FarleyMcFirefly said:
burninmylight said:
Uncircumcised penis, easily. There's a point to snipping that foreskin, you know. Helping to prevent infections and all that good health stuff. Likewise, a woman with a huge rack is more likely to experience back and balance problems as she gets older. |
Thats an old wive's tale. There is no scientific proof that circumcision reduces infections. Also, sex is more pleasurable with the foreskin.
|
"There is no scientific proof that circumcision reduces infections."
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/METHOD=print
There were hundreds of other sources I could have linked, but a quick Google search can net you the same proof stating other wise.
"Also, sex is more pleasurable with the foreskin."
That's like saying Everclear is more potent that Absolut Vodka, or pure Colombian coke is stronger than some crap cooked up on the street. My penis is plenty sensitive enough. If I need to make it more sensitive, then that's what Christy's Toy Box is in business for.
There's a thread that circles back around every few weeks asking how often you get laid, and many of you are nice enough to be honest and admit you're still waiting for the first, second or third time. So how the hell would most of you know just how good it is with and without? What, did you get some, get your foreskin removed, get more booty, get the foreskin reapplied, then have the most mindblowing sex of your life?
EDIT: Also, the question was "Which is worse?". I answered the question. Notice how the only people saying a flat-chested woman are arguing in the interest of their flappy penises. They aren't saying a word about the health of the woman. I'd love for any females on this forum to weigh in on their thoughts on the health benefits/drawbacks of their breast size, along with their thoughts on uncircumcised penises vs. circumcised.
