TLC Tugger is a big fibber

[terrenc...@rocketmail.com]

Saw him caught out here in his lies about AIDS in Africa and checked
his website. More lies there. Says "100 percent" of men lose sexual
pleasure from circumcision. He must know that's a lie because lots of
research shows we don't. Even if he doesn't know the research he must
have seen men here saying their sex pleasure is better after
circumcision.I checked and he has posted here often over years so he
must have seen this information. I researched this before I got
circumcised eight years ago so if I can find the facts why can't he?
Its amazing what people will do to sell their products. Anyway MY sex
pleasure is increased after circumcision so TLC put that in your pipe
and smoke it.

[judith_...@hotmail.com]

The website also says uncircumcised men don't suffer foreskin hygiene problems. What is smegma then?

[windinghighway]

Yes Terrence and Judith, I checked the TLC website and it does
contain those inaccuracies.

First, it says: " Circumcision removes valuable specialized erogenous
tissue; 100% of circumcised men suffer reduced sensitivity and
pleasure." This is just not correct. There is NO "specialized
erogenous tissue" in the foreskin -- its similar tissue and nerves as
elsewhere in the body. And its not correct that "!00 percent of
circumcised men suffer reduced sensitivity and pleasure". Apart from
the ample testimony here and elsewhere that circumcision often
increases sensitivity and pleasure, there are scientific studies that
show it has either no effect or a positive effect (e.g. Masters &
Johnson (1996), Bleustein (2003), Bleustein (2005), Payne (2007) and
Krieger (2008). There are minor contrary studies but these are not
scientifically valid -- they are typically drawn from "volunteers"
from anti-circumcision organizations, and dont meet Ron's own
expressed standards for research studies.

Knowing these facts, Ron Lowe should amend his statement, because it
would be dishonest to let it stand as is.

Second, his website says of uncircumcised men: "They have no special
health or hygiene problems." I just dont know where to start with the
"no special health" problem statement, because there are so many
diseases that are scientifically proven to be more common among
uncircumcised men, ranging from phimosis to balanitis to penile
cancer. This newsgroup alone has listed many of them, with research
citations, and I dont understand how Ron can have missed them, as he
appears to visit the site regularly. He just needs to google
"foreskin diseases" to get some sense of how wrong this statement
is. He should inform himself and then amend that statement, as it
would be very dishonest to let it stand.

As for the "no hygiene" problem statement -- well, as Judith says,
what is smegma then, if not a foul smelling hygiene issue? Worse,
smegma stench is exacerbated by the fact that foreskins trap traces of
urine, giving the typical foreskin that rancid-cheese-and-stale-
ammonia odor. Again, Ron must surely be acquainted with this fact as
it is raised repeatedly in this newsgroup and elsewhere. But Ron if
you have really missed it, try these googles:

Foreskin smell: 1,090,000 results
Foreskin stink: 3,020,000 results
Foreskin stench: 28,200,00 results
Foreskin odor: 15,500,00 results
Disgusting foreskin: 518,000 results
Revolting foreskin: 1,950,000 results
Nasty foreskin: 1,020,000 results
Horrid foreskin: 1,310,000 results

Then Ron, once you have been acquainted with the facts, you will
doubtless wish to amend your statement in the interests of basic
honesty.

[windinghighway]

Oh, and I also see that TLC has an inaccurate statement on his website about the extent of circumcision globally. He puts it at a fifth. I cant imagine where he got that estimate, but you just have to add up the various circumcised and partially circumcised countries to know its way off. The World Health Organization is a more reliable source than the TLC website, and it puts the figure at 30 percent. So Ron, you might want to adjust that too when you correct the errors on your website.

Heres the WHO link if you want a valid reference for your users, Ron: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf

[Orlando]

Why would TLC Tugger continue to spread misleading information about something as important as the absolute need to be circumcised? Thank you Winginghighway for providing the google hits regarding “foreskin stench” what is indisputable proof of the serious negative consequences of not being circumcised. I would think this truth would be obviously self evident and I am surprised anyone would attempt to muster an argument against circumcision.

[MiguelZ]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:20:13 PM UTC-4, windinghighway wrote:

> As for the "no hygiene" problem statement -- well, as Judith says,
>
> what is smegma then, if not a foul smelling hygiene issue? Worse,
>
> smegma stench is exacerbated by the fact that foreskins trap traces of
>
> urine, giving the typical foreskin that rancid-cheese-and-stale-
>
> ammonia odor. Again, Ron must surely be acquainted with this fact as
>
> it is raised repeatedly in this newsgroup and elsewhere. But Ron if
>
> you have really missed it, try these googles:
>
>
>
> Foreskin smell: 1,090,000 results
>
> Foreskin stink: 3,020,000 results
>
> Foreskin stench: 28,200,00 results
>
> Foreskin odor: 15,500,00 results
>
> Disgusting foreskin: 518,000 results
>
> Revolting foreskin: 1,950,000 results
>
> Nasty foreskin: 1,020,000 results
>
> Horrid foreskin: 1,310,000 results
>
>

That is an amazing list. Should be published all over the internet. Hard to argue with that!

[Omar B]

>
>
> Why would TLC Tugger continue to spread misleading information about something as important as the absolute need to be circumcised?

This is because he sells plastic and tape to men who want a new foreskin for 80 dollars. If he says circumcision is good he will sell nothing.

[Parker]

I looked up the site and TLC Tugger says that SMEGMA has a "sweet musky aroma" LOL LOL LOL! SWEET???? I must say I never heard THAT description before! Maybe he thinks that SHIT is a fragrant perfume??? What planet does this bloke live on????

[windinghighway]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:34:51 PM UTC-4, Parker wrote:
> I looked up the site and TLC Tugger says that SMEGMA has a "sweet musky aroma" LOL LOL LOL! SWEET???? I must say I never heard THAT description before! Maybe he thinks that SHIT is a fragrant perfume??? What planet does this bloke live on????

Planet Denial.

The two main motives for circumcision are:

1. Hygiene. Foreskins make smegma and trap piss so they have a vile stink.

2. Health. Foreskins are implicated in many diseases especially HIV.

As Ron lacks a serious argument against these motives, he resorts instead to denial and makes these claims:

1. Foreskins don't stink, they have a "sweet aroma" (which logically means you shouldn't wash them before giving head, lest you destroy the tantalizing scent).

2. Foreskins have no special medical problems, and in half the countries of Africa HIV is "markedly" more common in circumcised men than uncircumcised men (which logically means sex without a condom is safer with uncut).

Last week the American Pediatric Association reversed its previous recommendation on circumcision. After studying the extensive medical research on HIV and other diseases, the Association decided that the benefits of circumcision outweigh any disadvantages.

Will that change Ron's mind, or those of the little band who continue to deny the HIV-foreskin link?

No.

What research would change their minds, then?

None.

[TorontoMD]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 11:43:32 AM UTC-4, windinghighway wrote:

> Last week the American Pediatric Association reversed its previous recommendation on circumcision. After studying the extensive medical research on HIV and other diseases, the Association decided that the benefits of circumcision outweigh any disadvantages.
>
>
>
> Will that change Ron's mind, or those of the little band who continue to deny the HIV-foreskin link?
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> What research would change their minds, then?
>
>
>
> None.

That is correct. The denialists made up their minds long BEFORE any of the research was published and have held that position AFTER the research was published and will continue to hold that position PERMANENTLY no matter how much further research is done. They are conspiracy theorists who believe any science is a hoax that does not fit their preconceptions. They are like the global warming denialists who think scientists are for some weird reason falsifying data, even though the denialists do not have a valid critique of the climatological science they reject. In fact the global warming denialists and the HIV-foreskin denialsts generally have not read the original research, do not understand scientific research methods anyway, and reject scientific findings for the ONLY reason they they do not like the findings.

[David Edwards]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:34:51 PM UTC+1, Parker wrote:
> I looked up the site and TLC Tugger says that SMEGMA has a "sweet musky aroma" LOL LOL LOL! SWEET???? I must say I never heard THAT description before! Maybe he thinks that SHIT is a fragrant perfume??? What planet does this bloke live on????

Sweet musky my ass. It's the most disgusting thing I ever smelled in my life. I'd like to see this Tugger guy wrap his lips around one with smegma on it, he'd be barfing for a week. I bet hes a straight guy who never got a sniff of an uncut cock in his life. It smells like rotten cheese or rotten fish and ANYBODY who been near one knows that. I tried a few uncut guys when I was doing gigs all over E. Europe a while back and they ALL stank.

[windinghighway]

On Sunday, June 24, 2012 10:12:53 AM UTC-4, windinghighway wrote:

>
> Oh, and I also see that TLC has an inaccurate statement on his website about the extent of circumcision globally. He puts it at a fifth. I cant imagine where he got that estimate, but you just have to add up the various circumcised and partially circumcised countries to know its way off. The World Health Organization is a more reliable source than the TLC website, and it puts the figure at 30 percent. So Ron, you might want to adjust that too when you correct the errors on your website.
>
> Heres the WHO link if you want a valid reference for your users, Ron: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf

Actually there is a newer and more accurate estimate of global circumcision rates, based on analysis of religious, ethnic and other practices in almost every country in the world. This analysis has determined that at least 37.4 percent of the males in the world are circumcised. The estimate is up to date to 2012.

Here is the link: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

Let's hope that Ron updates the surprisingly low estimate on his website, which is unsupported by the evidence.

[bran...@gmail.com]

Anyone says that circumcision is beneficial in any way is either ignorant or lying. My penis is so uncomfortable and i experience a multitude of problems from circumcision. The foreskin contains most of the penis's function. I bet you guys are a bunch of dumbass, uneducated conservative idiot who believe everything some fucking book told you.

[OliverMahon]

On Monday, November 11, 2013 4:04:22 PM UTC-5, bran...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anyone says that circumcision is beneficial in any way is either ignorant or lying.

40 percent of the men in the world are circumcised and love it. A couple of billion men who will go on and circumcise their sons too!

My penis is so uncomfortable and i experience a multitude of problems from circumcision.

You're probably just a freak -- some kind of neurotic who believes all his sex problems are caused by circumcision because you can't face the real reasons.

The foreskin contains most of the penis's function.

ROFLMAO!!!! It's a useless evolutionary relic that does nothing today except spread disease and stink.

I bet you guys are a bunch of dumbass, uneducated conservative idiot who believe everything some fucking book told you.

Speak for yourself. You;ve been hoodwinked by some fanatical website.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

There is NO "specialized
>
> erogenous tissue" in the foreskin -- its similar tissue and nerves as
>
> elsewhere in the body.

Source?

[Pat Lastingham]

That link is broken but in any case there is a more recent estimate of almost 40 percent. That conclusion is based on the most extensive and detailed global study of circumcision status ever undertaken: https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5

This study also includes maps which show the almost perfect overlay of HIV infection and lack of male circumcision in African countries. The information on HIV is relevant here because Mr Low has consistently claimed that HIV infection is more common in circumcised than uncircumcised men in more than half the countries of Africa. He has always refused to give a reference for that claim, despite numerous requests and despite a vast accumulation of contrary evidence.

[Uckister 777]

Moron, I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. In the world of science we don't prove negatives ("There are no elephants on the moon") and we don't provide sources to prove negatives. If somebody thinks there are elephants on the moon it is their obligation to provide proof in the form of citations of scientific research that can be evaluated by others.

If you think there IS "erogenous" tissue in the foreskin which differs from nerves and tissues found in other parts of the body -- then give us the scientific proof in the form of research that DEFINES "erogenous", NAMES this tissue type and, and IDENTIFIES its specific "erogenous" properties. You've been asked this often enough -- why don't you finally put up or shut up?

And talking of sources... You made a claim on alt.circ that all circumcised penises have the same undeveloped glans and calloused surface as your own. You've been asked repeatedly for a source for that claim. Do you have a source or were you just making it up?

[Oliver]

I thought I would check Ron Low's TLC tugger website to see if he's finally got around to correcting his false statistics on the world circumcision rate. The findings are quite revealing.

For many years Ron Low claimed that only "a fifth" of men in the world are circumcised. When he was challenged he couldn't provide any source for that claim. That's not surprising because there never was a plausible source.

Low was still claiming "a fifth" when in 2007 the World Health Organization researchers calculated that the percentage was much higher, 30 percent. Actually they suspected this was probably an underestimate. http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/globaltrends/en/

Did Low update his website to admit he was wrong and that the rate was really 50 percent more than he had claimed?

No!

Then in 2016 along came another careful country-by country estimate that found a rate of almost 40 percent. https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5

Did Low update his website to admit he was wrong and that the rate was really TWICE what he was claiming?

No!

For a while he left his estimate at his outdated, undocumented "fifth" but that number looked more and more absurd in the light of the carefully researched, peer-reviewed new statistics. So he finally made a change. And what did he change his old statement to? This one:

"Most of the world is intact (not circumcised)"

That's it. He dropped all statistics completely.

Ron, why do you have no problem displaying dubious, outdated numbers that make circumcision seem unpopular, but you won't display well documented, up to date numbers that show it is much more popular? Don't you want visitors to your website to be properly informed?

[Ozzboi]

On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 02:41:11 UTC+10, Omar B wrote:


> This is because he sells plastic and tape to men who want a new foreskin for 80 dollars. If he says circumcision is good he will sell nothing.

Wha??? Why would anybody want to get a new foreskin? I can't wait to have it gone! Me and an uncut gay mate of mine are checking out costs recovery time and the rest right now.

[tvd...@outlook.com]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 07:09:02 UTC+11, Ozzboi wrote:

> Wha??? Why would anybody want to get a new foreskin?

Neurosis.

[Angus O'Flock]

I just saw there are a lot more examples of invented numbers and bullshit statistics from this same guy in another alt circumcision thread, "PING! Ron Lowe aka TLC Tugger!!! Respond please!"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.circumcision/87bGjaULj_8

Looks like we have a major bullshit artist here.

[Parker]

He's a total bullshitter. Look at this beaut he posted to alt circ:

"Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner. -Ron Low"

Meanwhile, he doesn't have a foreskin, he was circed at birth!!! So there he is, with NO foreskin, saying the opinion that matters is the penis owner, but he KNOWS his non-foreskin feels so good it's the best part of the penis!! Wow Ron that's really convincing!

[rogerthatw...@gmail.com]

Warning to those who are going to buy, this is an extremely complicated set up with numerous mini steps and intricate ways to "mess" up. Of coarse the video seemingly makes this look simple and straight forward, the owner and or engineer should have an understanding of something they themselves have created, so it goes without saying this all makes sense to them. From someone whom has no background or experience in these devices, I have found it absolutely mind wrenching to figure out all of the small pieces sent to me in the mail and how they apply in the process. I stopped messing with it for a month and recently came back around to it. I regret purchasing this and plan to throw it away today.

[Sven]

Den tisdag 28 augusti 2012 kl. 17:41:11 UTC+1 skrev Omar B:


> he sells plastic and tape to men who want a new foreskin for 80 dollars. If he says circumcision is good he will sell nothing.

More than 80 dollars, He sells some for more than 200 dollars. It is just plastic and sticky and straps, looks like it comes from china for 2 dollars or maybe he makes it at home for 5 dollars. !!

[Parker]

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 9:05:26 PM UTC, rogerthatw...@gmail.com wrote:


> I stopped messing with it for a month and recently came back around to it. I regret purchasing this and plan to throw it away today.

You're throwing away one of the Ron Low TLC Tugger "foreskin restoration" devices???
Oh no! Ron will be so upset!! He has a record of 100 percent customer satisfaction!
This is what he wrote here (24th September 2007)

"Foreskin restoration does work, and is very worthwhile. I indeed
claim that 100% of the 9000+ TLC clients are satisfied."


Dammit! He had the ONLY product in the history of the world with 100 percent satisfaction and you've gone and ruined it!

Uh huh.

[Barcelona Boy]

El domingo, 24 de febrero de 2019, 2:04:19 (UTC), Parker escribió:

>
> He's a total bullshitter. Look at this beaut he posted to alt circ:

> "Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner. -Ron Low"

> Meanwhile, he doesn't have a foreskin, he was circed at birth!!!

i have a foreskin, i think it is the <worst> part of the penis It does not feel good. i had many infections from it when i was very young. it gets itchy, i must clean it so often. it never felt <good> in my life. it is a problem living on my penis.

[Quentin]

Yes it does seem that neurosis is the basis of these foreskin "restoration" attempts.

Obviously one cannot "restore" a foreskin. After all, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about circumcision is based on the belief that the supposed benefits of the foreskin are gone forever. The so-called restoration is merely the progressive stretching of ordinary skin on the penis (by means of weights, tapes, and other devices) until the skin partially or totally covers the head of the penis. It is not a "restoration" in any sense of the word although it may give the appearance that the owner is uncircumcised.

The question therefore is why some men do this to themselves, and even pay money for devices that claim to "restore" the foreskin. I believe there are two reasons, both based on neurosis.

1. One reason is neurosis about the physical properties of the owner's penis. Men who believe that their penis is too small may hope that a fake foreskin will add an inch or two to the perceived length. Others may hope that a fake foreskin will conceal what they believe to be physical defects in their penis. (Regulars here will be familiar with a contributor "Jack" who posted thousands of times against circumcision because he believed circumcision was responsible for the small size and undeveloped head of his penis.)

2. A second reason is neurosis about sexual deficiencies, real or imagined, that the owners attribute to circumcision. Men who ejaculate too quickly or too slowly, who find sex too intense or not intense enough, or who have difficulty getting or maintaining erections, et cetera, may convince themselves that circumcision is the origin of their problems. They fall victim to an entire ecosystem of anti circumcision websites and propaganda. This propaganda invariably ignores the vast body of scientific research showing the benefits of circumcision and instead presents unsupported nonsense (such as that "millions of erogenous cells" are lost through circumcision, or in the case of Ron Low that the foreskin is the "best part of the penis").

It is not clear if Mr Low is lamenting the permanent loss of "the best part of the penis"; or if he is claiming that the ordinary skin stretched by his devices will miraculously become "the best part of the penis". In any event, there is no scientific basis or either proposition.

It seems that this mini-industry of foreskin restoration is driven by neurosis about physical or psychological difficulties that have nothing to to do with circumcision. But even if these difficulties WERE caused by circumcision, they could not possibly be cured by this bizarre "restoration" which does not restore the absent foreskin at all.

[oogl...@gmail.com]

i think they are just stupid if its gone its gone any body can see that. to pay money to stretch skin is just stupid. you just make a germ trap.

[Amoroso]

I am uncircumcisd but I wish to be circumcised one day. Uncircumcised gives no benefit that I know.

[Henry Thaler]

On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 2:54:31 PM UTC+2, Quentin wrote:

> Yes it does seem that neurosis is the basis of these foreskin "restoration" attempts.

The phenomenon pf restoration neurosis was first noted in an article "Restoration Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects" by Dr Russell Adams in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior in 1981.

He reported that restoration seekers were mostly homosexuals who had a variety of other psychological or psychiatric problems, such as hostile relations with their fathers, narcissism, obsession with body image, depression, resort to hair transplants and other body modification procedures, and fetishistic interest in other mens' foreskins.

You can read the article here: www.academia.edu/37854792/Prepuce_restoration_seekers_Psychiatric_aspects

[Uckister777]

The foreskin restoration movement has much in common with the anti-vaccination movement.

1. Denial of established, peer-reviewed science about circumcision/vaccination and reliance instead on selective anecdotes about circumcision/vaccination.

2. Spreading of misinformation and outright lies about circumcision/vaccination through social media, websites, and other internet platforms.

3. Utter lack of concern for the known, proven medical problems caused by lack of circumcision/vaccination.

4. Inability to sustain a rational, informed discussion about circumcision/vaccination -- scientific facts rejected in favor of personal attack on the scientists, for example.

[Parker]

On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 1:54:31 PM UTC+1, Quentin wrote:

> It is not clear if Mr Low is lamenting the permanent loss of "the best part of the penis"; or if he is claiming that the ordinary skin stretched by his devices will miraculously become "the best part of the penis". In any event, there is no scientific basis or either proposition.
>

I already commented on that weird claim in another thread but hereijt is again,


"LOL! Ron Low doesn't know ANYTHING about foreskins! After all, he claims that smegma has a "sweet aroma".....that's right, it's his actual words, smegma has a sweet aroma!!! He certainly has never smelt one and I bet he's never touched one either. He doesn't have one of his own, he says the owner's opinion is all that matters, that the foreskin "feels really good. It's the best part". But he doesn't even have one!! LOL!!!

Ron Low will dodge explaining himself but so far as I can see there's only two possible explanations.

EXPLANATION ONE. There is something wrong with his own dick which has almost no sensation. He used his contraption to stretch skin on his penis to give himself a fake foreskin and now the teeny bit of feeling in that bit of skin is the best part of his dick. He doesn't realise what he's missing on the rest of his abnormal dick and thinks the tingle in his fake foreskin is the best sensation there is.

EXPLANATION TWO. He is a total bullshitter. His business is selling tape and plastic to men who want to "restore" their foreskin, by stretching other skin on the penis. To get people to buy his contraption he needs to convince them they are missing something really good so he will say anything to make this stretched skin sound desirable. Even though he obviously hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about.

Take your pick. Either way I think he's really pathetic.

[Oliver]

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 5:57:33 AM UTC-4, Uckister777 wrote:

> The foreskin restoration movement has much in common with the anti-vaccination movement.

Yes. Both attract uninformed, self-righteous fanatics.

[ttrut...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 3:34:51 PM UTC-6, Parker wrote:

> I looked up the site and TLC Tugger says that SMEGMA has a "sweet musky aroma" LOL LOL LOL! SWEET???? I must say I never heard THAT description before! Maybe he thinks that SHIT is a fragrant perfume??? What planet does this bloke live on????

Sweet? Aroma? If you look up "smegma" on the internet all you get is MILLIONS of links about how disgusting it smells, how embarrassing it is for uncircumcised men, how to get rid of it. You won't find any descriptions of it as a sweet aroma! Apparently this foreskin "expert" Ron Low has never been close enough to one to actually smell it!!

[timcu...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-6, ttrut...@gmail.com wrote:



> Sweet? Aroma? If you look up "smegma" on the internet all you get is MILLIONS of links about how disgusting it smells, how embarrassing it is for uncircumcised men, how to get rid of it. You won't find any descriptions of it as a sweet aroma! Apparently this foreskin "expert" Ron Low has never been close enough to one to actually smell it!!

Agreed NOBODY else on the internet says smegma has a "sweet aroma" Usually described as rotten fish, rancid cheese, even dead rat.. but maybe he likes the smell? Just thinking about it makes me want to vomit, but different strokes for differernt folks!

[Oliver]

Ron Low is just plain ignorant of actual foreskins. After all his game is to stretch ordinary skin on the penis by some weirdo system of straps and cones until months or more likely years later it covers or part-covers the head of the dick, then he claims THAT is a foreskin! Actual REAL, stinking foreskins -- he knowns nothing about them. He's even on record as saying it's just fine to leave the smegma on your dick, and the best way to get rid of it is using plain water (that will come as news to desperate uncut stinkers!) or by PISSING it away because uncut dick is "self cleaning!!!!

Here is Ron Low in alt.circ :

TLC Tugger
2/17/08

> I've had a
lot of experience around both cut and intact penises.
Indeed the foreskin of every mammal on earth is self-cleaning. If
this were not the case, how does one imagine that these specimens
survived evolutionary processes to be among us today?

Ron -- we don't want our genital areas to stink like other mammals. Get it?


>I guess it
comes down to what you want to define as clean. I'm speaking of clean
in terms of good health. Sterile urine leaving the body is sufficient
to keep the space within the foreskin flushed clean and healthy under
natural circumstances....

Ron: a reality check. The stale piss that uncut men accumulate under their dick forms a disgusting bacteriological brew with the dead cells and stale oils to make smegma. It's not clean. It's a filthy, vile-smelling goo. The piss doesn't keep it "flushed clean" you dummy -- it's the moisture that holds the reeking dick cheese together! DUH.

>Just as not using underarm deodorant is not a "health" issue, allowing
your body to let smegma accumulate is perfectly healthy and natural...
a normal healthy penis can also have a lot of smegma if
its owner just wishes to leave it natural.

Yeah what about the sex partners of the guys with uncut dicks with "a lot of smegma" on them? Do you expect them to suck on a penis covered with yellow dick cheese smelling like something nasty died there? REALLY, Ron? REALLY?


>Foreskin feels REALLY good.

Ron how would you know? You don't have a real one, just your fake skin stretched with straps and tapes and plastics. Which you are trying to sell!

[Brasil Barry]

Em quinta-feira, 25 de julho de 2019 12:30:32 UTC-4, Oliver escreveu:

> Here is Ron Low in alt.circ :


> TLC Tugger
> 2/17/08


> > I've had a
> lot of experience around both cut and intact penises.

> Indeed the foreskin of every mammal on earth is self-cleaning.... Sterile urine leaving the body is sufficient

> to keep the space within the foreskin flushed clean and healthy under
> natural circumstances....
>

Mr Ron Low you say you have been <around> cut and intact penises. Mr Low everybody has been <around> them!! The question is did you ever even touch or smell an intact penis? I know for a fact you never did because you say uncircumcised has a <sweet aroma> and no, it smells like mildew and bad fish, there is nobody on earth but you says it is sweet. Also when you say that piss keeps <the space within the foreskin flushed clean> you speak like a complete fool because you do not even know the mecchanics of pissing with a foreskin.

Here I will tell you. There are two modes to piss with a foreskin.

1. You pull the foreskin back and piss so it does not touch the piss stream. If you do this there is NO WAY it can flush the foreskin because it does not even touch the foreskin!

2. You piss with the foreskin covering your penis. If you have phimosis you might form a balloon of the foreskn under pressure but usually the piss just goes out through the part of the foreskin between the piss hole and the end the foreskin. There NO WAY the piss can flush out the place where the worst stinky smegma accumulates which is the groove between the head of the penis and the shaft!

So you just do not know what you are talking about. It is foolish to speak in public as an <expert> when you are so ignorant.

[Casaman]

> Here is Ron Low in alt.circ :

> TLC Tugger
> 2/17/08

> >Just as not using underarm deodorant is not a "health" issue, allowing
> your body to let smegma accumulate is perfectly healthy and natural...
> a normal healthy penis can also have a lot of smegma if
> its owner just wishes to leave it natural.

I find this statement revealing, for it illustrates an attitude all to common among men even in our enlightened age. Mr Ron Low's only concern is the wish of the penis owner, without any consideration of his partner. He doesn't give a moment's thought to the woman who is faced with a penis smelling of stale urine, old skin cells, cellular oils, bacterial activity. As far as he is concerned, "a normal healthy penis can also have a lot of smegma if its owner just wishes to leave it natural:"

When I was younger such men were called "male chauvinist pig" but I suppose there is a more modern term for it now. Same attitude, though.

[memom...@gmail.com]

> Here is Ron Low in alt.circ :



> TLC Tugger
> 2/17/08

> > I've had a
> lot of experience around both cut and intact penises.

> Indeed the foreskin of every mammal on earth is self-cleaning.... Sterile urine leaving the body is sufficient

> to keep the space within the foreskin flushed clean and healthy under
> natural circumstances....
>

The ignorance of this Ron Low man is beyond belief considering he poses as an expert on foreskins.

If anybody wants to see what really happens to an uncircumcised penis when it is just flushed with urine --- google images of 'uncircumcised penis with smegma' You will be shocked and disgusted.

The stench of these penises covered with smegma can fll the room and make you sick. Ron Low says it has a 'sweet musky aroma' ?????????

[jkml...@gmail.com]

I was cut when I was teen because of social pressure and I hate it. I have no complaints about loss of sensitivity or other sex problems, but having the glans always exposed and rubbing agaist underwear does not feel pleasant! The foreskin is meant to protect the head of the penis and to me in that sense it feels good - when it is covered! I acknowledge that there is science behind circumcision in that it prevents certain diseases, but at what cost? At the cost of comfort. To me performing circumcision to avoid health problems is as stupid as removing teeth to avoid caries. To avoid bad smell, why not to wash more often instead of cutting body parts? I am restoring my foreskin for comfort.

[Parker]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 3:40:31 PM UTC+1, jkml...@gmail.com wrote:

> I was cut when I was teen because of social pressure and I hate it.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I was cut in early twenties because the foreskin was just a nuisance and women prefer circumcised cock. They hate sucking uncut. I'm really glad I did it The sex is much better esp oral sex, and the diff in hygiene is like night and day.

> To avoid bad smell, why not to wash more often instead of cutting body parts?

Because washing doesn't get rid of the nasty smell. Take a look at the thread in alt circ called "Why do foreskins smell even after washing?" It's the most popular thread in all of alt circ by far, over 53,000 individual visits! Why do you think that is?

[Oliver]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:14:23 PM UTC+1, Parker wrote:


>washing doesn't get rid of the nasty smell. Take a look at the thread in alt circ called "Why do foreskins smell even after washing?" It's the most popular thread in all of alt circ by far, over 53,000 individual visits! Why do you think that is?

That thread contains many suggestions from uncut men for cleaning their foreskins because they stink EVEN AFTER WASHING. None of them work, but here is a selection:

Wash it with mouthwash

Don't use soap.

Use dial soap.

Eat pineapples.

Use Johnson's baby oil.

Use special ointments.

Use boxers not briefs.

Use neem oil.

Use female meds for thrush infection.

Don't eat fish.

Don't wash it.

Use Jergens skin ointment.

Use habituate obstetric cream.

Don't masturbate because sperm is the cause.

Drink cranberry juice.

Eat yogurt.

Use antibiotic neosporein cream.

Don't use ointments.

Use iodine ointment.

Don't use soap.

Don't use talc.

Use warm water.

Use Neutrogena men's invigorating face cream.

Use silicone oil.

Use toilet paper to dry it off.

Let it air dry for 10 to 15 mins after urinating.

Don't use soap.

Use soap and water.

Use an anti-fungal jock/itch cream.

Use Gold Bond medicated powder.

Use soap and dry it good.

Use hand sterilizing alcohol based gel.

Use talcum powder.

Use dial soap, then vegetable oil.

Use feminine products such as Vagisil, with baby powder.

Use soap.

Use male body wash called Nois.

Use 60 percent isopropyl alcohol.

Use mineral oil. Do not use soap, it upsets PH balance.

Drink plenty of water

Drink plenty of fruit juice

Drink less alcohol

Drink less pop

Avoid processed foods

Avoid too much refined sugar

Do not clean with baby wipes, they have chemicals

Do not over clean this makes smell worse

Wash with soap and water and use wet-wipe

Use water and vinegar half and half

Wash with soap and water for five minutes

......And the killer suggestion from Ron Low, aka TLC Tugger: the foreskin is self-cleaning, if you just piss the stink away!

[Oliver]

And he is still at it with the lies and misinformation. His website repeats one of his favorites about hiv and circumcision:

"The South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda findings don't explain how 450,000 US men who were cut at birth have died of AIDS"

As has been pointed out before:

1. There are NO data on how many cut (or uncut) men in the USA have died of AIDS. Nobody records such information. Low just pulls the number out his fat ass.

2. The only relevant AIDS deaths are those involving sexual transmission, not other common modes like IV drug use. And even then only certain forms of sexual transmission matter. If you got infected by being screwed in the ass, having or not having a foreskin won't make any difference. So his number of cut men who have died is even more bogus.

3. The total number of AIDS deaths of circumcised or uncircumcised tells us nothing, especially as they may be affected by their relative population sizes. The real question is, which are more likely to get infected? And all the research, including random controlled trials, shows beyond any question that uncircumcised men are much more likely to get infected. The mode of transmission, via the Langerhans cells of the foreskin, is well established.

4. To show the absurdity of his argument, just look at this factual statement about some countries where practically all men are uncircumcised:

"Almost all the men who have died of AIDS in Finland, Argentina, and China were uncircumcised from birth." Hmmm... what do you conclude from that, Mr Low?

None of this is hard to grasp. But Low keeps pushing this bullshit. The question is:

Does Low do it because is he so STUPID, or because he is so DISHONEST?

[sevenk...@gmail.com]

This Ron Low says smegma smells SWEET and you can clean uncircumcised just by pissing.
I wonder why he says such nonsense. Hmmmm why why why? Then i realised what is the reason.

He sells rubber/string/plastic devices to <restore> forskin by stretching skin for years so it covers the penis head. Now a substitute forskin is there HOORAY! Then what happens? It stinks of course because it keeps drops of piss just like a real forskin! So to protect his sales from this big problem he lies that any snell is like a delicious scent and it is so easy to clean, you just piss!!

LIAR LIAR LIAR

[Oliver]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 12:29:08 PM UTC+1, sevenk...@gmail.com wrote:


> This Ron Low says smegma smells SWEET and you can clean uncircumcised just by pissing. I wonder why he says such nonsense. Hmmmm why why why? Then i realised what is the reason.

> He sells rubber/string/plastic devices to <restore> forskin by stretching skin for years so it covers the penis head. Now a substitute forskin is there HOORAY! Then what happens? It stinks of course because it keeps drops of piss just like a real forskin! So to protect his sales from this big problem he lies that any snell is like a delicious scent and it is so easy to clean, you just piss! LIAR LIAR LIAR


I think you have identified the reason for Ron Low odor statements that are so ludicrous as to seem inexplicable. I suppose this is also the reason he keeps insisting uncircumcised men are not more susceptible to HIV infection. He knows the real thing has a terrible and justified reputation for stinking and for inviting AIDS. So he goes out of his way to deny those realities in case the bad rep of the real thing spills over to his fake foreskin and affects sales. What a piece of work!

[Parker]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 1:26:56 PM UTC+1, Oliver wrote:


> I think you have identified the reason for Ron Low odor statements that are so ludicrous as to seem inexplicable. I suppose this is also the reason he keeps insisting uncircumcised men are not more susceptible to HIV infection. He knows the real thing has a terrible and justified reputation for stinking and for inviting AIDS. So he goes out of his way to deny those realities in case the bad rep of the real thing spills over to his fake foreskin and affects sales.

I never understood why he pushes that crap about smegma smells sweet and foreskins have nothing to do with HIV spread, because nobody believes him, it just makes him look stupid and ignorant. From a marketing point of view you'd think he would do the opposite and make this argument,

"My TLC fake foreskins are better than the real thing, which stinks of smegma and spreads HIV. Mine are made from normal skin that doesn't have the cells that stink and spread HIV, So forget all the horror stories you heard about foreskins, they don't apply to mine!" He's just too gormless to realise that.

[Wakka]

On Sunday, 17 March 2019 09:39:30 UTC, Parker wrote:

>You're throwing away one of the Ron Low TLC Tugger "foreskin restoration" devices??? Oh no! Ron will be so upset!! He has a record of 100 percent customer satisfaction! This is what he wrote here (24th September 2007)


> "Foreskin restoration does work, and is very worthwhile. I indeed
claim that 100% of the 9000+ TLC clients are satisfied."


> Dammit! He had the ONLY product in the history of the world with 100 percent satisfaction and you've gone and ruined it!

Parker, I checked and Mr Low claims 100 percent satisfaction NOT because everybody is satisfied (they are not). He claims they are 100 percent satisfied but because when they demand their money back, he refunds them.

That is very different from what "100 percent satisfaction" usually means! First of all he claims as "satisifed" everybody who doesn't actually complain. Second he claims as "satisfied" everybody who hates his products enough to demand their money back!!!

Usually satisfaction means the customer was pleased with the product...not that he hated it but was pleased to get a refund!!

[Oliver]

On Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 10:20:36 AM UTC+1, Parker wrote:

> I never understood why he pushes that crap about smegma smells sweet and foreskins have nothing to do with HIV spread, because nobody believes him, it just makes him look stupid and ignorant. From a marketing point of view you'd think he would do the opposite and make this argument,
"My TLC fake foreskins are better than the real thing, which stinks of smegma and spreads HIV. Mine are made from normal skin that doesn't have the cells that stink and spread HIV, So forget all the horror stories you heard about foreskins, they don't apply to mine!" He's just too gormless to realise that.

Parker apparently his "restored" foreskins DO stink of smegma. This is what he says on his website (http://www.ronlow.info/FAQ-SMEGMA.htm):

"FAQ: Will this make me have smegma?
A: Keeping your skin forward will allow the natural emollients exuded by your pink skin to stay on your skin where they belong. If you stay continuously covered for more than a whole day, you may notice that sloughed-off skin cells start to accumulate. The combination of skin cells and emollients is technically called smegma, but you should get over any negative connotations that the word elicits. You don't need to let it accumulate if you would rather rinse thoroughly (with clear water) when you shower once a day. If you let it build up, know that it is a harmless natural anti-bacterial agent, and that it generally has a sweet musky aroma unless you're truly unhygienic."

Sweet musky aroma???????? As has been documented here many times he is the only person on the internet who thinks it's a sweet musky aroma. Even the scat-and-smegma hogs describe it as "pungent". The stink makes everyone else want to vomit. Here's a post from another thread here last month about what people really think. Google searches:

Foreskin smelly: 891,00
Foreskin disgusting: 3,560,000
Foreskin revolting: 1.380,000
Foreskin nauseating: 322,000
Foreskin reeking: 1,080,000
Foreskin stink: 3.370,000
Foreskin fishy: 3,170,000
Foreskin cheesy: 768,000
Foreskin foul: 760,000
Foreskin smell after washing: 5,190,000.

How Ron Low gets close enough to uncut dicks to sniff them and form an opinion of their smell is anyone's guess. But he does like the "sweet aroma".