Pros and cons of being cut/uncut
- Thread starter D_aco04hcx
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Posts
- 708
- Media
- 9
- Likes
- 3,348
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Georgia, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Circumcision is mutilation? Isn't this overstating the outcome? Are cut guys totally incapable of having sex and procreating?
Honestly, I've never understood why the cut/uncut argument is such a big deal one way or the other. I'm uncut and as far as I can tell, the only advantages are:
- Some partners have a preference for it.
- Lube is essentially optional for jacking off. (In fact, it was a long time before I discovered that most guys did use some sort of lubrication for jacking off-- the idea never occurred to me!
- Some partners are put off by it.
- The head is sensitive; having the foreskin retracted and the head rubbing against clothing is quite uncomfortable. (To me, at least! So occasionally I have to "adjust myself.")
- You have to keep your foreskin clean-- going without washing it is not only smelly (as some have described) but irritating (literally!
- jonb,
Mutilation: Um, I've heard some people refer to cutting as self-mutilation. And there have been cases of ablation of the penis, or even the boy dying of gangrene which he got during his circumcision. (Or if he's a hemophiliac . . .) Definitely more common than cutters going a little too deep.
Foreskin retracted and rubbing against clothing: And this occurs when? Other than boners, of course.
Washing: Yeah, washing's a problem. I mean, it's not like you BATHE EVERY DAY.
I blame Texas' ejukayshun system.
Foreskin retracted and rubbing against clothing: And this occurs when? Other than boners, of course.
Washing: Yeah, washing's a problem. I mean, it's not like you BATHE EVERY DAY.
I blame Texas' ejukayshun system.
My friend got circumcised in 5th grade... he didnt go to school for a month. I felt really bad for him till he got to sit out most of PE for the rest of the year.
Yeah, that's what I would like to know.
I honestly don't know where people get this idiotic notion that uncircumcised dicks stink, or that they're dirty. Basically, if you bathe on a regular basis it's not an issue. Originally, when people didn't have access to showers every day, then yes it helped. But it is completely archaic now.
The Lord God ordered us to be circumcised. When the angels of death come for ye, they will drag ye to hell by your foreskin.Originally posted by Dr Rock
I ain't the one who made the dumbass post
Circumcision is mutilation? Isn't this overstating the outcome? Are cut guys totally incapable of having sex and procreating?
The chief disadvantages are:
- Some partners are put off by it.
- The head is sensitive; having the foreskin retracted and the head rubbing against clothing is quite uncomfortable. (To me, at least! So occasionally I have to "adjust myself.")
- You have to keep your foreskin clean-- going without washing it is not only smelly (as some have described) but irritating (literally!
[post=322166]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Point 1: Can go either way. Some people get put off by incomplete penises, scarring especially with things like skin bridges etc..
Point 2: Having a sensitive head is generally considered a good thing. Just like having a good sense of smell or good sense of taste. The don't have a problem with my foreskin retracting and exposing my head unless I deliberately do so.
Point 3: Yes, you have to keep your entire genitalia clean as well as your mouth, feet, armpits etc.. All of which are known to smell quite badly in most people given enough time and sweat. To clean the head/foreskin of a penis (which cut guys do as well) takes 2-4 secs?
I think the point you are missing though is that it is not actually about advantages/disadvantages when it comes to infants. They are circumcised against their will contrary to every professional medical opinion in the world. Basically it comes down to basic human rights which are violated and for me this is by far the biggest factor in "routine infant circumcision." If you are an adult and want to do whatever to yourself, go ahead..
The Lord God ordered us to be circumcised. When the angels of death come for ye, they will drag ye to hell by your foreskin.Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+Jun 20 2005, 10:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick @ Jun 20 2005, 10:08 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock
I ain't the one who made the dumbass post
[post=322423]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Didn't St. Paul say that Jesus supercedes Abraham's Covenant with God? Christians are not required to circumcise, Christianity is a Gentile religion.
Originally posted by Mr._dB+Jun 20 2005, 09:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mr._dB @ Jun 20 2005, 09:37 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
I ain't the one who made the dumbass post
The Lord God ordered us to be circumcised. When the angels of death come for ye, they will drag ye to hell by your foreskin.
[post=322423]Quoted post[/post]
Didn't St. Paul say that Jesus supercedes Abraham's Covenant with God? Christians are not required to circumcise, Christianity is a Gentile religion.
[post=322519]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]uhhh ... I ain't a christian either
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Posts
- 708
- Media
- 9
- Likes
- 3,348
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Georgia, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I'll acknowledge that there can always be complications from any surgical procedure. And it's especially tragic when the surgery is elective, as is virtually always the case with circumcision. But I suppose many things (piercings, tattoos, etc.) could be considered mutilation if you make the definition broad enough. My argument is based on the definition of mutilation:
mu·ti·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
- To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
- To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter.
- To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
Since you must know, and apparently no one else has experienced this.
Aside from the spontaneous occurence we all know, it only happens immediately after going to the bathroom and not having adjusted myself properly, if you get my drift. I might not have as much skin as some of you, so perhaps this is more of a problem for me than it is for you. That's it.<!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Jun 19 2005, 11:54 PM
Washing: Yeah, washing's a problem. I mean, it's not like you BATHE EVERY DAY.
[post=322323]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]Awww, come on jonb, haven't you ever gone a day without a shower?
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Posts
- 708
- Media
- 9
- Likes
- 3,348
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Georgia, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Effectively that's what infant circumcision is-- at least today. Infant circumcision really doesn't serve any good medical purpose now, although it might have in Biblical times. (Much as not eating pork or shellfish, or keeping meat and milk separate.) But a legacy of 4000 years (more or less? I don't know what year it is in the Jewish calendar or how old creationists believe the Earth is
) of religion and culture will resist change. And the primary argument against circumcision-- aside from the facts that it's not necessary and only persists as a religious and cultural custom (which many will view as a valid reason for circumcision)-- is that an uncircumcized man might enjoy sex more because of heightened sensitivity. I doubt that's an argument that will sway many religious and cultural conservatives. But I could be wrong.- jonb,
Yeah, but it leaves a question. Why do the Jews always have the ceremoniess which everyone tries to turn into something more? Why doesn't someone talked about the medical benefits of tethering yourself to a pole with hooks in your chest and dragging yourself away from it until the skin rips out?
FWIW, the Ussher timeline says about 4000 years. The actual age of the oldest Hebrew writing says less than 3000. Ashley Montagu said circumcision probably went back long before that. Montagu's argument depends on some Australian and New Guinea tribes which practice circumcision of a variety. Basically, Montagu noted that a lot of cultures view menstruation as a means of a woman purifying herself of foul humors. Most likely, circumcision came about out of envy; going back to New Guinea and Australia, they actually cut open their penis to menstruate and refer to the wound by the same term they use for the vulva.
Most likely female circumcision, according to Montagu's argument, was simply a desire to inflict pain on women out of jealousy.
FWIW, the Ussher timeline says about 4000 years. The actual age of the oldest Hebrew writing says less than 3000. Ashley Montagu said circumcision probably went back long before that. Montagu's argument depends on some Australian and New Guinea tribes which practice circumcision of a variety. Basically, Montagu noted that a lot of cultures view menstruation as a means of a woman purifying herself of foul humors. Most likely, circumcision came about out of envy; going back to New Guinea and Australia, they actually cut open their penis to menstruate and refer to the wound by the same term they use for the vulva.
Most likely female circumcision, according to Montagu's argument, was simply a desire to inflict pain on women out of jealousy.
I myself is not circumsized but would in some degree like to be, the reason being that I have a bit short frenulum and that would not be a problem when circumsized. I also have a lot of foreskin, it's actually covering mye whole head when erected with a bit to spare. Therefore I would like a partial circumsission, but it's a bit akward going to my doctor asking to be circumsized because it's not normal here in Norway.
BTW: I think the english soldiers who faught in the desert in ww1 got cut because they was having problem with sand getting under their foreskin. Maybe that's why the jews did it when they walked 40 years in the desert?
BTW: I think the english soldiers who faught in the desert in ww1 got cut because they was having problem with sand getting under their foreskin. Maybe that's why the jews did it when they walked 40 years in the desert?
Mutilating the penis is a right of passage in many cultures.
It's just a right of passage I resent the fuck out of.
In our modern "enlightened" culture (religious beliefs notwithstanding) just what fucking purpose does it serve to sever part of an infants anatomy?
At 3 days of age, just what "passage" could I have possibly experienced?
Other than extreme pain...........and the Dr. making a few extra bucks?
It's just a right of passage I resent the fuck out of.
In our modern "enlightened" culture (religious beliefs notwithstanding) just what fucking purpose does it serve to sever part of an infants anatomy?
At 3 days of age, just what "passage" could I have possibly experienced?
Other than extreme pain...........and the Dr. making a few extra bucks?
Effectively that's what infant circumcision is-- at least today. Infant circumcision really doesn't serve any good medical purpose now, although it might have in Biblical times. (Much as not eating pork or shellfish, or keeping meat and milk separate.) But a legacy of 4000 years (more or less? I don't know what year it is in the Jewish calendar or how old creationists believe the Earth is
) of religion and culture will resist change. And the primary argument against circumcision-- aside from the facts that it's not necessary and only persists as a religious and cultural custom (which many will view as a valid reason for circumcision)-- is that an uncircumcized man might enjoy sex more because of heightened sensitivity. I doubt that's an argument that will sway many religious and cultural conservatives. But I could be wrong.[post=322940]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]It didn't serve any practical purpose in biblical times either. As anyone who has done research on this can tell you, the original biblical circumcision was not even a partial circumcision. A slight bit of the tip of the foreskin was removed, it was completely symbolic in nature. More foreskin was only removed when the religious leaders at the time got sick of the Jews pretending to be gentiles (which was easy because they still had most of their foreskin). This is all historical fact. I can of course find links but I am sure google will do the trick for most of you.
This also explains things like the famous statue of David in Florence which seems to confuse many Americans. For those of you who don't know, it appears for all intents and purposes that he is fully intact.
Oh yeah, on the sand under the foreskin comments. The 40 years in the desert was part of the period when the Jews did not circumcise at all so that was not a reason then either.
Similar threads
