tackyspiral
Bluelighter
and i am sorry how many circumcisions have you been present for?
-
-
SLR Moderators: Senior Staff
So, do foreskins turn you off?
- Thread starter Illyria99
- Start date
- Status
and i am sorry how many circumcisions have you been present for?
DrunkardsDream
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 684
Just one my own. It's so bad I've completely blocked out the memory of it!
My ex worked in a hospital and saw 100s or 1,000s over the decades. He did not do it to the infants but he was around when it happened and they scream bloody murder and pass out from the pain. Many times anesthesia is not even used at all and even when it is, the genital mutilation is so painful it does nothing to relieve the immense pain the infant is feeling from having his foreskin sliced, ripped off, forcibly removed, and in some cases even burned off.
DrunkardsDream
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 684
The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him.
Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.
doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.
It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.
The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.
Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.
Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.
Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.
Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.
the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.
Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?
It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.
But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.
People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.
If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).
In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).
Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!
Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.
doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.
It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.
The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.
Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.
Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.
Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.
Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.
the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.
Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?
It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.
But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.
People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.
If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).
In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).
Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!
DrunkardsDream
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 684
Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.
The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses and genital mutilation against our sons.
in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.
forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.
In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.
I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.
I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.
Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.
We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. We’re still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.
Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:
- It has never been shown to be necessary
- The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
- It’s permanent, barring restoration attempts.
- It’s a very unpleasant procedure.
- The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.
There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.
If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.
Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.
Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.
For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.
You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.
117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.
It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.
The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses and genital mutilation against our sons.
in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.
forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.
In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.
I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.
I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.
Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.
We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. We’re still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.
Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:
- It has never been shown to be necessary
- The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
- It’s permanent, barring restoration attempts.
- It’s a very unpleasant procedure.
- The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.
There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.
If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.
Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.
Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.
For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.
You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.
117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.
It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.
DrunkardsDream
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 684
If I know anything I know dick as a gay man. Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult. It makes sex harder and less pleasurable for the receptive partner. And it desensitizes the penis, decreasing sensitivity and sexual pleasure.
Now of all the things about life on Earth as a human male, sex is one of the best things to look forward to. What kind of sick fucks are you that would limit that for anyone?
There is nothing that can be gained by circumcision that can’t be gained by a little soap and water. And there is so much to lose.
Everyone is born with foreskin, girls too.
It's commonly referred to as the clitoral hood in females, it's totally analogous to the male foreskin. ALL FORMS of infant and non-adult female circumcision is illegal in America, ALL FORMS to include: pin prick, clitoral removal, clitoral hood removal, labioplasty, etc.
Because ALL forms of female circumcision in America is illegal, ALL forms of male circumcision ought to be illegal in America as well! Was their an outcry from religious groups in America, who practice any and/or ALL forms of female circumcision, when female circumcision became illegal? I think not. It's time that ALL MALES are protected from ANY form of genital mutilation when they are born. PERIOD!
Women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.
When women foolishly claim "male circumcision makes no difference! It's just some useless skin!" I ask them when the last time they had an actual penis was? Since they'd like to falsely claim that the foreskin "makes no difference and that it's just skin" that they should be perfectly OK then with the removal of their clitoral hood, clitoris, or a reduction of their labia since this would make their vagina cleaner and more aesthetically beautiful than one that still has its clitoral hood and sloppy roast beef labia and all of that excess useless skin on their vagina. A cut vagina is cleaner since it does not produce any yeast or smegma. Why not remove the breasts or cervix too? She won't get breast cancer or cervical cancer if they're removed!
Amputation of sexual tissue is a parental decision, and circumcision should be mandatory.
There's nothing nastier than an uncircumcised clitoris or uncircumcised labia - yuck! All that smegma, and yeast! You can't get vulvar cancer if this icky nubbin of skin is cut off. There's no proof that circumcised women have any less sensation! Heck, if I had any more senstation it would drive me crazy, and I plan to circumicse my girls for health reasons. Clearly nature made a mistake, and all girls need to be cut.
I'm being sarcastic here but it's a good thing that many countries like Germany want to ban circumcision, and most men in the world are not circumcised and do not have any sort of health issues or complications at all from having a foreskin, and most women do prefer a man that has a foreskin to a man that is cut.
Most people don't understand why circumcision is so widespread in the United States: it was promoted as a procedure to prevent sinful masturbation (didn't work out too well now did it?). I've met many men whose circumcisions were too extensive, leaving very heavy scarring they hated, nasty ugly skin bridges, or making their penile skin so tight that they felt pain when I lightly jerked them off. I have one friend that had his circumcision "botched" and they took skin from his balls and graphed it onto his cock and his balls do not hang at all and his penis is truly mutilated and deformed with heavy ugly scarring.
I've seen other men both in person and in porn who had flat out ugly penises and it was because of circumcision.
Also, allowing male circumcision diminishes our moral argument against female circumcision.
I see ALL circumcision, both male and female done to infants to be genital mutilation.
It's one thing to have it done elective as an adult but it's wrong to have it done to infants both boys and girls who have no consent over their bodies or genitals even though they should.
Male circumcision reduces the amount of nerve endings in the penis and that decreases the lack of sexual pleasure, sensitivity, and control over the penis. Premature ejaculation is in the mind so don't give me that "If I was more sensitive I wouldn't be able to stand it!" BS.
I know TONS of men bisexual, gay, and hetero who are very mad that they were cut and wish that they were left intact with a foreskin.
The idea that a cut cock is somehow "cleaner" is a joke, it's called washing with soap and water like you should be doing anyway.
Foreskin is the essence of man! It adds SO MUCH pleasure to sex and it's fun to have the inside licked and gently chewed on, and it's fun to fill it with piss or cum.
Women's vaginas produce pungent smegma-it's seriously way worse than a man's, and a vagina produces yeast but nobody is saying how we should cut a baby girl's labia or her clitoral hood.
Let's just stop cutting infants' and boys' and girls' genitals completely and be done with this barbaric and outdated practice that should have been outlawed thousands of years ago.
Now of all the things about life on Earth as a human male, sex is one of the best things to look forward to. What kind of sick fucks are you that would limit that for anyone?
There is nothing that can be gained by circumcision that can’t be gained by a little soap and water. And there is so much to lose.
Everyone is born with foreskin, girls too.
It's commonly referred to as the clitoral hood in females, it's totally analogous to the male foreskin. ALL FORMS of infant and non-adult female circumcision is illegal in America, ALL FORMS to include: pin prick, clitoral removal, clitoral hood removal, labioplasty, etc.
Because ALL forms of female circumcision in America is illegal, ALL forms of male circumcision ought to be illegal in America as well! Was their an outcry from religious groups in America, who practice any and/or ALL forms of female circumcision, when female circumcision became illegal? I think not. It's time that ALL MALES are protected from ANY form of genital mutilation when they are born. PERIOD!
Women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.
When women foolishly claim "male circumcision makes no difference! It's just some useless skin!" I ask them when the last time they had an actual penis was? Since they'd like to falsely claim that the foreskin "makes no difference and that it's just skin" that they should be perfectly OK then with the removal of their clitoral hood, clitoris, or a reduction of their labia since this would make their vagina cleaner and more aesthetically beautiful than one that still has its clitoral hood and sloppy roast beef labia and all of that excess useless skin on their vagina. A cut vagina is cleaner since it does not produce any yeast or smegma. Why not remove the breasts or cervix too? She won't get breast cancer or cervical cancer if they're removed!
Amputation of sexual tissue is a parental decision, and circumcision should be mandatory.
There's nothing nastier than an uncircumcised clitoris or uncircumcised labia - yuck! All that smegma, and yeast! You can't get vulvar cancer if this icky nubbin of skin is cut off. There's no proof that circumcised women have any less sensation! Heck, if I had any more senstation it would drive me crazy, and I plan to circumicse my girls for health reasons. Clearly nature made a mistake, and all girls need to be cut.
I'm being sarcastic here but it's a good thing that many countries like Germany want to ban circumcision, and most men in the world are not circumcised and do not have any sort of health issues or complications at all from having a foreskin, and most women do prefer a man that has a foreskin to a man that is cut.
Most people don't understand why circumcision is so widespread in the United States: it was promoted as a procedure to prevent sinful masturbation (didn't work out too well now did it?). I've met many men whose circumcisions were too extensive, leaving very heavy scarring they hated, nasty ugly skin bridges, or making their penile skin so tight that they felt pain when I lightly jerked them off. I have one friend that had his circumcision "botched" and they took skin from his balls and graphed it onto his cock and his balls do not hang at all and his penis is truly mutilated and deformed with heavy ugly scarring.
I've seen other men both in person and in porn who had flat out ugly penises and it was because of circumcision.
Also, allowing male circumcision diminishes our moral argument against female circumcision.
I see ALL circumcision, both male and female done to infants to be genital mutilation.
It's one thing to have it done elective as an adult but it's wrong to have it done to infants both boys and girls who have no consent over their bodies or genitals even though they should.
Male circumcision reduces the amount of nerve endings in the penis and that decreases the lack of sexual pleasure, sensitivity, and control over the penis. Premature ejaculation is in the mind so don't give me that "If I was more sensitive I wouldn't be able to stand it!" BS.
I know TONS of men bisexual, gay, and hetero who are very mad that they were cut and wish that they were left intact with a foreskin.
The idea that a cut cock is somehow "cleaner" is a joke, it's called washing with soap and water like you should be doing anyway.
Foreskin is the essence of man! It adds SO MUCH pleasure to sex and it's fun to have the inside licked and gently chewed on, and it's fun to fill it with piss or cum.
Women's vaginas produce pungent smegma-it's seriously way worse than a man's, and a vagina produces yeast but nobody is saying how we should cut a baby girl's labia or her clitoral hood.
Let's just stop cutting infants' and boys' and girls' genitals completely and be done with this barbaric and outdated practice that should have been outlawed thousands of years ago.
I was 14. I had mine removed for medical reasons. my foreskin was abnormally tight so pulling back to clean was difficult and sometimes painful, so to prevent future complications I elected to get cut. try telling a 14 yo boy he can't spank it til all the stitches fall out (2 weeks). that first time spanking my new Wang was incredible. when I came I swear a bit got on my ceiling as I was laying on my bed wanking.
Illyria99
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 4,625
pofacedhoe
Bluelight Crew
who cares about vagina or penis
the point is why muck about with your kiddies bits?
non consenting infant genital plastic surgery.
it is what it is8(
the point is why muck about with your kiddies bits?
non consenting infant genital plastic surgery.
it is what it is8(
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
Wrong. My son was circumcised with a ligature and anaesthetised with a emla patch hours before. I took the day off and he sat on my lap happy as pie and watched the cricket with me all day. A couple of days latter it fell off. No fuss, no blood and no pain. My son is a wuss, be is quick to cry and come for a cuddle when he is upset and I can assure you he was not affected by the procedure in the slightest.
By the way labiaplasty is not illegal. It is a common plastic surgery for women.
rangrz
Bluelighter
It's illegal in the USA to be performed on girls below the age of majority without medical cause/for cosmetic or cultural-religious reasons.
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
Lol American. But it's legal to gun down a kid in a gated community, go figure eh?
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
carniegirl818
Bluelighter
Wow. Trivial post turned ugly. Op: yes.
StrutterGear
Bluelight Crew
Mental. We don't do this shit in the UK unless your Jewish I guess. I love my lil hoodie.
serotonin-system
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2008
- Messages
- 672
The whole argument of 'it's more hygienic' is complete bollocks. If you shower at least once a day and wash your cock like you do any other part of your body you'll be fine.
It's like saying if you have your arm removed at the shoulder its more hygienic, since then you have one less arm/armpit to worry about keeping clean.
It's like saying if you have your arm removed at the shoulder its more hygienic, since then you have one less arm/armpit to worry about keeping clean.
DOB
Bluelighter
theres no logical argue you could trow at me so you better attack my grammar
quiet roar
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2003
- Messages
- 4,990
OP better not bother going to europe, or if she does, she will need to hang out in the jewish/muslim neighbourhoods.
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
grafittibob
Bluelighter
Circumcision is, at the most basic level, essentially genital mutilation.
I think it's idiotic how many infants here in the U.S are circumcised.
Sure there are medical reasons why some guys might need the operation, but mostly it's unnecessary.
Thankfully my parents chose not to have me circumcised, and I am glad they did so.
People who think uncircumcised penises are "gross" need to either educate themselves or date cleaner partners.
Uncleanliness is really not an issue unless you don't shower daily.
It's just another part of personal hygiene.
I sometimes have difficulty ejaculating with my "sensitive" penis head (aka normal)
and would hate to be circumcised and have to deal with the whole other level of "reduced sensitivity".
I think it's idiotic how many infants here in the U.S are circumcised.
Sure there are medical reasons why some guys might need the operation, but mostly it's unnecessary.
Thankfully my parents chose not to have me circumcised, and I am glad they did so.
People who think uncircumcised penises are "gross" need to either educate themselves or date cleaner partners.
Uncleanliness is really not an issue unless you don't shower daily.
It's just another part of personal hygiene.
I sometimes have difficulty ejaculating with my "sensitive" penis head (aka normal)
and would hate to be circumcised and have to deal with the whole other level of "reduced sensitivity".
Illyria99
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 4,625
I was born in Glasgow, so I hardly need you to tell me about neigbourhoods.
The penis hoodie must be done away with.
- Status