• 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: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

Circumcision MEGA MERGED poll and discussion

How do you feel about circumcision?

  • I am male, intact and happy to be that way

    Votes: 170 35.7%
  • I am male, circumcised and glad to be that way

    Votes: 167 35.1%
  • I am male, intact and wish I were circumcised

    Votes: 22 4.6%
  • I am male, circumcised and I wish I were intact

    Votes: 33 6.9%
  • I am female and in favor of circumcision

    Votes: 44 9.2%
  • I am female and against circumcision

    Votes: 28 5.9%
  • Other - I'll post my response below

    Votes: 12 2.5%

  • Total voters
    476
Notice how the skin on the circumsized guy is so tight, there are less veins and the circulation seems restricted... Could be bad for maintaining erections...

There is definitly a sensitivity issue here, I am uncut, and if I pull my forskin back and let my head rub against my shorts it is painful. I imagine it wouldn't be so if you were cut. Secondly, when I stick my penis in my partner I can feel ever small fold in her vagina, and the different textures of it.

Check out this link on the functions of the foreskin, its a highly developed organ, not simply a piece of extra skin... http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
"
May shorten the penis:
"Circumcised men had shorter erect penises than uncircumcised men (p<0.05)." - Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? a method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995; 8(2): 77-81." http://www.circumstitions.com/reasonsnotto.html

Frankly, I've had several girls tell me they liked the uncut better, that it feels more natural inside them. Also I've had several women simply want to play with my penis because they had never touched one before... If women liked the mutilated cock so much why are so many of them arguing against the fathers to let their babies keep their weeners intact? Check out the website yall.
-MOR
for more info:
www.the-penis.com
 
The one guy who i have been with who was cut was

a) the best lay ive had

b) lasted the longest

Its all based on your own experiences. Going on my experience id say cut is better but not all will agree. i could be with another guy who's cut & he could be shit in bed...

I dont think either is better or worse for the female. I dont think it makes much difference to thier performance in bed either.
Only difference between the two i think would be what it feels like for the guy but dont quote me on that cos i dont have a penis:)
 
im cut and glad i am. one of my friends in high school was uncut and we used to really give him a hard time about it. i saw it once, and it looked like a doggy dick. very weird looking. im in america if you haven't guessed :|
 
and another article re HIV/circumcision that refers to the same studies

(NYT) Circumcision Reduces Risk of AIDS, Study Finds

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: December 13, 2006

Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Complete Coverage: AIDS/H.I.V. »
Web Link
Q&A About the NIAID-Sponsored Adult Male Circumcision Trials in Kenya and Uganda (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)

AIDS experts immediately hailed the result, saying it gave the world a new way to fight the spread of AIDS, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would now consider paying for circumcisions.

“This is very exciting news,” said Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at Harvard’s Center for Population and Development, who has argued in scientific journals for years that circumcision slows the spread of AIDS in the parts of Africa where it is practiced.

In an interview from Zimbabwe, Mr. Halperin added: “I have no doubt that, as word of this gets around, millions of African men will want to get circumcised and that will save many lives.”

But experts also cautioned that circumcision is no cure-all. It only lessens the chances that a man will catch the virus, it is expensive compared to condoms, abstinence or other methods, and the surgery has serious risks if performed by folk healers using dirty blades, as often happens in rural Africa.

Sex education messages to young men need to make it clear that “this does not mean that you have an absolute protection,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an AIDS researcher and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which sponsored the trials. Circumcision should be added to other prevention methods, not replace them, he said.

The two trials were carried out among nearly 3,000 men in Kisumu, Kenya, and nearly 5,000 men in Rakai, Uganda. None were infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; they were divided into circumcised and uncircumcised groups. They were given safe sex advice — although many presumably did not take it — and retested regularly.

The trials were stopped by the National Institutes of Health’s Data Safety and Monitoring Board this week after data showed that the Kenyan men had a 53 percent reduction in new H.I.V. cases and the Ugandan men a 48 percent reduction.

In Kenya, 22 of the 1,393 circumcised young men in the study caught the disease, compared with 47 of the 1,391 uncircumcised men.

Those results echo the finding of a trial completed last year in the town of Orange Farm, South Africa, financed by the French government, which demonstrated a reduction of 60 percent among circumcised men.

Two agencies, one under the State Department and the other financed by a number of countries, said they now would be willing to pay for circumcisions, which they have not before, citing a lack of hard evidence that it works.

Dr. Richard G. A. Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said that if a country seeking money submitted plans to conduct safe, sterile circumcisions, “I think it’s very likely that our technical panel would approve it.”

Ambassador Mark Dybul, executive director of the $15 billion President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in the State Department, said his agency “will support implementation of safe medical male circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention.”

He too warned that it was only one new weapon.

“Prevention efforts must reinforce the ABC approach — abstain, be faithful and correct and consistent use of condoms,” he said.

Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to AIDS because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans’ cells, which attach easily to the virus. The foreskin may also suffer small tears during intercourse, making it more susceptible to infection.

Researchers have long noted that parts of Africa where circumcision is practiced — particularly in the Muslim countries of West Africa — had much lower AIDS rates. But it was unclear whether other factors, such as religion or polygamy, played important roles.

Outside Muslim regions, circumcision is spotty. In South Africa, for example, the Xhosa people circumcise teen-age boys, while Zulus, whose traditional homeland abuts theirs, do not. AIDS is common in members of both tribes.

In recent years, as word has spread that circumcision might be protective, many African men have sought it out. A Zambian hospital offered $3 circumcisions last year, and Swaziland trained 60 doctors to give them at $40 each after its waiting lists grew.

“Private practitioners also do it,” Dr. Halperin said. “In some places, it’s $20, in others, much more. Lots of the wealthy elite have already done it. It prevents STD’s, it’s seen as cleaner, sex is better, women like it. I predict that a lot of men who can’t afford private clinics will start clamoring for it.”
 
It is without doubt that circumcision has utility unrelated to cosmetics. That's the reason it was started as a practice in the first place (6000 years ago).

When people don't bathe often and are uncircumcised theres a build up of smegma and other shit under there and its unhealthy. It promotes disease and possibly cancers. 6000 years ago and indeed, til rather recently (and still continuing in large parts of the globe), people didn't wash hardly at all. In modern society where people bathe this problem doesn't exist, so the utility is removed.
Circumcision was NOT started for utilitarian purposes, but tribal bonding/rite of passage /slavery purposes.

It's only in recent times that various groups have tried to retroactively justify the procedure by claiming it has an actual utilitarian purpose.

What I find funny is that although boardmembers have pointed out such studies in the past, fairnymph would never accept the fact that circumcision may be desirable for infants (except in the rare cases where it is medically necessary) no matter what science showed.
You seem to be having trouble expressing yourself. As you note and as I have always maintained, when medically absolutely necessary, I support circumcision. Obviously, it is better than death or permanent damage to the penis when no other form of treatment is possible. Thus, my reasoning is extremely sciene-based.

The fact the all the virus-protection studies are so inconclusive, ie they do NOT hold up scientifically, means that they do not change my mind about routine circumcision. It's not that I'm not open to new research; there just hasn't been any that's adequate.
 
I have to say from my observations that you're better off cut. You don't need that bit of extra skin.
Nature, and most intact men, beg to differ. The foreskin serves a variety of purposes; it protects as a barrier, it has immunological properties, it maintains the sensitivity of the glans and provides moistures, and it heightens sexual pleasure for both parties.

If patriarchal societies have been doing it for hundreds of years, it's definitely not a bad thing for men, that's for sure.
This is a really silly statement.

The 'it looks better' and 'everyone else does it' arguments are beyond ridiculous. It's fine to feel a certain way; such a thing can't be helped. We are all shaped by our environments. But to use this sort of desperate reasoning when deciding whether to circumcise your child, is horrendous.
 
Beatlebot said:
If patriarchal societies have been doing it for hundreds of years, it's definitely not a bad thing for men, that's for sure.
are you fucking kidding me? because it has been done, it is obviously fine? you are smart enough to come up with something better than that. at least, i have thought you were.

It is definitely not in the same league as most genital mutilation practices for girls.

long term....you are correct, not as traumatic....short term, just as terribly awful.

have you watched a circumcision? could you watch it done to your own child, with no qualms?
 
fairnymph said:
Circumcision was NOT started for utilitarian purposes, but tribal bonding/rite of passage /slavery purposes.

It's only in recent times that various groups have tried to retroactively justify the procedure by claiming it has an actual utilitarian purpose.

You seem to be having trouble expressing yourself. As you note and as I have always maintained, when medically absolutely necessary, I support circumcision. Obviously, it is better than death or permanent damage to the penis when no other form of treatment is possible. Thus, my reasoning is extremely sciene-based.

The fact the all the virus-protection studies are so inconclusive, ie they do NOT hold up scientifically, means that they do not change my mind about routine circumcision. It's not that I'm not open to new research; there just hasn't been any that's adequate.

Your fervor is at least admirable, if not odd. I don't think any study could show you anything that would change your mind regarding circumcision. These studies are very new and are at least highly suggestive. Personally, I find the National Institutes of Health's view mildly authoritative.

I wonder why you personally are so vehement in your opposition to circumcision. You'd almost think you had something personally invested. Sorry if I missed something. Besides being utterly incapable of expressing myself I am also incredibly stupid.
 
Last edited:
fairnymph said:
Circumcision was NOT started for utilitarian purposes, but tribal bonding/rite of passage /slavery purposes.

Although, to be fair, no one is quite sure why the ritual began and it has been used for different reasons throughout time.
 
CUT & PROUD OF IT. Glad I wasn't asked. IF they had waited to asked me, of course I still would have gone for it, I just would have stressed about it.
 
Uncut men are a fascination but I'd rather suck uncircumcised -- if necessary, hate sucking dick: GAAG! Size or enthuasiasm is all that matters. A dick is only good for making babies (I'm so over fucking losers), it doesn't belong in yer mouth.

EDIT: This in the paper today: A study in Africa by the U.S. National Institute of Health found that circumscision cut the risk of AIDS by SIXTY percent. "The foreskin is more fragile than the tougher skin surrounding it, providing a surface that the virus could penetrate more easily."

Wonder if the this study will change the opinion of peditritions in the U.S. who are against routine circumscision.

I didn't think it mattered until now but if I had a boy I'd wait until he was 13 and tell him the risk and let him decide if he wants it cut.

I'd also let him decide if he wanted to wear a dress and have a sex change.
 
Last edited:
I have never been with an uncut man so I can't really compare, I have seen pics of the soft penis uncut but not an erect penis uncut but i do not think it would matter to me, its the guy who belongs to the penis who matters.
as far as getting my sons circumcised i always thought i would but after my best friends son had to be circumcised after the skin grew back i changed my mind. i also get squeamish seeing friends care for their circumcised babies after the operation it just looks so painful. that being said i only have girls and i doubt i will ever have a son but if i do i will definitely have to think it over especially since so many uncut men are glad they were left that way.
 
FoxxyLady said:
its the guy who belongs to the penis who matters.
.

So, so true :)

I've actually only ever encountered one who wasn't cut, and his penis *was* little strange to me to begin with, but I count him amongst my best lovers nonethless. The other top contenders who were circumsiced, were also great lovers. Some of my worst were cut too. So I really couldn't choose. I don't think it makes a miniscule amount of difference really, it's like asking if someone who had blonde hair was better than a brunette, or big boobs better than small. You might find one more aesthetically pleasing because of your social conditioning or innate preferences, but when it gets down to the business; it's the skill of the operator that counts, and their personality that makes the experience beyond ordinary.

I'm also heartened by all the intact men who've posted that love their penises, it's given me a renewed strength to fight for not having my (yet- to-be-concieved mind you ;) ) son, ever circumsiced. Because like a lot of men in his social group my hubby is circumsiced and can't comprehend any other way to be. It's a little narrow minded in my opinion. Plus, fucked if I'm paying to have it done if it's not covered by Medicare.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, bottom line: circumcision doesn't matter/it doesn't belong in yer mouth/it's what is attached to it and, it's for making babies. (Don't circumcise your son but offer him sex change ASAP.)

This world's NOT fit for babies unless you live in Australia, Costa Rica or New Zealand or have 1000 hits of LSD. Hit me back (or post here) for more countries to add. Oregon, Washington or Idaho?
 
I'm 20 years old, live in Australia and am uncut, but I wish to God that my parents had've decided to get me circumcised.

But the weird thing is is that my brother is a year older than me and he is circumcised. So why'd they decide to do it for him and not for me???
 
I'm also heartened by all the intact men who've posted that love their penises, it's given me a renewed strength to fight for not having my (yet- to-be-concieved mind you ) son, ever circumsiced.

lol!

i feel i must quote magnolia's scripwriters and suggest a tentative 'RESPECT THE COCK' should this disagreement ever get serious ;)

you fight for the future foreskin, girl. you fight.
 
after (just)discussing it with my hubby it would seem he feels the opposite of me on this...he said he would definitely want our son circumcised while he was too young to remember and while insurance covers it:\ but i guess since he got stuck with all the girl swimmers it's not likely to be and issue...good luck to you SLM if you have a boy(once you conceive;) )

Edit for spelling
 
CUT & PROUD OF IT. Glad I wasn't asked. IF they had waited to asked me, of course I still would have gone for it, I just would have stressed about it.
Saying 'of course I still would have gone for it' makes no sense. How can you know for sure what you would feel in that situation? Statistically if you had been left whole and intact you would have been happy and proud of it, not stressed and wanting to remove part of your penis.

Furthermore, if you had been left intact and then as an adult wanted to get cut, it would be been much better all around than being cut as an infant. Less dangerous, less scarring and loss of sensitivity, the wonders of anaesthesia and much less pain, etc.
 
Top