• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Circumcision

PriestTheyCalledHim said:
If you think it looks better or 9/10 men you have given blow jobs that you have given to agree, or 9/10 men who you sucked off are cut, you don't understand how a penis functions, or how a penis with a foreskin works.

They both look the same while hard, and when the skin is pulled back, but a penis that's not cut has no gross scars, disfigurement, is not dried out and less sensitive, and has all the nerve endings and functions and looks like a penis is supposed to.
Click to expand...

as a cock sucker i second this

when u blow an uncut guy he can cum easy (really easy in some cases)

when they are cut i wouldn't bother for the jaw ache

but again its an aesthetic procedure done to babies without their consent

let them grow up and make their own choice about which part of their body to remove- and if they want it off good luck to them

tradition is the mark of a fool- do things because they make sense not just to repeat the past ad infinitum
 
The whole sensitivity argument is unproven either way. Pleasure is interpreted by the brain. I've been with cut guys who finish really fast no matter what you do and I've been with uncut guys who have major delay problems. The discussion ignores the fact that in babies the nervous system is still developing. Any hypothetical reduction in pleasure may be overcome as the child grows up. I have met men who got circumcised as adults who say they experience a lot more pleasure from sex, and others who say they regret getting cut. It probably depends on the individual, the nature of their circumcision, the skill of the surgeon, etc.

I don't think you can boil the ease of sex or sensitivity down to cut vs. uncut. There are many variables.

I personally find circumcised ones more attractive looking but I would not screen partners based on that, and it has no bearing on whether or not we would have sex.
 
having blown a fuckload of guys over the years i can say in my experience there is a strong obvious trend

also its the kind of blowjob they expect with cut guys being rougher a lot more often to the point you can tell they are not getting as much out of it

^if u get cut as an adult were the ones who got more pleasure after getting cut due to phimosis sex before?

as a man i have to say a huge amount of my sexual pleasure comes from the foreskin. that is all. its party central

lets just let our kids make their own choices about cosmetic surgery as adults.

you wouldn't give a four year old a boob job- it would be seen as unnecessary...

though they do reassign their gender to whatever the doctor orders if they are halfway between which i also think is bollocks


what about doubledick dude???

what about him!!!! fuck the doctors who insist you have to follow the trend of normal. be yourself
 
Last edited:
No idea about comparison, because I've always enjoyed being a whole male. Rather than one mutilated as a child. So, as I said, no bias here, but it's worth mentioning that as a receiver of oral pleasure from females to male, purely the male perspective from time to time here, a huuuuuge amount of sensations and pre-orgasm buildup come from the foreskin. Don't really understand how to replicate that if it's been chopped off. Sozzles.
 
Circumcision is just genital mutilation, plain and simple. You should practice just being spiritual without the religious aspect, in my opinion.
 
How could I truly get closer to a god with my foreskin constantly tripping me up?

Before my circumcision, half the time the wind would blow it around, sometimes covering my holy textbooks and leaving me with no spiritual guidance for seconds at a time.

Then someone explained to me how it was a metaphor and/or analogy, except the object penis corresponding to heart in context of "draw a circle around" in a nested nonsensical double-metaphor to be a promise of something, it doesn't matter cause there's a god in it, so it's perfect ipso facto a priori, you can't even argue with it. So I chose to honor a minor tribe of Mediterranean pastoralists--linked to me neither by ancestry or faith, or language or culture, or a single common interest--by adopting their three millennia-old allegiance-demonstration-through-body-modification tradition, and flaying my glans.

Then someone pointed out other tribal methods to facilitate kinship and belonging. Like in the Pacific Islands, where they just get tattoos instead. Why, a person could literally draw a line around their chest and call it a metaphor and it would be only weird, not 3000 years of mistranslated pranksters-level weird.
 
Scrofula said:
How could I truly get closer to a god with my foreskin constantly tripping me up?

Before my circumcision, half the time the wind would blow it around, sometimes covering my holy textbooks and leaving me with no spiritual guidance for seconds at a time.

Then someone explained to me how it was a metaphor and/or analogy, except the object penis corresponding to heart in context of "draw a circle around" in a nested nonsensical double-metaphor to be a promise of something, it doesn't matter cause there's a god in it, so it's perfect ipso facto a priori, you can't even argue with it. So I chose to honor a minor tribe of Mediterranean pastoralists--linked to me neither by ancestry or faith, or language or culture, or a single common interest--by adopting their three millennia-old allegiance-demonstration-through-body-modification tradition, and flaying my glans.

Then someone pointed out other tribal methods to facilitate kinship and belonging. Like in the Pacific Islands, where they just get tattoos instead. Why, a person could literally draw a line around their chest and call it a metaphor and it would be only weird, not 3000 years of mistranslated pranksters-level weird.
Click to expand...


Blow it around covering your holy textbooks? Hahahahahahaha what the fuck.
 
Circumcision may have initially been the effort on the part of mothers to "blemish" their male children so that the fathers could not sacrifice them. Pretty gruesome stuff.
 
JGrimez said:
Circumcision may have initially been the effort on the part of mothers to "blemish" their male children so that the fathers could not sacrifice them. Pretty gruesome stuff.
Click to expand...

Fuck, I'm glad we live in a more enlightened world.

Wtf am I even saying.
 
Its actually hard to imagine anything more deeply evil that routine infant circumcision.

Its rape. Its pedophilic. Its an irreversible mutilation. Mind bendingly painful and traumatic.

All forced upon a babe fresh from the womb. Imagine being that small, weak, helpless, constantly overwhelmed by new and urgent needs you have no way of meeting except to scream until some weird huge entity came and helped you.

Then all of a sudden the weird huge entities whom you realize that you are dependent on, suddenly decide to deliberately start causing you immeasurable pain.

Just that psychological trauma alone, should make it quite obviously an inexcusable crime.
 
This thread is old and long but imagine if we tattooed our babies 8 days after birth or branded them like cattle. Both would be more sane than genital mutilation. I think it's embarrassing to have to admit later in life that our lineage was fooled into mutilating us when we were infants. I guess for none mutilated people it would be difficult to marry into a family that has willingly done this to their offspring, it shows the mental strength of the whole family line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top