FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Cut or uncut
Cut or uncut
Jump to: Newest in thread
This thread appears regularly and it always makes me smile. The thought of someone getting circumcised because HotlistChick69 says she likes cut. And then knitting and stapling on a new foreskin because SexyTits80085 says she prefers uncut.
If I *had* to express a preference then probably uncut. It's what I'm used to and I like the way the skin glides over the hardness underneath. But as always if I'm at the stage where I'm naked with someone then the presence or lack of foreskin is going to make no difference whatsoever.
J |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Like all body parts, we prefer them without bits cut off them. Do you prefer ears with the lobes cut off? Do you prefer feet with a toe missing? Why would you prefer a penis with the foreskin cut off it? It's supposed to be there. If it has to be taken off for medical reasons then that's unfortunate, but how this becomes a preference baffles me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Liverpool |
Are you looking for validation for your own?
Because what people prefer is really of little consequences.
If you are uncut and people prefer cut, are you going to get cut?
If you are cut and they prefer uncut, well kinda screwed there aren't you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are you looking for validation for your own?
Because what people prefer is really of little consequences.
If you are uncut and people prefer cut, are you going to get cut?
If you are cut and they prefer uncut, well kinda screwed there aren't you."
There are ways of stretching and getting it "kind of" back, not talking elephant trunk flesh sock original style, just a lip around the periphery.
But yeah, who cares. I like mine as it is and I've had no complaints. (Nobody's been around it, hence no complaints.)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you're an adult male and you have chose to remove the cover then cool. One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act. Can you imagine a "how do you like your clitoris - natural or removed?" How do you like your labia "natural or cut and sewn shut?" Thread
Yes, I know they are two totally different things, but are they though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
"
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well "
Legal acceptance doesn't make cutting off a body part moral. The act is the same in principal whether it's done to a boy or a girl. It's genital mutilation. The law or acceptance by billions of people doesn't change that.
Yes, ear-piercing, implants etc. for non-medical reasons on children who have no say in the matter is also wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well
Legal acceptance doesn't make cutting off a body part moral. The act is the same in principal whether it's done to a boy or a girl. It's genital mutilation. The law or acceptance by billions of people doesn't change that.
Yes, ear-piercing, implants etc. for non-medical reasons on children who have no say in the matter is also wrong. "
Quote from the internet (and we both know The Internet is always right):
Legal principles are based on the rights of the citizens and the state expressed in the rules. An action is permissible if it does not violate any of the written rules.
Morality is a body of principles that attempt to define what is good and bad conduct. Moral principles can be based on culture, religion, experiences, and personal values. An action is considered moral if it fits within those standards, though everyone has different standards.
Ergo: most people do this out of religious reasons, therefore it's moral.
Presumably you can't accept cutting the umbilical cord either? Perhaps there's a better way of birth that doesn't involve mutilating the mother and the baby? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well
Legal acceptance doesn't make cutting off a body part moral. The act is the same in principal whether it's done to a boy or a girl. It's genital mutilation. The law or acceptance by billions of people doesn't change that.
Yes, ear-piercing, implants etc. for non-medical reasons on children who have no say in the matter is also wrong.
Quote from the internet (and we both know The Internet is always right):
Legal principles are based on the rights of the citizens and the state expressed in the rules. An action is permissible if it does not violate any of the written rules.
Morality is a body of principles that attempt to define what is good and bad conduct. Moral principles can be based on culture, religion, experiences, and personal values. An action is considered moral if it fits within those standards, though everyone has different standards.
Ergo: most people do this out of religious reasons, therefore it's moral.
Presumably you can't accept cutting the umbilical cord either? Perhaps there's a better way of birth that doesn't involve mutilating the mother and the baby?"
Cutting an umbilical chord at birth is not mutilation.
Permanently disfiguring a healthy set of genitals, male or female, in the name of religion, culture or any other bullshit reason is barbaric. Especially if it’s a young child who can’t make their own decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cutting an umbilical chord at birth is not mutilation.
Permanently disfiguring a healthy set of genitals, male or female, in the name of religion, culture or any other bullshit reason is barbaric. Especially if it’s a young child who can’t make their own decision."
We've just established what moral means. You take to a different set of sliding scales and apply your own arbitrary values as you see fit, that's hardly moral.
Legally it's acceptable (in males). Morally for the majority, it's also acceptable. You're in a tiny minority who believe otherwise because your value systems are completely different.
You used the terminology "mutilation" instead of cutting. Do you know what that word actually means?
Here's the Internet again:
an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
Circumcised dicks work, they work rather well. Ergo they're not severely damaged or destroyed. If anything they work better than their non cut counterparts. There's statistically less incidence of disease, and they're more hygienic. Those are the facts on the ground.
Presumably unnecessary cesarian sections (tummy mutilations) are unacceptable in order to rip out a child from the "birth chamber" without it's consent?
You're ok with mutilating the umbilical cord.
You're ok with stabbing a child with a sharp object to administer medication? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cutting an umbilical chord at birth is not mutilation.
Permanently disfiguring a healthy set of genitals, male or female, in the name of religion, culture or any other bullshit reason is barbaric. Especially if it’s a young child who can’t make their own decision.
We've just established what moral means. You take to a different set of sliding scales and apply your own arbitrary values as you see fit, that's hardly moral.
Legally it's acceptable (in males). Morally for the majority, it's also acceptable. You're in a tiny minority who believe otherwise because your value systems are completely different.
You used the terminology "mutilation" instead of cutting. Do you know what that word actually means?
Here's the Internet again:
an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
Circumcised dicks work, they work rather well. Ergo they're not severely damaged or destroyed. If anything they work better than their non cut counterparts. There's statistically less incidence of disease, and they're more hygienic. Those are the facts on the ground.
Presumably unnecessary cesarian sections (tummy mutilations) are unacceptable in order to rip out a child from the "birth chamber" without it's consent?
You're ok with mutilating the umbilical cord.
You're ok with stabbing a child with a sharp object to administer medication?"
Can’t believe we have pro “cut functional parts of your child’s body off without their consent” arguments |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What do people prefer? 
I always wonder when people ask this question.....if you're uncut and most say 'cut'....would you actually get the scissors out?  "
No  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well
Legal acceptance doesn't make cutting off a body part moral. The act is the same in principal whether it's done to a boy or a girl. It's genital mutilation. The law or acceptance by billions of people doesn't change that.
Yes, ear-piercing, implants etc. for non-medical reasons on children who have no say in the matter is also wrong.
Quote from the internet (and we both know The Internet is always right):
Legal principles are based on the rights of the citizens and the state expressed in the rules. An action is permissible if it does not violate any of the written rules.
Morality is a body of principles that attempt to define what is good and bad conduct. Moral principles can be based on culture, religion, experiences, and personal values. An action is considered moral if it fits within those standards, though everyone has different standards.
Ergo: most people do this out of religious reasons, therefore it's moral.
Presumably you can't accept cutting the umbilical cord either? Perhaps there's a better way of birth that doesn't involve mutilating the mother and the baby?"
The umbilical cord isn't alive  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well "
You can guess all you want |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well
Legal acceptance doesn't make cutting off a body part moral. The act is the same in principal whether it's done to a boy or a girl. It's genital mutilation. The law or acceptance by billions of people doesn't change that.
Yes, ear-piercing, implants etc. for non-medical reasons on children who have no say in the matter is also wrong. "
Glad I'm not the only one x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well
Legal acceptance doesn't make cutting off a body part moral. The act is the same in principal whether it's done to a boy or a girl. It's genital mutilation. The law or acceptance by billions of people doesn't change that.
Yes, ear-piercing, implants etc. for non-medical reasons on children who have no say in the matter is also wrong.
Quote from the internet (and we both know The Internet is always right):
Legal principles are based on the rights of the citizens and the state expressed in the rules. An action is permissible if it does not violate any of the written rules.
Morality is a body of principles that attempt to define what is good and bad conduct. Moral principles can be based on culture, religion, experiences, and personal values. An action is considered moral if it fits within those standards, though everyone has different standards.
Ergo: most people do this out of religious reasons, therefore it's moral.
Presumably you can't accept cutting the umbilical cord either? Perhaps there's a better way of birth that doesn't involve mutilating the mother and the baby?"
Really? I mean really. Hardly the same ball park. What about certain religious sects that suck the blood from the child's penis after circumcision? Does the unbiblical cord factor into that equation too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One of the things I can't get my head around is the mutilation of boys as a religious act.
Well one's practised by billions of people and legally accepted, and the other, isn't.
But it's an interesting discussion point, I'm guessing you're against East piercing, hormone therapy for transitioning children, implants, etc as well
Legal acceptance doesn't make cutting off a body part moral. The act is the same in principal whether it's done to a boy or a girl. It's genital mutilation. The law or acceptance by billions of people doesn't change that.
Yes, ear-piercing, implants etc. for non-medical reasons on children who have no say in the matter is also wrong.
Quote from the internet (and we both know The Internet is always right):
Legal principles are based on the rights of the citizens and the state expressed in the rules. An action is permissible if it does not violate any of the written rules.
Morality is a body of principles that attempt to define what is good and bad conduct. Moral principles can be based on culture, religion, experiences, and personal values. An action is considered moral if it fits within those standards, though everyone has different standards.
Ergo: most people do this out of religious reasons, therefore it's moral.
Presumably you can't accept cutting the umbilical cord either? Perhaps there's a better way of birth that doesn't involve mutilating the mother and the baby?"
That's absurd. By your argument if somebody sacrifices babies for religious reasons then it would be moral. Would you see it that way?
As you stated, different people have different moral standards. By my standards, cutting a perfectly healthy and normal body part off a defenceless baby, causing them significant pain, putting them at risk and altering their body forever is not moral. If you see it as moral then you're entitled to your opinion. I see it as disgusting and I'm not going to sit here and keep quiet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Can’t believe we have pro “cut functional parts of your child’s body off without their consent” arguments "
You're confusing the argument.
The argument was about morals. Sadly for your "consent" argument, the legal frameworks accept it, and the moral Frameworks do too. Your reasoning is fail.
And functional?  jeez it's just foreskin dude. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The umbilical cord isn't alive "
By which definition? These are cells and they are as "alive" as any other.
The foreskin is just as "alive" until it's removed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Really? I mean really. Hardly the same ball park. What about certain religious sects that suck the blood from the child's penis after circumcision? Does the unbiblical cord factor into that equation too? "
You know there are some people who eat the uterus? Not my cup of tea, but yeah.
No comment re sucking penis. That was kinda shocking when I found out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That's absurd. By your argument if somebody sacrifices babies for religious reasons then it would be moral. Would you see it that way?
As you stated, different people have different moral standards. By my standards, cutting a perfectly healthy and normal body part off a defenceless baby, causing them significant pain, putting them at risk and altering their body forever is not moral. If you see it as moral then you're entitled to your opinion. I see it as disgusting and I'm not going to sit here and keep quiet. "
This isn't life or death. Also, the above is illegal and therefore societally unacceptable.
Look, one day the legal frameworks may change and your opinions will matter. Till then, it's something practised by many cultures, many religions (including Christians who saw Jesus as being born a Jew and therefore would've been "cut") and is legally acceptable in the majority of the world. You're welcome to protest and move to a country that practices what you preach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Really? I mean really. Hardly the same ball park. What about certain religious sects that suck the blood from the child's penis after circumcision? Does the unbiblical cord factor into that equation too?
You know there are some people who eat the uterus? Not my cup of tea, but yeah.
No comment re sucking penis. That was kinda shocking when I found out."
Do you really mean the uterus, or the placenta? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Really? I mean really. Hardly the same ball park. What about certain religious sects that suck the blood from the child's penis after circumcision? Does the unbiblical cord factor into that equation too?
You know there are some people who eat the uterus? Not my cup of tea, but yeah.
No comment re sucking penis. That was kinda shocking when I found out.
Do you really mean the uterus, or the placenta?"
Oh f yeah my bad! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As a circumcised man (don’t really like to use the word cut)I read these posts with interest.until I was about 18 I realised I was in the minority in the uk as most of my pals weren’t circumcised and it did bother me.
however with age and experience I quickly realised that it doesn’t matter to most people.not really had any negative experiences from partners.my best mate who was circumcised a couple of years ago for medical reasons says he actually prefers it so I guess as long as it works does it really matter? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Really? I mean really. Hardly the same ball park. What about certain religious sects that suck the blood from the child's penis after circumcision? Does the unbiblical cord factor into that equation too?
You know there are some people who eat the uterus? Not my cup of tea, but yeah.
No comment re sucking penis. That was kinda shocking when I found out."
Eating the uterus?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's absurd. By your argument if somebody sacrifices babies for religious reasons then it would be moral. Would you see it that way?
As you stated, different people have different moral standards. By my standards, cutting a perfectly healthy and normal body part off a defenceless baby, causing them significant pain, putting them at risk and altering their body forever is not moral. If you see it as moral then you're entitled to your opinion. I see it as disgusting and I'm not going to sit here and keep quiet.
This isn't life or death. Also, the above is illegal and therefore societally unacceptable.
"
But "socially acceptable" isn't what you said made circumcision moral. You said that doing it for religious reasons makes moral. I call bs on that. As I said, if you kill a baby in the name of religion it would be immoral even if some society considered it socially acceptable and it was legal. 9/11 was done for religious reasons. Was that moral?
I'm merely pointing out out that your argument that doing something for religious makes it moral is absurd, which it looks like you recognise because you then move the goalposts and say something is moral because it is socially acceptable. Are you now saying that anything that is socially acceptable is moral? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That's absurd. By your argument if somebody sacrifices babies for religious reasons then it would be moral. Would you see it that way?
As you stated, different people have different moral standards. By my standards, cutting a perfectly healthy and normal body part off a defenceless baby, causing them significant pain, putting them at risk and altering their body forever is not moral. If you see it as moral then you're entitled to your opinion. I see it as disgusting and I'm not going to sit here and keep quiet.
This isn't life or death. Also, the above is illegal and therefore societally unacceptable.
But "socially acceptable" isn't what you said made circumcision moral. You said that doing it for religious reasons makes moral. I call bs on that. As I said, if you kill a baby in the name of religion it would be immoral even if some society considered it socially acceptable and it was legal. 9/11 was done for religious reasons. Was that moral?
I'm merely pointing out out that your argument that doing something for religious makes it moral is absurd, which it looks like you recognise because you then move the goalposts and say something is moral because it is socially acceptable. Are you now saying that anything that is socially acceptable is moral? "
I kinda don't care anymore, honestly. The arguments are moot. You're no different to a vegetarian who hates on meat eaters.
If you don't like the law of the land, then please find somewhere else to live. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cutting an umbilical chord at birth is not mutilation.
Permanently disfiguring a healthy set of genitals, male or female, in the name of religion, culture or any other bullshit reason is barbaric. Especially if it’s a young child who can’t make their own decision.
We've just established what moral means. You take to a different set of sliding scales and apply your own arbitrary values as you see fit, that's hardly moral.
Legally it's acceptable (in males). Morally for the majority, it's also acceptable. You're in a tiny minority who believe otherwise because your value systems are completely different.
You used the terminology "mutilation" instead of cutting. Do you know what that word actually means?
Here's the Internet again:
an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
Circumcised dicks work, they work rather well. Ergo they're not severely damaged or destroyed. If anything they work better than their non cut counterparts. There's statistically less incidence of disease, and they're more hygienic. Those are the facts on the ground.
Presumably unnecessary cesarian sections (tummy mutilations) are unacceptable in order to rip out a child from the "birth chamber" without it's consent?
You're ok with mutilating the umbilical cord.
You're ok with stabbing a child with a sharp object to administer medication?"
Nice bit of deflection and whatsboutery.
I don’t agree with mutilating children.
You think it’s fine. We don’t and won’t agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Here's the Internet again:
an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
"
Seems to cover circumcision
An act of removing a body part |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Here's the Internet again:
an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
Seems to cover circumcision
An act of removing a body part"
Should dentists be removing teeth?
Particularly for cosmetic reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’m cut, and from my personal experience about 80% of the people I’ve been with couldn’t care one way or another.
20% have liked it, either because it’s a niche, it’s their first time with one, or they have an existing preference for it. It’s ranged from a quick mention, to a full on inquisitive fetish.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just throwing in that there is some evidence showing medical benefits to circumcision. Not saying people should have one, it's choice and makes no difference in how you perform in the bedroom.
1.Less risk of urinary tract infections
2.A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men
3.Protection against penile cancer and a lower risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners
4.Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin)
5 Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That's absurd. By your argument if somebody sacrifices babies for religious reasons then it would be moral. Would you see it that way?
As you stated, different people have different moral standards. By my standards, cutting a perfectly healthy and normal body part off a defenceless baby, causing them significant pain, putting them at risk and altering their body forever is not moral. If you see it as moral then you're entitled to your opinion. I see it as disgusting and I'm not going to sit here and keep quiet.
This isn't life or death. Also, the above is illegal and therefore societally unacceptable.
But "socially acceptable" isn't what you said made circumcision moral. You said that doing it for religious reasons makes moral. I call bs on that. As I said, if you kill a baby in the name of religion it would be immoral even if some society considered it socially acceptable and it was legal. 9/11 was done for religious reasons. Was that moral?
I'm merely pointing out out that your argument that doing something for religious makes it moral is absurd, which it looks like you recognise because you then move the goalposts and say something is moral because it is socially acceptable. Are you now saying that anything that is socially acceptable is moral?
I kinda don't care anymore, honestly. The arguments are moot. You're no different to a vegetarian who hates on meat eaters.
If you don't like the law of the land, then please find somewhere else to live. "
I hope you keep that same energy when countries in the Middle East treat women like shit because it’s the law of the land |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Here's the Internet again:
an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
Seems to cover circumcision
An act of removing a body part"
You mean like cutting your nails? Guess you could call it finger mutilation. Weird though but... Err. Whatever floats your boat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hope you keep that same energy when countries in the Middle East treat women like shit because it’s the law of the land "
Want me to declare Godwin's Law now, or wait till you get there?
It's just foreskin. It's done for many reasons including religious, cultural and medical. It's an accepted practice by billions of people. There are loads of positives associated with it. And it's legal in the land of the free, the greatest of Britain's, the most United of Kingdoms.
You guys can keep talking Middle East, mutilation, morality, etc but ultimately you're living in a land that sanctions it. You're welcome to leave the land if you're that CUT UP about it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Here's the Internet again:
an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
Seems to cover circumcision
An act of removing a body part
Should dentists be removing teeth?
Particularly for cosmetic reasons. "
Thank was from the definition of mutilation, if people wish to have body modifications for cosmetic reasons then providing they are adults then no harm, no foul. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is this a thread of people arguing over foreskins?
I love the internet.
I reckon this is EXACTLY what it was created for."
Tim Berners Lee pictured this.
It's about Nazis |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I tear it with my teeth
Well you chose violence didn't you.
Oh hang on, something tells me we’re not talking about sellotape?"
I assumed you were talking about toast. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I ask them to slice it thick at the bakers. "
It is widely held (like some cocks)That nobody misses a slice off a cut loaf.
I find that hard to believe in a situation when there are not many slices left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Like all body parts, we prefer them without bits cut off them. Do you prefer ears with the lobes cut off? Do you prefer feet with a toe missing? Why would you prefer a penis with the foreskin cut off it? It's supposed to be there. If it has to be taken off for medical reasons then that's unfortunate, but how this becomes a preference baffles me. "
Baffles me too,but each to their own.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
I have too much time on my hands.
