Plaw, Married and faithful so she says ???? What the heck does that mean? As for seeing the two different versions, and if I had a preference, I thought I did answer the quesion in my original post. I have to be attracted to a man's brain first, and the other is secondary, so it wouldn't matter. Can't you read between the lines? It's called discretion!!

LDV!!!

So nice to see you around these parts for once! Maybe more penis discussions will get you on here more often!

JG - yeah, leave it to a penis discussion to make me "come out"!

I read and agree with alot you posted then it hit me that I think we have had this discussion before in the past. :p

Ergo -


Nope. "Ridiculous" is subjective. When you HAVE to put your 3 day infant daughter under general anesthesia to remove an organ or she'll die, then you decide what looks "ridiculous" and if it is important enough to do just a little "snip".

Maybe you prefer we bring back foot binding? I mean we can't have all these girls running around with huge size 10 supermodel feet, can we? That looks ridiculous!! I bet if we band together as a society and start the practice of foot binding on infant girls, in 50 years we won't have many female feet larger than a size 4 in our country!

Wait. This has been done somewhere before???


Not all human beings are compatible with one another. This particular woman would not be compatible with your taste and expectations in women. You would be turned off? If I were this woman, would I want to feel like I was dating a 'gina inspector?

She obviously would not be your cup of tea. Move on until you find one that pleases your five senses.

And I have been meaning to give a shout out to SB's comment about it IS the bigger head that matters anyway. The big head controls all the other sexy functions anyway: the fingers, hands, tongue, nose, palms, cheeks, lips, toes, and yes last but not least nor notwithstanding - penis.

Not that it really has a role in THIS discussion...but I've been wishing I'd kept a photo posted long on an e-list I used to belong to. A man had actually had his one penis surgically divided so there were two.

I'm not sure what the reason would be for having this done, unless you're Fredo Corleone and want to do coctail waitresses two at a time.

By the way....both of them were circumcised.

Apple

Now that is something I HAVEN'T seen! Wonder what the motivation behind that was!

I saw the guy who had his tongue split in two. That was visionary ick-factor enough.

Apple, I think you just gave every guy on here a cramp/twinge or two reading that!

EDIT: I am assuming and hoping that he was a grown man when he opted (voluntarily) for that surgery. Therefore, to each his own!

OMG I go out of town for a day and I come back to see threads about toilet seat covers and circumcision. It's no wonder why I love the BB and the people on it.

This particular list (with the divided you-know-what photo) was, believe it or not...created for parents of children adopted from China! It was (and is) an all topic, no holds barred list on which anything and everything could be discussed or battled out. As with the GD forum here, only thing off limits was direct personal insults to fellow members Although some even disregarded that and remained unscathed (can anyone spell 'favoritism'?).

Anyway, I don't recall how or why the topic EVER came up but eventually there it was, posted in the photo section for all to see!!

And yes Partagas you are correct...after spending approx 5 years on that list, I can honestly say that the Gangster BB is a HUGE step up. Both in intelligence and common sense!

Apple

They should settle the case and snip half of the foreskin off (perhaps the right side)

The UN!? The UN!?

If you are asking what I prefer, no, I personally do not have a problem with women with "huge size 10 supermodel feet".

But if I lived in a society when and where foot binding was thought to make women more attractive, I would probably feel differently.

That's my point about circumcision.

I truly believe that if you surveyed American women today, and they all answered honestly, the majority would say that they find the uncircumcised penis to not be as attractive as the circumcised one.

But if and when we reach the point that only a minority of men are circumcised, then I think that the results would be different.

It's all a question of conditioning.

I'm reminded of the classic Twilight Zone episode in which a woman's face is wrapped in bandages for the first 27 minutes or so, and you don't see the faces of any of the other characters, who are all doctors and nurses.

From the dialogue that ensues, we are made to understand that this woman has undergone yet another operation in an attempt to correct her grotesque facial features, but when the bandages are finally removed at the end of the story and the doctors and nurses carry on about how the operation has failed, the faces of all of the characters are finally revealed and we see that by our standards she is beautiful, while it is the faces of the doctors and nurses that are horribly deformed.

as far as the "big head-little head" controversy goes, I agree up to a point.

I think that very few women would be willing to have sexual relations with a man that they find wholly unattractive, regardless of how much they might be attracted to his mind.

If I were attracted by his brain or his personality, then I wouldn't find him "wholly unattractive", would I? (by the way, not to go off topic, but that just reminded me of Robin - Holy Unattractive, Batman!) As for the circumcised/uncircumcised thing, by the time I would get to the point in the relationship where it would be "revealed", it honestly would not matter. I'd be so into him for so many other reasons that it wouldn't play a part.

If you are asking what I prefer, no, I personally do not have a problem with women with "huge size 10 supermodel feet".

But if I lived in a society when and where foot binding was thought to make women more attractive, I would probably feel differently.

That's my point about circumcision.

I truly believe that if you surveyed American women today, and they all answered honestly, the majority would say that they find the uncircumcised penis to not be as attractive as the circumcised one.

[/b][/quote]That is why I made MY point that if we stop performing circumcisions TODAY - in 50 years society would not think an uncircumcised member would be unattractive but it would be the norm.

Do you think that if society dictates that small breasts are unattractive we (women) should all undergo surgery and get implants?

And I used the foot binding example to drive the point home that is it really worth risking the health of infants and young girls to conform to a ridiculous societal norm?

Define "attractive". We are not comparing an uncircumcised penis to a deformity are we? Like I said, if a woman is looking for the perfectly smooth shafted rod, then that is her call based on her expectations and taste and she should pick her men accordingly if it means that much to her.

Im just saying I wouldn't (and haven't )kick a man I am attracted to out of bed because of it, as when he is fully aroused it is kind of mute point anyway!

No, but many women do, don't they?

And implants have proven to be considerably more medically dangerous than circumcisions, haven't they?

Here's the difference, I think: I would suggest that if there were a way of predicting in infancy which women would have abnormally small breasts in adulthood and there were a simple operation to change that and make the developed breats fall within the statistical norm later - one that was simpler and less dangerous than breast implants in adulthood - many parents would opt for it for their daughters.

Just as they would opt for reducing the size of abnormally large ear lobes..

Ridiculous as it may be that's the reality of the situation - our society, unfortunately judges people on their looks to a great extent, and people take all kinds of steps to make themselves look more attractive for that very reason (nose jobs, breast implants, contact lenses and lasar surgery for the eyes) - and especially considering that circimcision poses no significant health risks that I am aware of, people will continue to adhere to the "norm" as long as circumcision continues to be the norm.

No, I certainly don't consider it a "deformity". Nor do i consider women with small breats, or people who wear glasses, or people with big noses to be deformed.

[quote]Im just saying I wouldn't (and haven't )kick a man I am attracted to out of bed because of it, as when he is fully aroused it is kind of mute point anyway! [QUOTE]

It may very well be a moot point when the penis is fully aroused, I suppose (I'll have to take your word for that, never having seen one), and I respect the fact that you wouldn't let something so superficial as circimcision determine whether or not you wished to have sexual relations with a particular man.

But relationships frequently involve the woman getting the penis to the point of arousal, and if she's turned off by the sight to begin with, it might be hard (no pun intended) to proceed from there, so the point may not be moot to everyone.

As I said, if you surveyed all American women and they answered honestly, I don't believe that the majority would share your point of view.

So?

We are eagerly awaiting the results.

No, but many women do, don't they?

And implants have proven to be considerably more mediaclly dangerous than circumcisions, haven't they?

Here's the difference, I think: I would suggest that if there were a way of predicting in infancy which women would have abnormally small breasts in adulthood and there were a simple operation to change that and make the developed breats fall within the statistical norm later - one that was simpler and less dangerous than breast implants in adulthood - many parents would opt for it for their dauheters.

Just as they would opt for reducing the size of abnormally large ear lobes..

[/b][/quote]Ya think so?

As a parent, no. Would I be doing my child a disservice letting him/her run around with abnormally, large....lobes?

Why do women's breasts have to fall into the statistical norm?

Are you saying that "abnormally small breasts" are .."wholly unattractive"?

Could a man not find myself - as a woman - "attractive" with "abnormally, small breasts"?

I actually happen to have - by societal standards - a nice, rather large rack. Is this supposed to make me more sexually attractive to the male species than my small-busted counterparts? Warning, if you say yes, I am going to come completely unglued!

Women get implants because they want to conform to society's norms. But they make that choice in adulthood. If society deemed females to be more "attractive" as blondes, should all us brunettes artificially dye our hair? Yeah, some women do as a CHOICE. Why conform to a set of standards - JUST BECAUSE.

I'm really loving the guy right now who once said he fell in love with me because of the crinkle in my nose when I laughed. What if my parents had opted to have that FLAW removed at birth? What, with smooth rods, large perky breasts and perfectly sized earlobes, where do we draw the line of trying to create perfect looking people?

Very true. "If" she is turned off, then she is obviously not attracted to this particular man.

You know, not every man that is cut has an attractive penis either!

I would rather judge each on his own individually instead of categorizing a man's penis beauty on whether or not he is cut or not.

As I said, if you surveyed all American women and they answered honestly, I don't believe that the majority would share your point of view.
You are most likely right when you say "American" women. Most American women don't really know any different. But I guarantee you stop the practice of infant circumcision today and in 50 years American women would be hot for the uncut guys. They wouldn't know any different!

Yes, I believe that you would.

Why subject the child to unnecessary teasing and ridicule over something that can be changed with a simple snip?

You want your child to go through school being laughed at and called "Dumbo"?

If we were talking major surgery or something, that would be different.

It's not a question of "they have to".

They do, just as just about anything else does that is measurable.

And I think that many or even most people would prefer that some aspects of their person fall within the statistical norm, rather than outside of it.

Me? No. AAMOF, personally, strictly from the POV of what I find to be sexually attractive, I much prefer smaller breasts to larger ones.

Of course a man could. I probably would be one of those who did.

But I think if you polled American men, and they were forced to answer honestly, you would find that more prefer larger rather than smaller, although I believe the results woukld be closer than they would in the women's "Penis Preference Poll".

Wel, at the risk of ungluing you....

I'm not sure you mean by "supposed to." It's certainly not "supposed" to, strictly speaking in the use of that term..

Besides, a man obviously considers other factors in deciding the relative sexual attractiveness of a woman besides the size of her breasts - legs, backside, face, dress, etc.

And, speaking only for myself, of course, I absolutely consider the woman's mind, although that particular factor only seems to gain importance as the relationship progresses. If it's simply sex for the sake of sex, most men (myself included) tend not to be too concerned with that the first couple of times.

But if breast size alone was the only factor being considered, then yes, I believe that most men find women with larger breasts to be more sexually attractive than those with smaller ones.

But again, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "is it supposed to?"

Agreed.

But as I said earlier, if it was totally predictable in infancy which women would end up with abnormally small breasts (using abnormally to mean "outside the statistical norm" and not to suggest an "abnormality") and if there were a procedure that could be performed in infancy that was as uncomplicated as a circumcision and obviated the need for the more complicated and dangerous breast implant wich would be made by choice in adulthood, I believe that most parents would opt for the former.

Of course not.


Should all women who wear glasses get contact lenses because many or most men may find the "no glasses" look more attractive?

Should all women with small breasts get implants because many or most men find larger breasts more attractive?

The difference is, though, that few men consider brunettes in general to be unattractive.

It's just that many consider blondes to be more attractive.

Same, I think, with breast size or glasses.

But with circumcision, I believe that a woman's like or dislike would tend to be more definite. Of course I could be wrong about that.

But speaking very generally here, no man is gonna turn down sex with an attractive brunette simply because he prefers blondes, whereas a woman might be totally turned off by an uncircumcised penis, even if she finds the rest of the man attractive.

It's not simply "just because".

It's because that by adhering more closely to societal norms and preferences, it becomes easier for some, many, or most people to go through life.

I'm by no means saying that that's the way it should be, but the reality is that that's the way it is.

That's what I've been saying all along, isn't it?

And if I left out "American" in any of this when talking about "women", it was an oversight.


[quote]I'm really loving the guy right now who once said he fell in love with me because of the crinkle in my nose when I laughed. What if my parents had opted to have that FLAW removed at birth? What, with smooth rods, large perky breasts and perfectly sized earlobes, where do we draw the line of trying to create perfect looking people? QUOTE]

Everyone draws their own line.

Are you saying that if I wore glasses and I opted to get contact lenses, it would be because I would want to be more attractive to men because they prefer the "no glasses" look? Oh boy. You mentioned Lasic in a past post as well.

You don't think it would be for ease and convenience? The fact that I could run better without them on my face, drive and wear sunglasses or just not have to carry the darn things (glasses) with me in my purse everywhere I go? Maybe the non-glasses look would make me more attractive but wouldn't that just be subjective to the potential looker?

I can see we could debate this all day long and we can agree to disagree. Im just thanking MY lucky stars you're not MY father. God Forbid my ear lobes would be on the large side and you would have me snipped at birth! I applaud you for your intentions, but I just would not risk my son/daughter's health for something a so insignificant as a bigger than average "lobe".

I think we agree that these are choices people can make once they are adults.

As I stated earlier, I know two men who as adults chose to have themselves circumcised. They did so for their own personal reasons. I did note that they were both foreigners who moved to the States but whether they wanted to conform to American standards or if it were something else, I dont know. But I know of other men who are not cut - and don't seem to care and it doesnt appear their sex life is suffering.

If I would have had a son, I might have had it done - only because his father was. Hard to say since I never had a son. But if we just stopped doing it altogether, it wouldn't matter!

Agreed.

However - that is called sexual uncompatability. Happens all the time. A woman could also be totally turned off by a circumcised penis dependent on many factors.

And if an uncut guy is just so terribly ugly down there, picture your date wearing the most ugly, God Awful sweater. There is enough about his looks, appeal and personality to look past the sweater. If you and he are compatible, imagine getting past the sweater and taking it off. And of course, the sweater always comes off faster with a little help from the Lady! There you go.

You would be surprised what a person can look past when you like someone, find aspects of them sexy and are compatible with each other. I mean, you are not perfect are you? :p

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Since you're using ear lobes as an analogy, then we can extract from this that you think that uncut boys would also endure "unnecessary teasing and ridicule" and being "laughed at."

Are you just ASSuming this? What makes you think at all that uncut boys are being teased and ridiculed because of that?? Kids tease each other about almost everything - but I never noticed any teasing in school over cut/uncut, short/long, hairy/hairless, or anything else in the lockerroom (except for boners ).

Just to be fair here -- to show I'm not a hard-hearted man -- let me present an opposing article called BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION which also really sticks it to the "Anti-Circ Lobby Groups" that I had linked to earlier, and their "propoganda."

Obivously, this is quite a debate. And as such, both sides think they're right. As is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I only got started on this debate, here, because I was attacking Plaw's logic. I will continue to do that if necessary ( ) but don't want to give the impression that I am overly concerned about this issue. I really couldn't care less what people choose to do - nor do I consider this a big issue in the grand scheme of things.

JG, will you stop using words like hard and big in this thread!!

No, I'm using snipping ear lobes as an example of a minor type of surgery that a parent my choose to have performed on an infant so that his way in life might be made easier as he gets older.

In no way am I suggesting that an uncirumcised boy would be met with ridicule or teased by other boys.

I am merely comparing the types of surgery -crcumcision with ear lobe snipping - and the fact that the failure to get either might result in negative consequences down the road.

I am not suggesting that the consequences in either case would be the same.

Let's reverse it:

If I compared open heart surgery to save an infant's life with a C-setion to save an infant's life because the baby was being strangled by the umbilical cord, you wouldn't say say that I was saying that open heart surgery is as serious an operation as a C-section, would you?

And I fail to see where any of my logic was faulty.

You keep saying "P. Lawrence assumes this" and "P.Lawrence assumes that", but the only guesses (not assumptions) that I've made and opinions that I've expressed throughout here were guesses and opinions about what people think and why they sometimes do what they do.

I never made any of the assumptions that you keep saying I made.

If he doesn't then he needs to provide visuals.

Fair point about the contact lenses.

My guess, though is that some, many, or most people who wear contacts instead of conventional glasses do so for cosmetic reasons.

And of course it's all subject to the view of the "potential looker."

Beauty is, after all, in the eyes of the beholder.

Remember, I'm the guy who prefers small breasts to large (unlike most men, I think), and I also find glasses to be quite sexy as, to me at least, they impute a look of intelligence to the wearer.

I thought that went, Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.