7 'Useless' Body Parts Explained

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 3:47 AM GMT
    From appendix to foreskin, here's some ideas on why humans have them.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/useless-body-parts-explained/story?id=23979954#
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 3:54 AM GMT
    I never thought that the foreskin was useless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 4:21 AM GMT
    kevex saidI never thought that the foreskin was useless.

    Nor do I, though many people do, especially in the US.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 1:46 PM GMT
    Very informative article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 4:21 PM GMT
    Foreskin useless?!

    BLASPHEMY!

    Evidently believed by people who have never had the pleasure of meeting one.

    I envy my intact brothers.
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Jun 05, 2014 6:28 PM GMT
    They forgot to mention the brain, for some people it's seemingly useless icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 9:25 PM GMT
    I was too focused on the nipples of the guy in the stock photo to pay attention to the article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 9:26 PM GMT
    YVRguy saidI was too focused on the nipples of the guy in the stock photo to pay attention to the article.

    Suggesting that his nipples aren't useless. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 9:28 PM GMT
    Exactly ! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2014 10:05 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    YVRguy saidI was too focused on the nipples of the guy in the stock photo to pay attention to the article.

    Suggesting that his nipples aren't useless. icon_wink.gif



    lol Men's nipple's are sensitive too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2014 4:00 PM GMT
    Male foreskin...helps shield the opening of the urethra from any contaminates or bacteria, explains Weinhaus. It also protects your reproductive chances: Without a foreskin, the glans rubs against objects, like your clothes, and develops a thick layer of skin to desensitize itself, Weinhaus says. Foreskin keeps men more sexually sensitive, which would’ve encouraged our ancestors to reproduce more.

    Which may explain why the practice of male genital mutilation developed with the sexually repressive religions coming out of the Middle East.
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jun 06, 2014 6:08 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan saidMale foreskin...helps shield the opening of the urethra from any contaminates or bacteria, explains Weinhaus. It also protects your reproductive chances: Without a foreskin, the glans rubs against objects, like your clothes, and develops a thick layer of skin to desensitize itself, Weinhaus says. Foreskin keeps men more sexually sensitive, which would’ve encouraged our ancestors to reproduce more.

    Which may explain why the practice of male genital mutilation developed with the sexually repressive religions coming out of the Middle East.


    I can't begin to address the stupidity of this statement
  • daddysw

    Posts: 89

    Jun 07, 2014 3:47 PM GMT
    what I relief! I love my 4skinicon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2014 6:10 PM GMT
    kevex said
    Art_Deco said
    YVRguy saidI was too focused on the nipples of the guy in the stock photo to pay attention to the article.

    Suggesting that his nipples aren't useless. icon_wink.gif



    lol Men's nipple's are sensitive too.


    BS to this: " they're simply chest ornaments on men."!
    So many men are "wired" through their nipples.
  • frogman89

    Posts: 418

    Jun 08, 2014 10:52 AM GMT
    FitGwynedd said
    UndercoverMan saidMale foreskin...helps shield the opening of the urethra from any contaminates or bacteria, explains Weinhaus. It also protects your reproductive chances: Without a foreskin, the glans rubs against objects, like your clothes, and develops a thick layer of skin to desensitize itself, Weinhaus says. Foreskin keeps men more sexually sensitive, which would’ve encouraged our ancestors to reproduce more.

    Which may explain why the practice of male genital mutilation developed with the sexually repressive religions coming out of the Middle East.


    I can't begin to address the stupidity of this statement


    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.



    Plus, this whole article is stupid. The only body parts that they REALLY described as useless are the nipples and wisdom teeth. Everything else is, in fact, useful.
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jun 08, 2014 7:40 PM GMT
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd said
    UndercoverMan saidMale foreskin...helps shield the opening of the urethra from any contaminates or bacteria, explains Weinhaus. It also protects your reproductive chances: Without a foreskin, the glans rubs against objects, like your clothes, and develops a thick layer of skin to desensitize itself, Weinhaus says. Foreskin keeps men more sexually sensitive, which would’ve encouraged our ancestors to reproduce more.

    Which may explain why the practice of male genital mutilation developed with the sexually repressive religions coming out of the Middle East.


    I can't begin to address the stupidity of this statement


    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.



    Plus, this whole article is stupid. The only body parts that they REALLY described as useless are the nipples and wisdom teeth. Everything else is, in fact, useful.


    Oh dear, another German attacking minority religions and talking about reproduction. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2014 8:08 PM GMT
    frogman89 said
    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.

    The US is the most populous industrialized country where circumcision became a routine hospital procedure following birth, beginning around 1900. It was not done for religious purposes, since most of the population was and is Christian, and circumcision is not a Christian religious requirement.

    Circumcision became widespread in the US primarily because of quack science that claimed male masturbation would lead to insanity, homosexuality, loss of "vigor", laziness, lowered fertility, and all kinds of other maladies. Removing the foreskin was believed to reduce ease of masturbation, and pleasure, and so in turn lessen the desire to perform this harmful act. For this same reason coarse woolen mittens were marketed for young boys to wear in bed, so they wouldn't touch themselves at night.

    There were also concerns about disease prevention, following the relatively new attention to germ prevention, for both men and their women sex partners. A circumcised penis was considered more sanitary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2014 11:23 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    frogman89 said
    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.

    The US is the most populous industrialized country where circumcision became a routine hospital procedure following birth, beginning around 1900. It was not done for religious purposes, since most of the population was and is Christian, and circumcision is not a Christian religious requirement.


    It's a bit more nuanced than that I think. Circumcision according to the bible, was an act that God told the people who would later become the Israelites to perform. It was to be a covenant between him and them and as a way to distinguish themselves from the rest of the heathens around them. Given that Christianity was started by Jews, one can reasonably argue some cultural practices carried over as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2014 12:59 AM GMT
    Blondizgd said
    Art_Deco said
    frogman89 said
    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.

    The US is the most populous industrialized country where circumcision became a routine hospital procedure following birth, beginning around 1900. It was not done for religious purposes, since most of the population was and is Christian, and circumcision is not a Christian religious requirement.

    It's a bit more nuanced than that I think. Circumcision according to the bible, was an act that God told the people who would later become the Israelites to perform. It was to be a covenant between him and them and as a way to distinguish themselves from the rest of the heathens around them. Given that Christianity was started by Jews, one can reasonably argue some cultural practices carried over as well.

    No, you can't argue that at all. North American settlers were almost all Christian Europeans. And circumcision has no tradition in Europe, aside from the Jewish minority there. What you're postulating simply isn't historically true.

    NO European Christians were circumcised, except for rare medical necessity. And that continued in the New World, until around 1900 in the US, for the quack medical reasons I mentioned earlier. This issue was actually decided as early as 50 AD, with the Council of Jerusalem. At which time the early Church issued the Apostolic Decree, which said Gentile converts to Christianity did not require circumcision.

    Romans and Greeks despised circumcision, and it's believed that early Church leaders, like Saint Paul, though many of them circumcised Jews themselves, realized this would be a stumbling block to the spread of Christianity. Therefore circumcision was not being practiced by Gentile Christians before the end of the First Century. And that remains the case in Europe 2000 years later. The Jewish practice of circumcision NEVER followed the spread of Christianity.
  • frogman89

    Posts: 418

    Jun 09, 2014 1:37 PM GMT
    FitGwynedd said
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd said
    UndercoverMan saidMale foreskin...helps shield the opening of the urethra from any contaminates or bacteria, explains Weinhaus. It also protects your reproductive chances: Without a foreskin, the glans rubs against objects, like your clothes, and develops a thick layer of skin to desensitize itself, Weinhaus says. Foreskin keeps men more sexually sensitive, which would’ve encouraged our ancestors to reproduce more.

    Which may explain why the practice of male genital mutilation developed with the sexually repressive religions coming out of the Middle East.


    I can't begin to address the stupidity of this statement


    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.



    Plus, this whole article is stupid. The only body parts that they REALLY described as useless are the nipples and wisdom teeth. Everything else is, in fact, useful.


    Oh dear, another German attacking minority religions and talking about reproduction. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    I'm not the one with prejudices here, Mr judgemental bitch.
    I wasn't attacking anyone but you just now.

    Just because you don't have any sound arguments anymore, you start insulting and judging people. That's extremely immature.

    Art_Deco said
    frogman89 said
    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.

    The US is the most populous industrialized country where circumcision became a routine hospital procedure following birth, beginning around 1900. It was not done for religious purposes, since most of the population was and is Christian, and circumcision is not a Christian religious requirement.

    Circumcision became widespread in the US primarily because of quack science that claimed male masturbation would lead to insanity, homosexuality, loss of "vigor", laziness, lowered fertility, and all kinds of other maladies. Removing the foreskin was believed to reduce ease of masturbation, and pleasure, and so in turn lessen the desire to perform this harmful act. For this same reason coarse woolen mittens were marketed for young boys to wear in bed, so they wouldn't touch themselves at night.

    There were also concerns about disease prevention, following the relatively new attention to germ prevention, for both men and their women sex partners. A circumcised penis was considered more sanitary.

    Did I say "Christianity" specifically? No.
    I don't care why Americans started cutting it, but in some religions it is a tradition for the reason stated.
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jun 09, 2014 11:24 PM GMT
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd said
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd said
    UndercoverMan saidMale foreskin...helps shield the opening of the urethra from any contaminates or bacteria, explains Weinhaus. It also protects your reproductive chances: Without a foreskin, the glans rubs against objects, like your clothes, and develops a thick layer of skin to desensitize itself, Weinhaus says. Foreskin keeps men more sexually sensitive, which would’ve encouraged our ancestors to reproduce more.

    Which may explain why the practice of male genital mutilation developed with the sexually repressive religions coming out of the Middle East.


    I can't begin to address the stupidity of this statement


    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.



    Plus, this whole article is stupid. The only body parts that they REALLY described as useless are the nipples and wisdom teeth. Everything else is, in fact, useful.


    Oh dear, another German attacking minority religions and talking about reproduction. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    I'm not the one with prejudices here, Mr judgemental bitch.
    I wasn't attacking anyone but you just now.

    Just because you don't have any sound arguments anymore, you start insulting and judging people. That's extremely immature.

    Art_Deco said
    frogman89 said
    This statement isn't stupid at all, because it's true. Why else do you think cutting the foreskin is a religious rite? It's original purpose was to tame the male sexual craving.

    The US is the most populous industrialized country where circumcision became a routine hospital procedure following birth, beginning around 1900. It was not done for religious purposes, since most of the population was and is Christian, and circumcision is not a Christian religious requirement.

    Circumcision became widespread in the US primarily because of quack science that claimed male masturbation would lead to insanity, homosexuality, loss of "vigor", laziness, lowered fertility, and all kinds of other maladies. Removing the foreskin was believed to reduce ease of masturbation, and pleasure, and so in turn lessen the desire to perform this harmful act. For this same reason coarse woolen mittens were marketed for young boys to wear in bed, so they wouldn't touch themselves at night.

    There were also concerns about disease prevention, following the relatively new attention to germ prevention, for both men and their women sex partners. A circumcised penis was considered more sanitary.

    Did I say "Christianity" specifically? No.
    I don't care why Americans started cutting it, but in some religions it is a tradition for the reason stated.


    An angry German, never seen one of those before either. (Sarcasm)
  • frogman89

    Posts: 418

    Jun 10, 2014 4:27 PM GMT
    FitGwynedd saidAn angry German, never seen one of those before either. (Sarcasm)

    And yet again... full of prejudice and judging way too hastily. Is your life so boring?
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jun 10, 2014 4:31 PM GMT
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd saidAn angry German, never seen one of those before either. (Sarcasm)

    And yet again... full of prejudice and judging way too hastily. Is your life so boring?


    The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision 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."[34] Fink et al. (2002) reported "although 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."[35] Masood et al. (2005) state that "currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin."[36] Schoen (2007) states that "anecdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity.

    So your religious argument that circumcision is to inhibit sexual pleasure is highly flawed at best. Which therefore means you are trying to promote some sort of anti-Islamic agenda or whatever.
  • frogman89

    Posts: 418

    Jun 10, 2014 4:38 PM GMT
    FitGwynedd said
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd saidAn angry German, never seen one of those before either. (Sarcasm)

    And yet again... full of prejudice and judging way too hastily. Is your life so boring?


    The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision 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."[34] Fink et al. (2002) reported "although 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."[35] Masood et al. (2005) state that "currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin."[36] Schoen (2007) states that "anecdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity.

    So your religious argument that circumcision is to inhibit sexual pleasure is highly flawed at best. Which therefore means you are trying to promote some sort of anti-Islamic agenda or whatever.


    Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote "it's original purpose". This original purpose was demonstrated thousands of years ago. People didn't do studies, they just said it's bad and cut it. It is not me who said it diminishes sexual sensitivity.
    How about reading and thinking before replying with stupid posts?
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jun 10, 2014 4:48 PM GMT
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd said
    frogman89 said
    FitGwynedd saidAn angry German, never seen one of those before either. (Sarcasm)

    And yet again... full of prejudice and judging way too hastily. Is your life so boring?


    The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision 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."[34] Fink et al. (2002) reported "although 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."[35] Masood et al. (2005) state that "currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin."[36] Schoen (2007) states that "anecdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity.

    So your religious argument that circumcision is to inhibit sexual pleasure is highly flawed at best. Which therefore means you are trying to promote some sort of anti-Islamic agenda or whatever.


    Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote "it's original purpose". This original purpose was demonstrated thousands of years ago. People didn't do studies, they just said it's bad and cut it. It is not me who said it diminishes sexual sensitivity.
    How about reading and thinking before replying with stupid posts?


    No, they did it because that's what the scriptures said. You are making massive inferences with zero evidence to support those inferences except your own personal prejudices.