How long do you date before you stop using condoms?

[DMC]

I've been with my GF a little less than a year but we still us condoms. How long do you all date before you stop using them? Or do you even use them at all from the start? As much as some of you are worried about a woman's past I'd assume you all use them religiously.
Well?

Never stop using them. Your GF is probably ing other people.

[mavs>spurs]

about as reliable as your endless generalizations.

did you just generalize my posts in this thread as generalizations without providing any reasons why? ironic, but all my posts in this thread are absolute FACT. if your fragile psyche can't handle that son then I'd like to suggest that spurstalk may not be the best fit for you. the internet isn't for the easily offended or weak minded, there's a lot of stuff out there.

[leemajors]

did you just generalize my posts in this thread as generalizations without providing any reasons why? ironic, but all my posts in this thread are absolute FACT. if your fragile psyche can't handle that son then I'd like to suggest that spurstalk may not be the best fit for you. the internet isn't for the easily offended or weak minded, there's a lot of stuff out there.

you are cir cised and talking about how awesome it feels when you are not. i thought that was simple enough to leave out, son.

[reason]

Well I asked her about it last night and right away she asked "have you been talking to your friends?", since that has never been an issue before. She said she doesn't want any children right now and we both don't know how serious our relationship is going to get. That was good enough for me and then we had great sex. Some of you have some nutty views about condoms.

[mavs>spurs]

you are cir cised and talking about how awesome it feels when you are not. i thought that was simple enough to leave out, son.

i'm not speaking from experience, i'm speaking from the scientific studies which conclude that 20,000 specialized nerve endings are lost due to cir cision and also the testimonies of many who were cir cised later in life and experienced both.

One could only reasonable assume that unnecessary amputation of healthy erogenous tissue serving a sexual function would lead to undesirable side effects.

[leemajors]

i'm not speaking from experience, i'm speaking from the scientific studies which conclude that 20,000 specialized nerve endings are lost due to cir cision and also the testimonies of many who were cir cised later in life and experienced both.

there are studies that also show there is no loss of sensation, that's the point. you don't know. everyone is different.

[mavs>spurs]

there are studies that also show there is no loss of sensation, that's the point. you don't know. everyone is different.

those studies can only compare the parts of the penis that exist on both an intact and a cir cised penis..they cannot compare apples to oranges.

What's lost due to cir cision:

the ringed band
the foreskin and it's 20,000 specialized nerve endings
sometimes the frenulum

those studies ignore the fact that something is missing and only compare what is there after the amputation. i've seen them and they are bull .

the foreskin is the most touch sensitive tissue on either the male or female anatomy. more sensitive than the clitoris, or the eyelid. you're telling me losing that and it's protective function as well as the gliding action over the glans "doesn't affect sensation?"

you're in denial

[cantthinkofanything]

i'm not speaking from experience, i'm speaking from the scientific studies which conclude that 20,000 specialized nerve endings are lost due to cir cision and also the testimonies of many who were cir cised later in life and experienced both.

One could only reasonable assume that unnecessary amputation of healthy erogenous tissue serving a sexual function would lead to undesirable side effects.

The testimonies of people cir cised later in life really don't apply though do they? You'd have to have the testimony of someone who was cir cised as a baby and then grew up and had sex. Then they get in a time machine and go back in time to being baby again but not get cir cised and then has sex later. Get that testimony and I'll pay more attention.

[mavs>spurs]

also, those studies were done by american doctors who have an ax to grind. those doctors make a nice little profit off each cir cision that they perform. after it's done, they don't just discard your foreskin. they sell it to pharmaceutical companies and some of them end up in facial creams and makeup products. there is a big business in the US for mutilating baby boys penises. internationally, the significance of foreskin is universally recognized and virtually no country outside of the US, canada, and muslim countries practice it. And the numbers have fallen to almost nothing in canada in recent years. Great Britain used to practice it then stopped after world war 2 as evidence mounted that it was harmful and unnecessary. in fact, in many european countries infant cir cision is outright banned until the age of 18, when a person can consent on their own accord. Rates are actually dropping in the US significantly as well. I think it's something like 50/50 on babies being born today.

have you ever even studied the subject or it's history before you decide to disagree and attack me? cir cision was popularized in america by kellogg, the inventor of the cereal who was also a doctor. back then it was the belief among the medical community that masturbation was the cause of all kinds of crazy ailments such as blindness, insanity, and all sorts of other nonsense. the aim of infant cir cision was not only to reduce sexual pleasure, but to be done under no anesthesia so that the painful experience would serve as a mental deterrent. if you want to go back even further, the jews did it so that young men would be less worried about sex and therefore could devote their lives to their faith. It's long been known that the real aim behind cir cision was to reduce sexual pleasure, a side effect they don't tell you about in America today.

[cantthinkofanything]

also, those studies were done by american doctors who have an ax to grind. those doctors make a nice little profit off each cir cision that they perform. after it's done, they don't just discard your foreskin. they sell it to pharmaceutical companies and some of them end up in facial creams and makeup products. there is a big business in the US for mutilating baby boys penises. internationally, the significance of foreskin is universally recognized and virtually no country outside of the US, canada, and muslim countries practice it. And the numbers have fallen to almost nothing in canada in recent years. Great Britain used to practice it then stopped after world war 2 as evidence mounted that it was harmful and unnecessary. in fact, in many european countries infant cir cision is outright banned until the age of 18, when a person can consent on their own accord. Rates are actually dropping in the US significantly as well. I think it's something like 50/50 on babies being born today.

have you ever even studied the subject or it's history before you decide to disagree and attack me? cir cision was popularized in america by kellogg, the inventor of the cereal who was also a doctor. back then it was the belief among the medical community that masturbation was the cause of all kinds of crazy ailments such as blindness, insanity, and all sorts of other nonsense. the aim of infant cir cision was not only to reduce sexual pleasure, but to be done under no anesthesia so that the painful experience would serve as a mental deterrent. if you want to go back even further, the jews did it so that young men would be less worried about sex and therefore could devote their lives to their faith. It's long been known that the real aim behind cir cision was to reduce sexual pleasure, a side effect they don't tell you about in America today.

This is good schtick. Feigned outrage over cir cision while denying that access to soap and water is significant.

[leemajors]

also, those studies were done by american doctors who have an ax to grind. those doctors make a nice little profit off each cir cision that they perform. after it's done, they don't just discard your foreskin. they sell it to pharmaceutical companies and some of them end up in facial creams and makeup products. there is a big business in the US for mutilating baby boys penises. internationally, the significance of foreskin is universally recognized and virtually no country outside of the US, canada, and muslim countries practice it. And the numbers have fallen to almost nothing in canada in recent years. Great Britain used to practice it then stopped after world war 2 as evidence mounted that it was harmful and unnecessary. in fact, in many european countries infant cir cision is outright banned until the age of 18, when a person can consent on their own accord. Rates are actually dropping in the US significantly as well. I think it's something like 50/50 on babies being born today.

have you ever even studied the subject or it's history before you decide to disagree and attack me? cir cision was popularized in america by kellogg, the inventor of the cereal who was also a doctor. back then it was the belief among the medical community that masturbation was the cause of all kinds of crazy ailments such as blindness, insanity, and all sorts of other nonsense. the aim of infant cir cision was not only to reduce sexual pleasure, but to be done under no anesthesia so that the painful experience would serve as a mental deterrent. if you want to go back even further, the jews did it so that young men would be less worried about sex and therefore could devote their lives to their faith. It's long been known that the real aim behind cir cision was to reduce sexual pleasure, a side effect they don't tell you about in America today.

yeah, i think only 30% of the world is cir cised, and I believe 68% of those 30% are Muslim.

i would imagine all studies are done and/or funded by people with axes to grind as well.

[leemajors]

This is good schtick. Feigned outrage over cir cision while denying that access to soap and water is significant.

esp relatively clean water.

[mavs>spurs]

if your theory were correct, then why is the country with all the clean soap and water the one chopping off all the foreskins? you'd think poor countries would chop their s off in the name of cleanliness too, but most of them don't?

[cantthinkofanything]

esp relatively clean water.

Yes. In fact, it's been shown to be counterproductive to wash an uncir cised penis in dirty water. Bacteria from the water will become trapped within the foreskin and continue to multiply until surgical removal of the penis is the only option.

[MavDynasty]

Mavs>spurs are you cir cised or no?

[cantthinkofanything]

if your theory were correct, then why is the country with all the clean soap and water the one chopping off all the foreskins? you'd think poor countries would chop their s off in the name of cleanliness too, but most of them don't?

Because our overuse and reliance on anti-bacterial soap and antibiotics has given rise to resistant bacteria.

[leemajors]

I do agree with mavs>spurs that cir cision should not be the rule.

[cantthinkofanything]

I do agree with mavs>spurs that cir cision should not be the rule.

Let's try an experiment.

Close your eyes. You're sitting alone in a room. Two people walk into the room. Both are naked men. One is an uncir cised man from Africa. The other is a white cir cised man from the United States. A robotic voice from an unseen speaker tells you that you have to submit to anal sex from one of these men but you get to choose. The voice also tells you than one of them has AIDS. You are allowed to touch and smell their penises before you have sex. Which do you choose? Now, open your eyes. Are you comfortable with your decision?

[mavs>spurs]

I do agree with mavs>spurs that cir cision should not be the rule.

thank you. if people want to surgically amputate part of their bodies for cosmetic reasons then it should be their choice and theirs only.

[CuckingFunt]

the foreskin is the most touch sensitive tissue on either the male or female anatomy. more sensitive than the clitoris, or the eyelid.

Per wiki: The tip or glans of the clitoris alone has more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings,[17] as much as or more than the human penis, as well as more than any other part of the human body.[17][18]

you're telling me losing that and it's protective function as well as the gliding action over the glans "doesn't affect sensation?"

Also per wiki: Moses and Bailey (1998) describe the evidence of sensory function as "indirect," and state that, "aside from anecdotal reports, it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure."[24] The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following cir cision due to the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin and subsequent thickening of the epithelia of the glans, there is little evidence for this and studies are inconsistent."[25] Fink et al. (2002) reported "[a]lthough many have speculated about the effect of a foreskin on sexual function, the current state of knowledge is based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence."[26] Masood et al. (2005) state that "[c]urrently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin."[27] Schoen (2007) states that "[a]necdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity. Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between cir cised and uncir cised men."[28]







And if you think the clitoris and an eyelid are at all comparable in sensitivity, you're doing it very, very wrong.

[mavs>spurs]

Let's try an experiment.

Close your eyes. You're sitting alone in a room. Two people walk into the room. Both are naked men. One is an uncir cised man from Africa. The other is a white cir cised man from the United States. A robotic voice from an unseen speaker tells you that you have to submit to anal sex from one of these men but you get to choose. The voice also tells you than one of them has AIDS. You are allowed to touch and smell their penises before you have sex. Which do you choose? Now, open your eyes. Are you comfortable with your decision?

more misinformation with you. those studies that say "you have a 2% less chance of contracting HIV from unprotected sex if you are cir cised" are bogus. would you still have sex with someone with hiv just because you are cir cised? of course not. cir cision doesn't prevent HIV, condoms do.

[cantthinkofanything]

more misinformation with you. those studies that say "you have a 2% less chance of contracting HIV from unprotected sex if you are cir cised" are bogus. would you still have sex with someone with hiv just because you are cir cised? of course not. cir cision doesn't prevent HIV, condoms do.

you didn't even pay attention. In the experiment, you're the receiver. You have to choose which of the naked men will put his penis inside of you. Sorry, you can't pick both.

[mavs>spurs]

Per wiki: The tip or glans of the clitoris alone has more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings,[17] as much as or more than the human penis, as well as more than any other part of the human body.[17][18]



Also per wiki: Moses and Bailey (1998) describe the evidence of sensory function as "indirect," and state that, "aside from anecdotal reports, it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure."[24] The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following cir cision due to the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin and subsequent thickening of the epithelia of the glans, there is little evidence for this and studies are inconsistent."[25] Fink et al. (2002) reported "[a]lthough many have speculated about the effect of a foreskin on sexual function, the current state of knowledge is based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence."[26] Masood et al. (2005) state that "[c]urrently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin."[27] Schoen (2007) states that "[a]necdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity. Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between cir cised and uncir cised men."[28]







And if you think the clitoris and an eyelid are at all comparable in sensitivity, you're doing it very, very wrong.

Your information is incorrect. You say the clitoris has 8,000 nerves which is more than the penis? FALSE. the foreskin has 20,000 of them, as well as Meissner's corpuscles. removing the foreskin is akin to removing the clitoral hood. This article explains in better words than I can how mutilation has become a double standard.

http://www.dailytargum.com/opinion/c...9bb30f31a.html


Having sex with a cir cised man is uncomfortable for a woman in many cases. women who have experienced both almost exclusively prefer intact men and often complain of discomfort when having sex with a cir cised male. this discomfort (often pain) quickly trains her to avoid sex. She make excuses, like "I have a headache," "I'm too stressed-out about housework," or more honestly "I have a bladder infection/cys is," or "I feel chafed," or "I feel bruised from last time."

If you are cir cised, you have been sexually mutilated. You are unable to have sex with a woman in anything close to a normal way. "Lovemaking techniques" and "communication" are tiny band-aids over the gaping wound that is your relationship. Your cir cision is the giant, bloody, severed ox head on the table, rotting and filled with maggots, that everyone, including your parents, ignores, while politely sipping tails and pretending everything is normal. You must face the fact that you were sexually mutilated by establishment rapists in white coats, and go through a grieving process.

[cantthinkofanything]

Your information is incorrect. You say the clitoris has 8,000 nerves which is more than the penis? FALSE. the foreskin has 20,000 of them, as well as Meissner's corpuscles. removing the foreskin is akin to removing the clitoral hood. This article explains in better words than I can how mutilation has become a double standard.

http://www.dailytargum.com/opinion/c...9bb30f31a.html


Having sex with a cir cised man is uncomfortable for a woman in many cases. women who have experienced both almost exclusively prefer intact men and often complain of discomfort when having sex with a cir cised male. this discomfort (often pain) quickly trains her to avoid sex. She make excuses, like "I have a headache," "I'm too stressed-out about housework," or more honestly "I have a bladder infection/cys is," or "I feel chafed," or "I feel bruised from last time."

If you are cir cised, you have been sexually mutilated. You are unable to have sex with a woman in anything close to a normal way. "Lovemaking techniques" and "communication" are tiny band-aids over the gaping wound that is your relationship. Your cir cision is the giant, bloody, severed ox head on the table, rotting and filled with maggots, that everyone, including your parents, ignores, while politely sipping tails and pretending everything is normal. You must face the fact that you were sexually mutilated by establishment rapists in white coats, and go through a grieving process.

[Trill Clinton]

Let's try an experiment.

Close your eyes. You're sitting alone in a room. Two people walk into the room. Both are naked men. One is an uncir cised man from Africa. The other is a white cir cised man from the United States. A robotic voice from an unseen speaker tells you that you have to submit to anal sex from one of these men but you get to choose. The voice also tells you than one of them has AIDS. You are allowed to touch and smell their penises before you have sex. Which do you choose? Now, open your eyes. Are you comfortable with your decision?

this