Making Sense out of Suffering for J Michael
#41
Also, I think you should read Peter Kreeft's Socrates Meets Sartre.
Reply
#42
Dearest Melkite, have it your way, if you must.  I can see that we will continue to talk in circles and I'm not interested in that.  I will keep you in my prayers and sincerely and deeply hope you will find someone to help you come to terms with your issues so that you can move on with your life.  (And no, I didn't "take it personally".)
Reply
#43
(06-24-2015, 03:56 PM)Papist Wrote: Melkite, the question you should ask yourself is the following: Am I still able to to have sex and orgasim, and is my peep intact enough that it would not keep someone from wanting to have sex with me?

If the answer is yes, then you are fine. Stop worrying about whether the dangley parts have a scarf.

It always baffles me that people think like this.  I'm not surprised, because it's so common in this country, but it's still baffling.  You know you were born uncircumcised.  You know that in order to be circumcised, someone had to alter you to make you that way.  No one is naturally circumcised.  So, you do believe that since boys are born uncircumcised, that that was part of God's design, right?  Like, you aren't of the impression that the foreskin is a chronic birth defect that assails every male born on earth, are you?

So, then, when you learn from science that the highest concentration of nerve endings are in tip of the foreskin, that the most sensitive regions of the penis are completely amputated by circumcision and that what is left is less sensitive in circumcised men than uncircumcised men (objectively, measurably, not anecdotally), you (pl) always respond with some variation of "you can still ejaculate, right?  then what's the problem?"  I mean, do you believe God creates things superfluously?  Do you believe God would have thrown in all that extra capability for sexual sensation if he didn't want it there?  And if he did want it there, and it makes a demonstrable difference, isn't it logical to assume that God put it there for a reason that isn't supposed to be dismissed?  It really never occurred to you that if there was no difference, or not an important one, that God wouldn't have then created such a drastic difference?  He could have made men uncircumcised without all the nerve endings and estrogen receptors and pheromone receptors and so on.  I mean if he went to the trouble to put so much in such a small area, can you really, confidently say that what God made is of no significance?  Completely baffling.

Quote:And BTW, I know that you struggle with SSA like I do. But, from what I understand form conversation, most straight women don't find the penis to be a very exciting thing to look at in the first place. They only value it for the job it does in bed, so don't worry so much about what it looks like. If you ever marry according to the teachings of the Church and do have sex with a woman, she is not gonna have any care about whether you are circumcised or not.

Most straight women in America don't find it to be that interesting to look at.  Then they have sex with an uncircumcised man and often never want to have sex with a circumcised man again.  Most straight women in the rest of the non-Islamic world think we are absolutely insane for circumcising boys.  Either way, are you suggesting that the opinions of straight women have any bearing on male reproductive reality?
Reply
#44
(06-24-2015, 04:18 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-24-2015, 03:56 PM)Papist Wrote: Melkite, the question you should ask yourself is the following: Am I still able to to have sex and orgasim, and is my peep intact enough that it would not keep someone from wanting to have sex with me?

If the answer is yes, then you are fine. Stop worrying about whether the dangley parts have a scarf.

It always baffles me that people think like this.  I'm not surprised, because it's so common in this country, but it's still baffling.  You know you were born uncircumcised.  You know that in order to be circumcised, someone had to alter you to make you that way.  No one is naturally circumcised.  So, you do believe that since boys are born uncircumcised, that that was part of God's design, right?  Like, you aren't of the impression that the foreskin is a chronic birth defect that assails every male born on earth, are you?

So, then, when you learn from science that the highest concentration of nerve endings are in tip of the foreskin, that the most sensitive regions of the penis are completely amputated by circumcision and that what is left is less sensitive in circumcised men than uncircumcised men (objectively, measurably, not anecdotally), you (pl) always respond with some variation of "you can still ejaculate, right?  then what's the problem?"  I mean, do you believe God creates things superfluously?  Do you believe God would have thrown in all that extra capability for sexual sensation if he didn't want it there?  And if he did want it there, and it makes a demonstrable difference, isn't it logical to assume that God put it there for a reason that isn't supposed to be dismissed?  It really never occurred to you that if there was no difference, or not an important one, that God wouldn't have then created such a drastic difference?  He could have made men uncircumcised without all the nerve endings and estrogen receptors and pheromone receptors and so on.  I mean if he went to the trouble to put so much in such a small area, can you really, confidently say that what God made is of no significance?  Completely baffling.

Quote:And BTW, I know that you struggle with SSA like I do. But, from what I understand form conversation, most straight women don't find the penis to be a very exciting thing to look at in the first place. They only value it for the job it does in bed, so don't worry so much about what it looks like. If you ever marry according to the teachings of the Church and do have sex with a woman, she is not gonna have any care about whether you are circumcised or not.

Most straight women in America don't find it to be that interesting to look at.  Then they have sex with an uncircumcised man and often never want to have sex with a circumcised man again.  Most straight women in the rest of the non-Islamic world think we are absolutely insane for circumcising boys.  Either way, are you suggesting that the opinions of straight women have any bearing on male reproductive reality?

What is baffling is how much you focus on this entirely unimportant issue. I really don't care if a guy with an uncircumcised penis can have a better orgasm than I can, I really don't.
Reply
#45
But, like Micheal, I have come to tire of this issue. If you want to spend the rest of your days in darkness and depression, mourning the fact that you won't ever be able to name your penis Mr. Turtle, then you go ahead and do so. I'll be busy living and enjoying life, regardless of whether or not I have a foreskin.
Reply
#46
(06-24-2015, 04:22 PM)Papist Wrote: What is baffling is how much you focus on this entirely unimportant issue. I really don't care if a guy with an uncircumcised penis can have a better orgasm than I can, I really don't.

But it is an important issue if an uncircumcised woman can have a better orgasm than a circumcised woman, right?  Cause that's an actual human rights abuse?

I know you're tired, I'm not saying that as a challenge, I just want other readers to be able to see the blatant hypocrisy in your line of thought.
Reply
#47
(06-24-2015, 04:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-24-2015, 04:22 PM)Papist Wrote: What is baffling is how much you focus on this entirely unimportant issue. I really don't care if a guy with an uncircumcised penis can have a better orgasm than I can, I really don't.

But it is an important issue if an uncircumcised woman can have a better orgasm than a circumcised woman, right?  Cause that's an actual human rights abuse?

I know you're tired, I'm not saying that as a challenge, I just want other readers to be able to see the blatant hypocrisy in your line of thought.

No, it's not a human rights abuse. If you are worried about female orgasms, there are many ways to bring these about.
Reply
#48
(06-24-2015, 04:34 PM)Papist Wrote: No, it's not a human rights abuse. If you are worried about female orgasms, there are many ways to bring these about.

You don't think female circumcision is a human rights abuse?  Ok, you surprised me on that one.
Reply
#49
(06-24-2015, 04:42 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-24-2015, 04:34 PM)Papist Wrote: No, it's not a human rights abuse. If you are worried about female orgasms, there are many ways to bring these about.

You don't think female circumcision is a human rights abuse?  Ok, you surprised me on that one.
Female circumcision? If it seriously prohibits her ability to have sex or orgasm, then yes, it would be a human rights abuse. Male circumcision does neither of those things.

That being said, I don't think circumcision is a good prudential decision, but it has not really affected my life in the negative ways  you go on about.
Reply
#50
(06-24-2015, 04:45 PM)Papist Wrote: Female circumcision? If it seriously prohibits her ability to have sex or orgasm, then yes, it would be a human rights abuse. Male circumcision does neither of those things.

That being said, I don't think circumcision is a good prudential decision, but it has not really affected my life in the negative ways  you go on about.

Ok, so where is the dividing line for you when unwanted body alterations change from acceptable to unacceptable?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)