Is there really still a "circumsized is better" culture?

ItsAll4Kim

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Posts
6,810
Media
0
Likes
13,789
Points
308
Location
USA
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Doesn’t make it right. Lol and quite frankly, I have the right to my own body just as everyone has. Whether you want to accept the implication to continue this bullshit, is up to you. I can’t stop you. I have helped a lot of people change their minds though. And guess what? They were doing it for NO GOOD reason. I’ve been told this. - good enough for me.
Your fanatical disapproval doesn't make it either wrong OR any of your business. There has never been a clear and historically consistent medical consensus in either direction. For cultures and religions it's been practiced for centuries. As far as aesthetics go, some like, some don't. It isn't clearly right, or clearly wrong.

But keep ranting about it in a dick forum. That'll fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gj816 and japetty
1

1141702

Guest
Your fanatical disapproval doesn't make it either wrong OR any of your business. There has never been a clear and historically consistent medical consensus in either direction. For cultures and religions it's been practiced for centuries. As far as aesthetics go, some like, some don't. It isn't clearly right, or clearly wrong.

But keep ranting about it in a dick forum. That'll fix it.
Oh, there is something broken?

Ranting in a dick forum? Really? Lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ItsAll4Kim

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Posts
6,810
Media
0
Likes
13,789
Points
308
Location
USA
Verification
View
Gender
Male
S

SirConcis

Guest
DildoShwaggins: I looked at your pictures, and while your ring distrorts things quite a bit, I woudl not rule out that you were circumcised. having been semi cut for manu years, I spot some of the signs. The abrupt end of your frenulum line which doesn't seenm to meet the raphe is a tell tale sign. and when erect, to have such smooth skin all around is ratre for uncut.

This is especially true if your parents told you you were cut. It is just that only a small portortion of original foreskin was removed,

With regards to the tipic at hand:

What has changed is that parents now know that circumcision isn't "necessary", isn't required to go into the army, leaving your son uncut wont cause cancer on 5000 women and all the original propaganda to push parents to have sons done.

The cosmetic and "it is much better" arguments are likely the more important ones now, and those are obviously a question of taste/preference. And depending on where in USA you live, "to fit in" may still be an important factor (since circ rates vary), but not as much as before.

Once parents know that circumcision isn't necessary and a man can be healthy with a foreskin, it does raise the issue of "let him choose" and some parents still decide to get it done at birth because it simplifies things a lot and save boy from having to undergo surgery later.

If the anti-circers had really wanted to be honest, they shoudl have piushed only on the issue that adult circ need not be traumatic, or overly expensive and that letting son choose is a big ethical question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DildoShwaggins
1

1141702

Guest
DildoShwaggins: I looked at your pictures, and while your ring distrorts things quite a bit, I woudl not rule out that you were circumcised. having been semi cut for manu years, I spot some of the signs. The abrupt end of your frenulum line which doesn't seenm to meet the raphe is a tell tale sign. and when erect, to have such smooth skin all around is ratre for uncut.

This is especially true if your parents told you you were cut. It is just that only a small portortion of original foreskin was removed,

With regards to the tipic at hand:

What has changed is that parents now know that circumcision isn't "necessary", isn't required to go into the army, leaving your son uncut wont cause cancer on 5000 women and all the original propaganda to push parents to have sons done.

The cosmetic and "it is much better" arguments are likely the more important ones now, and those are obviously a question of taste/preference. And depending on where in USA you live, "to fit in" may still be an important factor (since circ rates vary), but not as much as before.

Once parents know that circumcision isn't necessary and a man can be healthy with a foreskin, it does raise the issue of "let him choose" and some parents still decide to get it done at birth because it simplifies things a lot and save boy from having to undergo surgery later.

If the anti-circers had really wanted to be honest, they shoudl have piushed only on the issue that adult circ need not be traumatic, or overly expensive and that letting son choose is a big ethical question.
Replying to you in conversation.
 

wildcat16

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
903
Media
0
Likes
8,032
Points
363
Location
US of A
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
There are parts of the population that are circumcised at birth, some at eight days old. It's called a bris. As a covenant between God and Abraham for the latter. An everlasting covenant.

To call it genital mutilation is just as bad as saying that uncut is gross nasty and disgusting.

After all, those of us that were cut at birth were cut because our parents thought it best for us. Just like feeding us and taking care of us while we were unable to take care of ourselves.
I for one am not angry because I was cut, nor do I put a stigmatism on those that were not cut. I personally have encountered both. Those that don't take care of themselves and those that do, cut and uncut alike.

The same goes for personal hygiene. Some folks don't take a shower often enough while I normally take a couple of showers a day.

I am content being cut. I've never known any other way of looking at it. I never knew I was born with a foreskin until I was grown. It doesn't bother me that mine was removed at birth. I don't understand why so many men put such an emphasis on a body part that nobody sees unless you go around naked all the time.

Neither cut nor uncut guys had a say in how they were left with or without as infants. Just accept it or go through the process of restoring.


This is the first sensible train of thought on the subject I have read in all the posts about it on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gj816

palakaorion

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Posts
1,766
Media
0
Likes
3,099
Points
268
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The following is just my 0.02 USD and not intended to line up under any specific ideology.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. Outsiders have no say in the rearing or care of children, *unless* the child is being harmed or is in imminent danger from the parents' action or inaction.

So the argument becomes: does infant circumcision harm a child or put him in imminent danger?

Also, regarding religious practice: many religious rituals and practices make perfect sense to its adherents but seem ridiculous to outsiders.
 

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,914
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Yes, there absolutely is still a stigma. I don't think its really representative of how people actually feel, but in media there is a lot of shaming of uncircumcised penises and none of circumcised penises. I find this particularly true in stand up comedy. I don't think its overwhelming, but when the subject comes up it always views the foreskin in a negative light. Amy Schumer for one has made jokes about it many times.

I don't really care that much, I'm not sensitive to it, and I know that the people I've been with who had not seen a foreskin before all expressed their interest and preference for it verbally. Maybe they were trying to make me feel good, but that's not a bad thing. But in comedy its usually important to make sure you take some swipes at all sides, otherwise it can't start to sound a little like hate speech.
 

BillM

LPSG Legend
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
133,154
Media
7
Likes
399,782
Points
508
Location
Beverly Hills (California, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, there absolutely is still a stigma. I don't think its really representative of how people actually feel, but in media there is a lot of shaming of uncircumcised penises and none of circumcised penises. I find this particularly true in stand up comedy. I don't think its overwhelming, but when the subject comes up it always views the foreskin in a negative light. Amy Schumer for one has made jokes about it many times.

I don't really care that much, I'm not sensitive to it, and I know that the people I've been with who had not seen a foreskin before all expressed their interest and preference for it verbally. Maybe they were trying to make me feel good, but that's not a bad thing. But in comedy its usually important to make sure you take some swipes at all sides, otherwise it can't start to sound a little like hate speech.
amy-schumer-glamour-magazine-uk-may-2017-issue-1.jpg

Stud, Well Amy is Jewish and that is why she make so many jokes about it !!
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Look in the mirror.

Look in the mirror.

The mirror is all yours Skippy. I’m not starting these threads not contributing to them. They should be banned for redundancy and banality.
 

Dave NoCal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Posts
2,719
Media
1
Likes
2,578
Points
333
Location
Sacramento (California, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The mirror is all yours Skippy. I’m not starting these threads not contributing to them. They should be banned for redundancy and banality.
You are "contributing" as we speak. In fact, you "contribute" to these threads more than I do, decrying their existence. What's up with that?
 

Gj816

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Posts
7,278
Media
86
Likes
26,410
Points
333
Location
Nashville (Tennessee, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
We are all meddling in affairs that are not ours. This shouldn’t even be debate. It should be viewed the same way as would you or would you not cut off your child’s finger to prevent hang nails. That’s the issue. It shouldn’t even need to be discussed. It’s a disturbing nonchalantness towards something that isn’t nonchalant, especially to an infant.

... and rights.. and a fanatical devotion to the pope. LOL


Oy, it's not the same thing. Having a foreskin removed or left in tact has created a lot of issues for those who were cut and those who were not.

It's a friggin dick. What difference does it make whether it's cut our not? The fact that some grown whiny ass men want to blame their parents for taking their foreskin when they were born. Is a absurd as that screwball 30 yr old man whose parents went to court to have him removed from their home.

It was a common practice, still is fairly common. But to keep insisting that circumcision is genital mutilation is idiotic and childish. My dick was not and is not mutilated. It's perfectly normal to me and at least half of the male population of the US.

While I don't have a son, had I had one he would've been circumcised just like me, my father before me, and his father before him.

I have no idea how common circumcision was in 1890,1932? But it was and still is fairly common when I was born.

Call it a great lie, a hoax whatever the fact remains that it is has and will be around for centuries to come.

It's my opinion and I am unanimous in this. Grown men blaming their parents for having them cut is childish, immature, selfish, and stupid. Get over yourselves already it's a friggin dick. If you are circumcised or not ask yourself these questions about your dick. Can you pee with it? get it hard? ejaculate with it? If you answered yes it works the way it was intended to work.

A couple friend of mine, left their son's foreskin intact. That was their choice. They made that decision for him. Just the same way those that are uncut parents made the decision to leave their son's intact. The same way my parents made the decision to have mine removed.

It's not that big of a deal to me. I have never missed not having a foreskin. If guys weren't looking at other men's dicks, they wouldn't know that there were guys out there whose dick's look different from theirs. But I digress.

Bottom line you guys that are "intact" are that way because your parents made the decision to leave you that way.

Your argument that it's not a parents right to make that decision is as redundant as some of the excuses you expel. You are intact because your parents made that decision. Hello. Ding,ding,ding,ding,ding.
Some one made the decision that left you intact just like someone made the decision to have mine removed.

I'll say it again, I have never put a stigmatism on someone because they were uncut. But it's seems there are plenty of people who want to put a stigmatism on those of us that are cut because we're cut.
It would seem that you want your cake and eat it too.