? I meant 'to'.
You must have left your funny bone at home.



Ohhh, sorry to hear that lovey! Hope you can jump in a jacuzzi or something, soon

Ya, I'm having a bad day
I think the stress is getting to me...

*Sigh...

>> ^Fade:

If it was a foreskin joke I'd see your point Sage but this is poking fun at a common fear that men have of losing their balls in a beautiful woman. Did I say in? I meant 'to'.
You must have left your funny bone at home.

If it was a foreskin joke I'd see your point Sage but this is poking fun at a common fear that men have of losing their balls in a beautiful woman. Did I say in? I meant 'to'.

You must have left your funny bone at home.

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*quality mocking.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^zombieater:
"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.
I wish people would stop doing this. Did we just watch a creationist video? No, serious people use the word 'designed' in relation to evolutionary processes all the time because it's a useful shorthand.


Yeah, I know it's not a creationist video. It's just annoying for me. As a teacher and biologist, it's more than just a common shorthand, it implies a misunderstanding of biology and I feel that this misunderstanding by anthropomorphizing evolution can lead to problems in comprehension of the concept.



Perhaps I should just bite my tongue and fight the good fight when it counts, eh?

Agreed. Culture adapts more quickly than evolution.

Now the deserts are paved and irrigated, and little boxes made of ticky-tacky dot the hillside. All with AC and all just the same. Culture can adapt again.

>> ^dag:

I think it could be that STDs have evolved quicker than us. Therefore we use culture as a way to beat their faster microbial evolution. The same goes for dietary laws. There were probably pretty good reasons for not eating shellfish, if you lived in the desert without refrigeration. >> ^notarobot:
I've never understood the argument that a normal body part, found on pretty much every mammal species on earth, evolved over millions and millions of years is flawed.

I dont buy the argument that it had any practical health benefits in the bronze age or anywhen else. It was a massive way to show god whose side you were on by cutting a lump of your(or someone elses) penis off. Performing surgery circa 6,000BC on a newborn (or adult) with a sharpened stone is not going to increase anyones chances of survival. Look at the African tribes that carry out the same ritual today, the families have to wait to see which of the young men even survived the surgery, nevermind the ensuing infections.

If it was a detriment to survival we wouldnt have one, other mammals wouldnt have them, they are there for a reason and has been said for decades about circumcision "Its a cure searching for a disease". The latest attempt to find a disease is the AIDS/STD studies in Africa, none of the findings of which have been borne out in further studies.

I have yet to hear of a boy dying because he didnt have a circumcision, but I have heard (locally) of a baby boy who died as a result of a circumcision, an african immigrant whose mother was following her religious/tribal custom while living in Ireland for example.

I was loling when I first did some reading about this stuff online, so much hysteria about foreskins from people who dont even know what a normal penis looks like flaccid or erect, about how much special maintenance they require etc. (none), propaganda as far as I'm concerned.

My 2 cents

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't think it's the right thing to do now - but maybe in biblical times when hygiene was a real issue, it was a way to give a male offspring a head start against the many ailments that were around at the time. I don't think it's a practice that was just pulled out of a hat- it has some practical background, just like dietary laws. >> ^hpqp:

@dag and @lucky760
Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).
Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.
But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.

>> ^hpqp:

Yes, because parents should make irretrievable decisions about their child's future sex life and "porn star" qualities.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:
>> ^Kalle:
The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here
Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..

Exactly. Living in the US and having traditionalist parents (Christian), I can say that I'm happy with their choice. Sensitivity can be great but being able to last is more important to get a girl off. Besides, I'd prefer to look like a porn star than sea tube worm.


Way to go on reading what you were thinking into what I said. Quit projecting. I didn't make any comment about what parents should or shouldn't do.

No vote from me because rather than just being informative, the video strongly pushes an anti-circumcision agenda, spouts lies about how wonderfully more sensitive the foreskin is intact, and ignores all the common complications of non-circumcision.

I've heard from countless people like a few members above who had sex before and (long) after having an adult circumcision who almost 100% of the time state there's no discernible difference in sensation whatsoever.

Furthermore, most of the time adult circumcision performed due to a lot of common complications of the foreskin. E.g., the foreskin doesn't stretch upon erection so it feels like it's tearing, the foreskin dries and attaches itself to the head of the penis, etc.

What's more is there are a lot of recent studies indicating that the transmission of HIV and the proliferation of HPV into penile cancer are vastly more likely in an uncircumcised man.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think it could be that STDs have evolved quicker than us. Therefore we use culture as a way to beat their faster microbial evolution. The same goes for dietary laws. There were probably pretty good reasons for not eating shellfish, if you lived in the desert without refrigeration. >> ^notarobot:

I've never understood the argument that a normal body part, found on pretty much every mammal species on earth, evolved over millions and millions of years is flawed.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^Kalle:

The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here
Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..


Exactly. Living in the US and having traditionalist parents (Christian), I can say that I'm happy with their choice. Sensitivity can be great but being able to last is more important to get a girl off. Besides, I'd prefer to look like a porn star than sea tube worm.