Upload
Login or register

zarakin

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 27
Date Signed Up:6/18/2011
Last Login:9/20/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#21005
Highest Comment Rank:#11376
Comment Thumbs: 138 total,  208 ,  70
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 69 Comments: FJ Cultist → Level 70 Comments: FJ Cultist
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:229
FJ Points:1169
My real name is Greg. I have a wife, and one kid. I am 23 years old. I am currently in college, and working full time. I like video games.

latest user's comments

#559 - That would be a differernt type of cancer yes, way to ignore t…  [+] (2 replies) 09/17/2016 on Feminism Helps Men Too 0
User avatar
#560 - derpoman (09/17/2016) [-]
You say I don't grasp metaphors and then take mine literally.

How about we just agree to disagree since clearly nobody is going to concede their point.
#561 - zarakin (09/17/2016) [-]
I answered your questions where there was questions, and i suppose i should have explained the higher risk involved for cutting of a testi than a piece of skin. I did not take it as a metaphor which you are right, but mostly because the difference between cutting off foreskin vs a testi is dramatically different.

If you want to. Have a good one man.
#550 - The rubbing thing is ********. Your fingers don't lose sensiti…  [+] (4 replies) 09/16/2016 on Feminism Helps Men Too 0
User avatar
#558 - derpoman (09/17/2016) [-]
Yeah and if you lop your balls off you're less likely to get cancer on that or have complications with it too, that doesn't make it a good idea though.

And your dick skin and finger skin are very different surfaces.
Also how can you honestly argue this when I've got a dick that's literal proof of my point, the bit that suck out of the foreskin lost sensitivity, the bit that was in kept it, it's not made up jibber jabber and your benefits are nothing other than results of either carelessness or a result of just having a body part, yes if you have less penis I suppose your chances of penis cancer are lowered what a revelation.
And you know what, lets flip it around, why don't we circumcise women then, if it's so convenient? Why is that barbaric, I imagine it'd be easier to keep clean too, granted they can't get phimosis but cleanliness is a much bigger deal with vaginas.
#559 - zarakin (09/17/2016) [-]
That would be a differernt type of cancer yes, way to ignore the others.

There is a thing called the placebo effect. I am sure I don't need to explain what it is. If you believe that is what will happen, then you will have those effects. You are the first person i know that has said those things about their dick losing sensitivity, where all my uncircumcised friends (I say all because it is all but i only have 2) do not suffer that effect or has never mentioned it. I did send them a text asking after reading this though. Though I do agree they are different types of skin it was a metaphor which you don't seem to be grasping the concept of.

I do not know of any studies that link to beneficial effects for woman circumcision, so i can't argue the point of it. With men I would say there is some bias since it is an old practice that led to benefits at the time (when it was much harder to wash as the main issue). I can't have a conversion about the female side because I have no facts to base my opinion off of for benefits. Though I suppose I could it just dislike doing so. Though factually speaking you cut off a much larger portion of flesh with a female circumcision than you do with a males, and the risk to the female is much higher through this process. It leaves a lack of flesh or a hole that is prone to infections much more than a males circumcision. I would assume the better relation would be to cutting the labia so the vagina looks a certain way would be a much better comparison based off that, since comparing the two would be like cutting off the entire tip of the dick in essence. But there is plastic surgery to remove the labia if the woman chooses too.
User avatar
#560 - derpoman (09/17/2016) [-]
You say I don't grasp metaphors and then take mine literally.

How about we just agree to disagree since clearly nobody is going to concede their point.
#561 - zarakin (09/17/2016) [-]
I answered your questions where there was questions, and i suppose i should have explained the higher risk involved for cutting of a testi than a piece of skin. I did not take it as a metaphor which you are right, but mostly because the difference between cutting off foreskin vs a testi is dramatically different.

If you want to. Have a good one man.
#398 - Yeah I don't agree with all the things said, but the number of…  [+] (6 replies) 09/16/2016 on Feminism Helps Men Too 0
User avatar
#521 - derpoman (09/16/2016) [-]
It matters if the previous years were spent with a foreskin attached to your dick, also it's 2 years not 20 also it's not during the developmental years, so literally it's useless to the argument, it's insignificant and unrelated

And the finger thing is an example of why you would cut off your foreskin, it gains you nothing and you're risking infection for no reason, just because you don't need 2 kidneys doesn't mean they'll pull one out when you're a baby.
#550 - zarakin (09/16/2016) [-]
The rubbing thing is bullshit. Your fingers don't lose sensitivity and you use them a lot more than you dick would rub against your pants. 2 years would be enough to start loosing a sensation if any kind of callus was going to form 2 year would be enough for it to start. You don't lose nerves from slight rubbing without excess skin forming aka a callus.

It shouldn't matter because the facts remain the same. The finger thing is an example explaining how your body adapts nerves to make up for the lack of other nerves to the brain meaning the feeling would be the same not why you would cut it off just to help explain how your nerves work.

You get more than enough benefits from circumcision more than just the less likely to get aids, and some other STDS. Including Easier hygiene (if you clean properly this isn't an issue) Decreased risk of urinary tract infections, prevention of penile problems like the original comment said phimosis which is rather painful, and decreased risk of penile cancer. While it is true you may never face any of those issues if you are not circumcised it does reduce risk if not eliminate it entirely such as it does with phimosis.
User avatar
#558 - derpoman (09/17/2016) [-]
Yeah and if you lop your balls off you're less likely to get cancer on that or have complications with it too, that doesn't make it a good idea though.

And your dick skin and finger skin are very different surfaces.
Also how can you honestly argue this when I've got a dick that's literal proof of my point, the bit that suck out of the foreskin lost sensitivity, the bit that was in kept it, it's not made up jibber jabber and your benefits are nothing other than results of either carelessness or a result of just having a body part, yes if you have less penis I suppose your chances of penis cancer are lowered what a revelation.
And you know what, lets flip it around, why don't we circumcise women then, if it's so convenient? Why is that barbaric, I imagine it'd be easier to keep clean too, granted they can't get phimosis but cleanliness is a much bigger deal with vaginas.
#559 - zarakin (09/17/2016) [-]
That would be a differernt type of cancer yes, way to ignore the others.

There is a thing called the placebo effect. I am sure I don't need to explain what it is. If you believe that is what will happen, then you will have those effects. You are the first person i know that has said those things about their dick losing sensitivity, where all my uncircumcised friends (I say all because it is all but i only have 2) do not suffer that effect or has never mentioned it. I did send them a text asking after reading this though. Though I do agree they are different types of skin it was a metaphor which you don't seem to be grasping the concept of.

I do not know of any studies that link to beneficial effects for woman circumcision, so i can't argue the point of it. With men I would say there is some bias since it is an old practice that led to benefits at the time (when it was much harder to wash as the main issue). I can't have a conversion about the female side because I have no facts to base my opinion off of for benefits. Though I suppose I could it just dislike doing so. Though factually speaking you cut off a much larger portion of flesh with a female circumcision than you do with a males, and the risk to the female is much higher through this process. It leaves a lack of flesh or a hole that is prone to infections much more than a males circumcision. I would assume the better relation would be to cutting the labia so the vagina looks a certain way would be a much better comparison based off that, since comparing the two would be like cutting off the entire tip of the dick in essence. But there is plastic surgery to remove the labia if the woman chooses too.
User avatar
#560 - derpoman (09/17/2016) [-]
You say I don't grasp metaphors and then take mine literally.

How about we just agree to disagree since clearly nobody is going to concede their point.
#561 - zarakin (09/17/2016) [-]
I answered your questions where there was questions, and i suppose i should have explained the higher risk involved for cutting of a testi than a piece of skin. I did not take it as a metaphor which you are right, but mostly because the difference between cutting off foreskin vs a testi is dramatically different.

If you want to. Have a good one man.
#352 - Most of it is manbaby bitching i think, and believing the nerv…  [+] (15 replies) 09/15/2016 on Feminism Helps Men Too +1
#439 - teranin (09/16/2016) [-]
>Requesting that laws regarding nonmedical cutting into and removal of portions of genitalia be expanded to include the genitals of both sexes

>Manbaby bitching

Y'know, some people just think that the goal of men and women being treated equally under the law, and/or doctors repeatedly violating their hippocratic oath, and/or the 120 male babies (approx) who die every year in the USA from circumcison complications...

You know, I could go on for a long time here but I seriously have to ask, what circumstance in your life drove you to tnis level of contempt for men, for being principled, for dead babies, for creepy herpes-ridden mouths sucking on sliced infant genitalia, infecting babies with an STD? What happened to get you posting a psychology blog in a gambit to get out in front of a biological fact and pre-emptively spin it to seem insignificant?

Who crushed your humanity, zarakin?
#453 - zarakin (09/16/2016) [-]
Oh i wasn't talking about anything in the actual post was just replying to that guys comment. I agree with the law in a way and agree parents should have a right to pick, because I am torn down the middle on the subject.

The manbaby bitching comment comes from them not doing research and making tons of assumptions about something they have no way to know. (If they are circumcised from birth they don't know if it is going to reduce their pleasure since they never knew anything else.) They just use the same retold "facts" same way fat enablers, and SJW do. Facts that hold to their beliefs while ignoring facts shown to them. Saying what they lost when they don't know what they lost, and most studies state that they lost nothing from the admittedly small amount of research i've done on it, but i've found more trusted studies saying it doesn't effect it than i found the other way.

I'm not ruling out I have a disdain for men, but to give your the most honest anwer was probably my insanely abusive brother if i have any hate towards man that is where it would have come from.

Same thing to the humanity question. I did get kind of twisted from him when I was growing up. I try to stick to cold hard facts instead of my own opinions as much as I can.
User avatar
#385 - Sethorein (09/15/2016) [-]
All of it is man baby bitching. But the radicals are going nuts in these comments. Let them masturbation to this ruling all they want.
User avatar
#365 - derpoman (09/15/2016) [-]
So their argument is it helps you not get aids which is real helpful information for most of us as we actively fuck people with aids, we especially love doing it after not partaking in hygiene for extended periods of time.
The second is that after 2 years of being circumcised people showed an increase in sensitivity, this is on adults not children, so their dicks have already developed with the foreskin protecting their nerve endings, obviously it'll be more sensitive if that protection is taken away, the point is after a decade or two especially if those two happen to be developmental decades it can still make your dick less responsive to sensation, and finally they argue you can still pet a cat with 4 fingers, so the foreskin having nerves shouldn't matter.

Alright so is it cool if we start chopping off people's pinkies now? does it make the decision any less redundant?

Finally we have documentation that the only reason it was ever begun was not for medical purposes, it was specifically to prevent masturbation.
John Harvey Kellogg thought it up because he thought masturbation was a sin and if you get your foreskin lopped off, masturbating is a lot trickier, you need lube, it's less pleasurable, etc.
#398 - zarakin (09/16/2016) [-]
Yeah I don't agree with all the things said, but the number of people who said they experienced the same pleasure before and after is the only parts that mattered to me.

They said that was an example of you still get the same amount of nerve reception from the 4 fingers that you do from the 5th. Which you would probably see that if your panties weren't in a bunch. They didn't say to cut off peoples fingers you are over sensitive about the subject an reacting as much.

Does it matter why it was done if the facts remain the same?
User avatar
#521 - derpoman (09/16/2016) [-]
It matters if the previous years were spent with a foreskin attached to your dick, also it's 2 years not 20 also it's not during the developmental years, so literally it's useless to the argument, it's insignificant and unrelated

And the finger thing is an example of why you would cut off your foreskin, it gains you nothing and you're risking infection for no reason, just because you don't need 2 kidneys doesn't mean they'll pull one out when you're a baby.
#550 - zarakin (09/16/2016) [-]
The rubbing thing is bullshit. Your fingers don't lose sensitivity and you use them a lot more than you dick would rub against your pants. 2 years would be enough to start loosing a sensation if any kind of callus was going to form 2 year would be enough for it to start. You don't lose nerves from slight rubbing without excess skin forming aka a callus.

It shouldn't matter because the facts remain the same. The finger thing is an example explaining how your body adapts nerves to make up for the lack of other nerves to the brain meaning the feeling would be the same not why you would cut it off just to help explain how your nerves work.

You get more than enough benefits from circumcision more than just the less likely to get aids, and some other STDS. Including Easier hygiene (if you clean properly this isn't an issue) Decreased risk of urinary tract infections, prevention of penile problems like the original comment said phimosis which is rather painful, and decreased risk of penile cancer. While it is true you may never face any of those issues if you are not circumcised it does reduce risk if not eliminate it entirely such as it does with phimosis.
User avatar
#558 - derpoman (09/17/2016) [-]
Yeah and if you lop your balls off you're less likely to get cancer on that or have complications with it too, that doesn't make it a good idea though.

And your dick skin and finger skin are very different surfaces.
Also how can you honestly argue this when I've got a dick that's literal proof of my point, the bit that suck out of the foreskin lost sensitivity, the bit that was in kept it, it's not made up jibber jabber and your benefits are nothing other than results of either carelessness or a result of just having a body part, yes if you have less penis I suppose your chances of penis cancer are lowered what a revelation.
And you know what, lets flip it around, why don't we circumcise women then, if it's so convenient? Why is that barbaric, I imagine it'd be easier to keep clean too, granted they can't get phimosis but cleanliness is a much bigger deal with vaginas.
#559 - zarakin (09/17/2016) [-]
That would be a differernt type of cancer yes, way to ignore the others.

There is a thing called the placebo effect. I am sure I don't need to explain what it is. If you believe that is what will happen, then you will have those effects. You are the first person i know that has said those things about their dick losing sensitivity, where all my uncircumcised friends (I say all because it is all but i only have 2) do not suffer that effect or has never mentioned it. I did send them a text asking after reading this though. Though I do agree they are different types of skin it was a metaphor which you don't seem to be grasping the concept of.

I do not know of any studies that link to beneficial effects for woman circumcision, so i can't argue the point of it. With men I would say there is some bias since it is an old practice that led to benefits at the time (when it was much harder to wash as the main issue). I can't have a conversion about the female side because I have no facts to base my opinion off of for benefits. Though I suppose I could it just dislike doing so. Though factually speaking you cut off a much larger portion of flesh with a female circumcision than you do with a males, and the risk to the female is much higher through this process. It leaves a lack of flesh or a hole that is prone to infections much more than a males circumcision. I would assume the better relation would be to cutting the labia so the vagina looks a certain way would be a much better comparison based off that, since comparing the two would be like cutting off the entire tip of the dick in essence. But there is plastic surgery to remove the labia if the woman chooses too.
User avatar
#560 - derpoman (09/17/2016) [-]
You say I don't grasp metaphors and then take mine literally.

How about we just agree to disagree since clearly nobody is going to concede their point.
#561 - zarakin (09/17/2016) [-]
I answered your questions where there was questions, and i suppose i should have explained the higher risk involved for cutting of a testi than a piece of skin. I did not take it as a metaphor which you are right, but mostly because the difference between cutting off foreskin vs a testi is dramatically different.

If you want to. Have a good one man.
User avatar
#377 - pablosky (09/15/2016) [-]
Question, I'm not much into this so excuse me if this is obvious
Is the problem with this that doctors are just performing circumcision on babies indiscriminately? Like, even if they don't need it? Or are there just so many jews that the people and govs are actually being forced to take part and stop them?
User avatar
#379 - derpoman (09/15/2016) [-]
I think it's mostly religious.
Aside from the US where it seems to be pretty common.
But even parents shouldn't have a say in whether your dick gets mutilated or not.
If you did that to any other part of their body it'd be considered child abuse, why is this okay when even those studies arguing for it are point out how redundant it is.
That's without even mentioning the potential danger of complications with the procedure.
User avatar
#380 - derpoman (09/15/2016) [-]
pointing out*
User avatar
#368 - derpoman (09/15/2016) [-]
Also at the end of the day it's chopping off a piece of a baby's dick.
The medical proof that this benefits them outside of the aids thing holds no ground especially if you actually engage in hygiene, and it does legitimately desensitize dicks because something that was meant to be covered for most of your life has been rubbing against clothing since you were a child.
I have a foreskin that doesn't cover the head entirely, and the bit that stuck out is noticeably less sensitive, short term tests on adults (funny how they wouldn't go for chopping kids' foreskins off to test it), really aren't useful at all.
[ 214 Total ]