• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

Uncircumcised

Good point, although I'm not offering sex advice; just stating facts.



They are identical procedures, considering the relationship between the hood of the clitoris and the foreskin. The only thing that separates them, surgically, is gender.

As for effects, both procedures reduce sensitivity. Which is the cause, incidentally, of potential sexual dysfunction.
Historically female circumcision is the removal of the whole clitoris in a misogynist tradition of removing sexual enjoyment of a women where as male circumcision is to make it prettier so the young man gets a blow job. Opposite effects in my opinion.
 
There are numerous variations of female circumcision.

Female circumcision is no more related than female menstration is to male circumcision. Similar name perhaps, completely different effects.

This statement is wrong. They are very similar operations. Both genital mutilation. Both reduce sensitivity. Both unnecessary. Both culturally specific. Both potentially interfere with one's ability to achieve orgasm. Female circumcision is the closest thing in the world to male circumcision; the word circumcision is not a co-incidence.
 
This statement is wrong. They are very similar operations. Both genital mutilation. Both reduce sensitivity. Both unnecessary. Both culturally specific. Both potentially interfere with one's ability to achieve orgasm. Female circumcision is the closest thing in the world to male circumcision; the word circumcision is not a co-incidence.

I was going to disagree with you on the basis that male circumcision has health benefits, but looking about the net, it doesn't seem like it's very clear cut. I guess that there are perceived and debatable health benefits to male circumcision. I don't think there are any perceived health benefits at all for female circumcision. So I sort of disagree with you, but glancing at the wikipedia articles I can see they're very similar. The idea of neatness/cleanliness seems to persist in both. It is indeed a bit subjective that on wikipedia one is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision and one is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Anyway -- living in the UK I've been with a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised guys, mostly uncircumcised. I don't really have a preference -- sexually I couldn't tell the difference. The first cut guy I slept with always lasted for ages -- so I thought there was something to the sensitivity thing. But no, had another cut guy prove that wrong!

Aesthetically I don't care either -- I find it pretty impossible to tell if a guy is cut or uncut when he's hard. Flaccid... well, it's nice that cut penises look reassuringly like penises all the time, whereas uncut ones look completely different flaccid. Uncut ones have a cooler soft->hard transformation!

I think it's true that uncut guys need to be more diligent about cleaning -- it can get pretty ew with cheesy smegma everywhere, whereas I don't think I've seen that problem with cut guys. Most guys seem to take pretty good care of their tackle though -- so long as you clean it properly and reasonably often it's fine.
I came across one guy who claimed to genuinely not know that he was supposed to wash under his foreskin. He was a generally clean bloke, but yeah, a smeggy cock. Sex doesn't seem to shift it -- it just adds vagina goop to the menagerie under the foreskin. In that case it was pretty forgivable since we were only 17 or so, so it was cool to just tell him to wash it. I think (might be wrong, don't own a penis) that you only really have to start washing it after puberty -- so can see why some guys might not have got the 'wash under your dong' talk from parents.

I wouldn't personally have a baby boy circumcised -- but it's not so common in England (not rare but not standard). If I lived somewhere where it was the norm I probably would. I wouldn't want my kid to be the one with the weird cock. I know that could sound bad -- like I wouldn't want my kid to be different or stand out. I just think what's going on in your pants is confusing/distressing enough without having to wonder what the hell is wrong with you.
 
Historically female circumcision is the removal of the whole clitoris in a misogynist tradition of removing sexual enjoyment of a women where as male circumcision is to make it prettier so the young man gets a blow job. Opposite effects in my opinion.

Actually male circumcision was done and became popular to curb male masturbation, and to decrease a man's sexual pleasure. Who says infant circumcision can't be misandrist, since female circumcision is misogynistic?

The 1st century Jewish author Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) defended Jewish circumcision on several grounds, including health, cleanliness and fertility. He also thought that circumcision should be done as early as possible as it would not be as likely to be done by someone's own free will. He claimed that the foreskin prevented semen from reaching the vagina and so should be done as a way to increase the nation's population. He also noted that circumcision should be performed as an effective means to reduce sexual pleasure: "The legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse thus making circumcision the symbol of excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure."

The Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135–1204) insisted that faith should be the only reason for circumcision. He recognised that it was "a very hard thing" to have done to oneself but that it was done to "quell all the impulses of matter" and "perfect what is defective morally." Sages at the time had recognised that the foreskin heightened sexual pleasure. Maimonides reasoned that the bleeding and loss of protective covering rendered the penis weakened and in so doing had the effect of reducing a man's lustful thoughts and making sex less pleasurable. He also warned that it is "hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him."

A 13th-century French Maimonides disciple, Isaac ben Yediah claimed that circumcision was an effective way of reducing a woman's sexual desire. With a non-circumcised man, he said, she always orgasms first and so her sexual appetite is never fulfilled, but with a circumcised man she receives no pleasure and hardly ever orgasms "because of the great heat and fire burning in her."

“There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.” - Kim, D. and Pang, M., "The Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexuality," BJU International 99 (2007): 619-22.

I'm not cut and I've gotten oral sex from both men and women. Both my male and female sexual partners have told me how I have a wonderful penis to give oral sex to, how they love my foreskin, and how I've got one of the best penises they've ever given oral sex to.
 
A 13th-century French Maimonides disciple, Isaac ben Yediah claimed that circumcision was an effective way of reducing a woman's sexual desire. With a non-circumcised man, he said, she always orgasms first and so her sexual appetite is never fulfilled, but with a circumcised man she receives no pleasure and hardly ever orgasms "because of the great heat and fire burning in her."

Just going to add my lady vote that, IME, this is so true; first time I had an uncircumcised lover was the first time I started having orgasms easily (and multiply) through penetration. The mechanics of the whole thing work so much better, because the penis kinda moves inside the foreskin, instead of skin rubbing against skin the whole time. Plus I've heard theories that the rim bit under the head kinda scrapes moisture out of your body when a guy's been circumcised, which do sort of seem to be true.

Also, you totally win the internet for that post Priest -- thank you.
 
I think a lot of great points have been made in here, but I don't personally have a preference or believe the two vary enough for a preference to even be had. Good personal hygiene is the same and as long as my man is on point with that, then I'm happy.

As far as having my children circumcised or not? I suppose it's something I'll discuss with whoever their father is and come to a mutual agreement on that subject when the time comes.
 
I think if you have uncircumsized boys, you need to be sure to teach them that whenever they wash themselves they ought to pull back the foreskin and wash there too! It seems there are full grown men out there who have not learnt this and upon exiting the shower and proceeding with errection/foreplay it becomes apparent they remain ... not so fresh, you know down there *chuckles* Do you think one day there might be such a thing as the full body condom? (that's rhetorical)
 
This is not what its about. It's about removing a body part of an infant without medical reasons, and removing the option to choose for himself when he's old enough to understand what circumcision is. Sexual enjoyment is not the relevant part in this regard.


exactly, stop derailing the thread on aesthetic grounds which are subjective and based on personal taste which is free to vary.

this is about the ethics behind mutilating babies without a medical justification, for which there is no persuading arguement in favour

as for the discussion about hygeine- when someone has very smelly armpits should we slice the skin off their armpits and cauterise it to stop them from being capable of sweating, or should we just tell the dirty fuckers to go and wash?

if someone stinks dont have sex with them... duh!
 
I actually wasn't trying to imply cutting off the foreskin as a solution. I REALLY DID just mean to tell them to clean it under there, I had this boy the other night... you see where this is going.. (yes he did shower first he just didn't wash under skin, and I would not likely have had sex with him were he not paying me, it's a little awkward to say to a guy you don't know, uhh get back in the shower and this time pull back your foreskin and scrub you filth ball, for me it is anyway, I find it easier to just get that condom on straight away so that none of the precum has a chance to migrate anywhere. I feel they should have already been told this by their guardian/s as children and is not my responsibility to teach it to them. If you accidentally offend them, they don't cum straight away and tip you as they are leaving all content as per the goal) Most people aren't prozzies so I guess this isn't relevant to other people's experience but I think that even if it were a bf or someone I liked and wanted to do, it would be just as awkward to tell them they are icky under the skin. Parents teach the boys the pull back and wash please.

Back on topic.. I don't really see circumcision as mutilation, more of a body mod. Do you think that if they made it a new tradition/custom that when a boy turns 12 he chooses which way he wants to go, this would be an ideal solution? It seems to leave enough time before sexual relations begin (one would assume) and wait long enough for the boy to have learn't about and come to a decision on.. Although puberty is kinda a stressfull enough time already... maybe that's why they do it as a baby. I am unsure. Or do you think it shouldn't be a matter of deciding to or not to when old enough and rather a matter of outlawing it all together?

No hostility, no more of this "circumsision is abuse", "foreskins are yukk" back in forth in the thread. lets find an appropriate solution. A recommended appropriate age of consent where a boy is asked whether he would like to be circumsized or left uncut of his own free edecated will instead of as a baby with no say in the matter. When's a good time/appropriate age do you think?
 
Last edited:
I think so many of us men have so many issues surrounding our cocks (looking at how often a 'dick size' question comes up in this forum at least), that I don't think there would ever be an appropriate age, short of the age of majority wherever you are. Even reading through this discussion has at times given me pause to feel uncomfortable about my uncut penis.

Even if you left the decision to the age of majority, I still think that a lot of men would get it done based on what other peoples superficial standards are/what they see in movies etc. I would honestly like to see it banned, so that in a generation or however long it would take, societies would just accept that a penis looks a certain way, and there is no need to surgically alter it... Not going to happen I know...
 
I feel they should have already been told this by their guardian/s as children and is not my responsibility to teach it to them.

I think the reason some parents don't, is that on average foreskin doesn't retract fully 'til age 10, by which point most kids are independent in terms of bathing or showering. But yes, all uncut men should be in the habit of fully retracting it and giving everything a rinse in the shower every day, at the very least. And making sure pee doesn't get stuck in there to go festy.

Back on topic.. I don't really see circumcision as mutilation, more of a body mod. Do you think that if they made it a new tradition/custom that when a boy turns 12 he chooses which way he wants to go, this would be an ideal solution? It seems to leave enough time before sexual relations begin (one would assume) and wait long enough for the boy to have learn't about and come to a decision on.. Although puberty is kinda a stressfull enough time already... maybe that's why they do it as a baby. I am unsure. Or do you think it shouldn't be a matter of deciding to or not to when old enough and rather a matter of outlawing it all together?

No hostility, no more of this "circumsision is abuse", "foreskins are yukk" back in forth in the thread. lets find an appropriate solution. A recommended appropriate age of consent where a boy is asked whether he would like to be circumsized or left uncut of his own free edecated will instead of as a baby with no say in the matter. When's a good time/appropriate age do you think?

I'm Jewish, but if I do ever end up having a son, I won't be getting him circumcised at birth. I believe very strongly in bodily autonomy, so there's no way I would make a permanent change to another person's body without their consent. But by whatever age they were mature enough to understand and make the decision for themselves (I'd imagine 15 or 16 or so at least, based on most of the teenage boys I've known), if they choose to be circumcised then, they would do it with my full blessing and support; I'd be right there cheering them on if they so desired. But it would be about their own right to determine what happens to their body and their own relationship with g-d, not about me deciding what's right for them.
 
No hostility, no more of this "circumsision is abuse", "foreskins are yukk" back in forth in the thread. lets find an appropriate solution. A recommended appropriate age of consent where a boy is asked whether he would like to be circumsized or left uncut of his own free edecated will instead of as a baby with no say in the matter. When's a good time/appropriate age do you think?

i'm not going to change my mind on circumcision without consent being abuse as if you make any kind of analagous situation it become unjustifiable (for example removing your childs ear because you think it looks unattractive). i would rather someone punch me in the face than remove my foreskin, and most people consider punching someone in the face abusive.

i can understand why you dont want to tell a trick their cock is dirty, but someone has to. just refuse to have sex with them and tell them why-unless you are so desperate for the cash that you cannot do without it
 
I'm Jewish, but if I do ever end up having a son, I won't be getting him circumcised at birth. I believe very strongly in bodily autonomy, so there's no way I would make a permanent change to another person's body without their consent. But by whatever age they were mature enough to understand and make the decision for themselves (I'd imagine 15 or 16 or so at least, based on most of the teenage boys I've known), if they choose to be circumcised then, they would do it with my full blessing and support; I'd be right there cheering them on if they so desired. But it would be about their own right to determine what happens to their body and their own relationship with g-d, not about me deciding what's right for them.

this i agree with completely- i'm not anti circumcision, i'm just against doing things to people without their consent. very well put
 
i'm not going to change my mind on circumcision without consent being abuse...
I never said you were going to change your mind, just that it has been said and arguing the same point repeatedly isn't much fun and I think effort could be directed toward finding a solution instead. I don't have any sort of need to convince everyone to agree with me on everything, and I keep sensing a hostile tone when as far as I'm concerned I don't see why we can't be friends. <3
Not to mention the fact we are in agreeance on everything else, I'ld never chop anyone's anything off without consent lol...
 
Last edited:
Top