Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:40 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
Yesterday at 04:21 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
Yesterday at 03:50 PM

The Battle for British Is...
September 17, 2019, 06:28 PM

Muslim heritage?
September 17, 2019, 06:04 PM

Scientists and .............
by akay
September 17, 2019, 06:22 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
September 16, 2019, 04:53 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
September 16, 2019, 10:07 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
September 15, 2019, 02:53 PM

Kashmir endgame
September 15, 2019, 01:51 PM

Islamic Humanism
September 15, 2019, 12:01 PM

Beard outbreak in Uzbekis...
September 15, 2019, 09:22 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)

 (Read 39793 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #30 - April 28, 2009, 09:10 AM

    I don't think you'd get many women off with that.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #31 - April 28, 2009, 09:11 AM

    Yep. God knows how many times i wished my ex would just stop humping me because it was going on for far too long. Couldnt take the initiative myself to speed up the process since that would emasculate the idiot Roll Eyes


    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #32 - April 28, 2009, 09:13 AM

    Cheesy islame. Well there are special clinics that try to help remould the original jacket into place lol

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #33 - April 28, 2009, 09:15 AM

    Is your computer up & running now - what was the problem in the end?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #34 - April 28, 2009, 09:17 AM

    Yep. God knows how many times i wished my ex would just stop humping me because it was going on for far too long. Couldnt take the initiative myself to speed up the process since that would emasculate the idiot Roll Eyes

    Some blokes take themselves far too seriously. It's only sex for fuck's sake. << Notice terribly clever pun and all.  grin12

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #35 - April 28, 2009, 09:22 AM

    Some blokes take themselves far too seriously. It's only sex for fuck's sake. << Notice terribly clever pun and all.  grin12

    Its a classic sign of insecurity

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #36 - April 28, 2009, 09:26 AM

    Im waiting for the pc  engineer to arrive. Still not fixed. It needs a new hard drive but it should be today.


    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #37 - April 28, 2009, 09:32 AM

    Some blokes take themselves far too seriously. It's only sex for fuck's sake. << Notice terribly clever pun and all.  grin12

    Its a classic sign of insecurity

    Yep. Sex is supposed to be fun dammit. Insecurity just messes things up for everyone.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #38 - April 28, 2009, 09:42 AM

    It certainly does. I like a man who is comfortable with his sexuality. Ie comfortable enough to bloody let go of his supposed masculinity in the bedroom.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #39 - April 28, 2009, 09:56 AM

    I always pondered on the need for male circumcision and why the ancient desert peoples would want to carry out this painful procedure on innocent children. There must have been a good reason to get there god to sanction it.

    Two possible reasons I've come up with. Firstly as mentioned, the removal of the foreskin makes the forehead less sensitive as it is not as sensitive as one that's always covered. This, in most cases, prolongs the act.

    However the main reason I believe this was done was back in those day, especially with such scarcity of water, bathing was not a regular event. Mostly washing would be, as we know, washing the face, hands to the elbow and feet. Guys weren't taking out their penis to wash it on a daily basis. With a foreskin harbouring germs, viruses under its covering providing perfect condition for their growth, men may have had problems with infections in that area and hence the obvious option was to remove the foreskin that enabled germs to breed.

    This must have been implemented in law and backed up by God to ensure men of the tribe were virile and healthy, as that determined their strength against competing tribes.

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #40 - April 28, 2009, 09:59 AM

    ..... Well some women on here have seen my penis...


     Huh? Whaaatttt???

    ...
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #41 - April 28, 2009, 10:15 AM

    I always pondered on the need for male circumcision and why the ancient desert peoples would want to carry out this painful procedure on innocent children. There must have been a good reason to get there god to sanction it.

    Two possible reasons I've come up with. Firstly as mentioned, the removal of the foreskin makes the forehead less sensitive as it is not as sensitive as one that's always covered. This, in most cases, prolongs the act.

    Not an issue in reality. It gets talked about a lot but I don't really think its relevant.


    Quote
    However the main reason I believe this was done was back in those day, especially with such scarcity of water, bathing was not a regular event. Mostly washing would be, as we know, washing the face, hands to the elbow and feet. Guys weren't taking out their penis to wash it on a daily basis. With a foreskin harbouring germs, viruses under its covering providing perfect condition for their growth, men may have had problems with infections in that area and hence the obvious option was to remove the foreskin that enabled germs to breed.

    This must have been implemented in law and backed up by God to ensure men of the tribe were virile and healthy, as that determined their strength against competing tribes.

    Possible, but as I said it is a universal mammalian trait so if your theory were correct I'd expect all mammals to have problems with infected penises. Since this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice I'm not sure it has any application to humans.

    On the other hand humans are capable of dreaming up all sorts of bizarre initiation ceremonies and implementing them even though they provide no tangible benefit and may even result in reduced fitness. The extreme versions of FGM are obvious examples. Don't make the mistake of assuming that male circumcision must have originated because of practical benefits. That isn't necessarily the case.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #42 - April 28, 2009, 10:16 AM

    ..... Well some women on here have seen my penis...


     Huh? Whaaatttt???

     grin12 Tut has some unusual habits at times. If you ask nicely he might let you see it too.  Cheesy

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #43 - April 28, 2009, 10:19 AM

    ..... Well some women on here have seen my penis...


     Huh? Whaaatttt???


    Its a long story.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #44 - April 28, 2009, 10:20 AM

    ..... Well some women on here have seen my penis...


     Huh? Whaaatttt???


    Its a long story.

    pray tell

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #45 - April 28, 2009, 10:24 AM

    It was just a competition, I hate taken part in.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #46 - April 28, 2009, 10:28 AM

    Tut began to believe us ladies, or to be more specific, this lady lol, were making fun of the size of his manhood.

    now at the time i was not, but once i realised he thought it, it was too easy to actually start hinting that his paranoia must stem from being small anyway.

    well tut would not have this, and sent out a pic of his penis laid on top of a cd and next too a ruler Cheesy

    we still make fun of him now. Lmao the pic didnt help his case at all.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #47 - April 28, 2009, 10:31 AM

    have you got a link to the thread, or more specifically to his penis plated on a CD?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #48 - April 28, 2009, 10:31 AM

    Tut began to believe us ladies, or to be more specific, this lady lol, were making fun of the size of his manhood.

    now at the time i was not, but once i realised he thought it, it was too easy to actually start hinting that his paranoia must stem from being small anyway.

    well tut would not have this, and sent out a pic of his penis laid on top of a cd and next too a ruler Cheesy

    we still make fun of him now. Lmao the pic didnt help his case at all.


    It was 7 inches you think that is small?
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #49 - April 28, 2009, 10:34 AM

    ..... Well some women on here have seen my penis...


     Huh? Whaaatttt???


    Its a long story.

    I heard it was quite a short story.  parrot

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #50 - April 28, 2009, 10:41 AM

    I cant dig up the link on this phone plus it was at ffi. Also i didnt keep the picture lol.

    tut do it again only this time dont put the ruler so far back lol so no measuring from your balls.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #51 - April 28, 2009, 10:43 AM

    I cant dig up the link on this phone plus it was at ffi. Also i didnt keep the picture lol.

    tut do it again only this time dont put the ruler so far back lol so no measuring from your balls.


    I'll think about it, i'll see what I can mange.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #52 - April 28, 2009, 10:45 AM

    I cant dig up the link on this phone plus it was at ffi. Also i didnt keep the picture lol.

    tut do it again only this time dont put the ruler so far back lol so no measuring from your balls.

     Cheesy Lmao  dance

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #53 - April 28, 2009, 10:47 AM

    Oh and go for an erect picture this time lol nothing looks cooler than a standing soldier. 0O

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #54 - April 28, 2009, 10:48 AM

    I have a 5mp camera this time. I'll see how it goes.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #55 - April 28, 2009, 10:51 AM

    I will be waiting. grin12

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #56 - April 28, 2009, 11:49 AM

    I have a 5mp camera this time. I'll see how it goes.


    And don't use photoShop to provide any virtual enhancements!

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #57 - April 28, 2009, 11:52 AM

    Possible, but as I said it is a universal mammalian trait so if your theory were correct I'd expect all mammals to have problems with infected penises. Since this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice I'm not sure it has any application to humans.

    On the other hand humans are capable of dreaming up all sorts of bizarre initiation ceremonies and implementing them even though they provide no tangible benefit and may even result in reduced fitness. The extreme versions of FGM are obvious examples. Don't make the mistake of assuming that male circumcision must have originated because of practical benefits. That isn't necessarily the case.


    I suppose so. It was just a wild bit of reasoning to understand why Muhammad would want to carry on with such a Jewish ritual.

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #58 - April 28, 2009, 12:07 PM

    I'd love to know from the men on this forum, if you could freely decide whether or not your child was to be circumcised, would you do it?


    Probably not. Mainly because I remember getting my two sons circumcised and it was quite stressful for me to watch and clearly upsetting for them (they were both babies and cried.)

    My first son was done by a Jewish Rabbi. My second by a Muslim lady doctor.

    I'm not sure the foreskin has any advantages - it is quite possible that the reason it evolved is now defunct (we are sometimes left with vestiges of our past evolutionary stages.)

    Personally I do think it is cleaner without the foreskin, looks better and works fine - but that maybe due to years of seeing it as the 'right' thing to do. (of course those who think it is better with the foreskin will also be influenced by their subjective perspective.)

    Until I see any concrete evidence that it is harmful - then I really don't think it matters.
  • Re: MGM: Male Genital Mutilation (not the Motion Picture Company!!!)
     Reply #59 - April 28, 2009, 12:11 PM

    I had my first son snipped all for religious reasons and although i regret it deeply his life wont be adversely effected too much. At least i got my act together in time to not make the same choice for my second son who has not been cut.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »