Uncircumcised Penis : Danger!
» Heterogeneous
Cut vs. Uncut
The circumcised vs. uncircumcised debate dates back to at least the 13th century. A medieval radical explains why an uncut cock is dangerous:
… a man who is uncircumcised in the flesh and lie against his breast with great passion, for he thrusts inside her a long time because of the foreskin, which is a barrier against ejaculation in intercourse. Thus she feels pleasure and reaches an orgasm first. When an uncircumcised man sleeps with her and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grasps him, holding on to his genitals and says to him, “Come back, make love to me.” This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles—sinew of iron—and from his ejaculation—that of a horse—which he shoots like an arrow into her womb. They are united without separating and he makes love twice and three times in one night, yet the appetite is not filled. And so he acts with her night after night. The sexual activity emaciates him of his bodily fat and afflicts his flesh and he devotes his brain entirely to women, an evil thing…
The rest of this phallic argument: Jewish Penis is Better than Christian Penis
Comments
Who ever wrote this is so igorant is crazy. And obviously didn’t do much research.
Circumcised penis are not natural and it’s a mutilation of the body.
Foreskin Protection either partially or completely covers the glans penis.
The foreskin provides mechanical functions to facilitate intromission and penetration.
The foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.
The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence.
Posted by: Michael | July 17, 2009 3:02 PM