The Case for Circumcision. (Click and be convinced)
- Thread starter D_Botchely Boneher
- Start date
I'm not exactly following this....you know, getting the meaning of it-- (?)
Anyway, the one on the right, looks photo-shopped. The base of his penis doesn't seem to be protruding naturally from his body but instead, more from the MIDDLE of the scrotum area.
Anyway, the one on the right, looks photo-shopped. The base of his penis doesn't seem to be protruding naturally from his body but instead, more from the MIDDLE of the scrotum area.
I'm sure that this was meant to be humorous. The author was probably attempting to suggest that due to the attractiveness of the two men, both of whom are circumsized, that all men should be cut ipso facto.
I'm uncut, but I probably will have my kids circ'd. I realize that its a traumatizing process and that they loose a significant amount of feeling. However, there are a few facts which I find to be irrefutable in my part of the states:
a. Cut guys last longer in bed. This is a juvinile reason, but the most important part of a man's sex life is in his younger years when he is judged by a large percentage of women by his looks and talent in bed; not by intelligence or kindness and hopefully not by bank account.
b. Being uncut alienates you from your peers. I get shit in the locker room on occasion, and while its not something horrible, any significant differences between men puts a kid in a difficult position.
c. American girls have no idea what the fuck to do with them. I had one actually have the gall to ask me if I had a birth defect with my penis. Really now, that is totally uncool.
While I'm sure that there are a slew of health issues which give both sides creedence, I find that I keep coming back to the social issue around circumcision as sex, after all, is a social thing.
Comments, questions, concerns? I'd actually be sincerely interested from hearing from American girls on this topic.
I'm uncut, but I probably will have my kids circ'd. I realize that its a traumatizing process and that they loose a significant amount of feeling. However, there are a few facts which I find to be irrefutable in my part of the states:
a. Cut guys last longer in bed. This is a juvinile reason, but the most important part of a man's sex life is in his younger years when he is judged by a large percentage of women by his looks and talent in bed; not by intelligence or kindness and hopefully not by bank account.
b. Being uncut alienates you from your peers. I get shit in the locker room on occasion, and while its not something horrible, any significant differences between men puts a kid in a difficult position.
c. American girls have no idea what the fuck to do with them. I had one actually have the gall to ask me if I had a birth defect with my penis. Really now, that is totally uncool.
While I'm sure that there are a slew of health issues which give both sides creedence, I find that I keep coming back to the social issue around circumcision as sex, after all, is a social thing.
Comments, questions, concerns? I'd actually be sincerely interested from hearing from American girls on this topic.
Being uncut in american is slightly more uncommon now and when your sons are men will be even more so, you can easily tell a woman what to do with a foreskin. If you look at the threads on here there seem to be slightly more women who prefer a foreskin than who prefer a cut guy. Why would you deprive your sons of the sensation you enjoy? They can always make that decision for themselves when they become sexually active, and what happens if they grow up and decide they hate that they were cut? You can't take it back. God forbid it but what if the circumcision goes wrong?
I think a young guy is more likely to be judged on how good he is at oral, at kissing, at touching a woman's body than if he can last for longer than 20 minutes, take it from a woman an hour of humping away is boring.
I think a young guy is more likely to be judged on how good he is at oral, at kissing, at touching a woman's body than if he can last for longer than 20 minutes, take it from a woman an hour of humping away is boring.
Here's the deal: I'm cut and I wish I weren't. I grew up making fun of uncut kids and thinking that looked gross but that was a while ago and a lot more guys are uncut now. Plus America isn't the rest of the world where few are cut and we look strange.
The premature ejaculation thing is something that might be a problem early on, but the lack of sensitivity only gets worse. It's impossible for me to cum from a blowjob by itself( I need a hand on the head at the end) and the same thing with f*cking which drives me and my lover crazy. Not crazy, but its upsetting that one intimate act can't be enough sometimes. Plus, I could do without a bigscar on my dick and the fact that my parents made the decision for me. I could have decided it--or not--in my own time and so can your future sons. So give it a bit more thought because it'll be a big one time decision you'll be making for someone else, K?? Cheers!
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Posts
- 5,412
- Media
- 79
- Likes
- 4,499
- Points
- 358
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
You can decide if you want circumcision for yourself.If you ever have a son give him the same freedom.
Ed69
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Posts
- 2,890
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,283
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Oregon (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
This is one of the most disturbing and saddening posts I have seen in a long, long time. If she's old enough to be seeing your penis, she should be old enough to have had some factual education about human anatomy - including what a foreskin is, what it looks like, and why it is normal and circumcised is not.
The fact that you would consider circumcising your (future) sons to compensate for some ignorant girl's ignorance is just tragic.
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
Well more than half of those Muslims and Jews are women anyway
Picky, picky, picky ...:smile:
- Eva,
False. Completely and totally false. While sure, the foreskin contains a number of nerves and covers the head of the penis so it's more apt for feeling the good things when it's uncovered, it doesn't ensure that he'll come more quickly because he's uncut.
My little black book is evenly distributed, cut to uncut men. I've got a fair sample size. I'd say that uncut men generally lasted longer and were better in bed overall.
Let's be honest. Kids are cruel and will find a way to make fun of other people no matter what. If it's not foreskin, it will be chest hair. If not chest hair, then nipple colour. If not nipple colour, then.... No school I ever went to required us to strip down to nothing and actually shower and even if they did, I probably wouldn't have been in the men's locker room. But if I had, let me tell you, I'd have gravitated to the uncuts!
Now now.... I was born in America and I happen to love uncut men! (You may have picked that up by now.) The first time I saw one entirely flaccid, I just asked him about it. When he confirmed he was uncut, I then spent a long period of time "inspecting" his penis. He was pleased with my inspection. :wink:
I don't think American women are as used to uncut men but I think that's also changing as well. Most of my friends have seen both and the ones who haven't are married or don't have a very wide array of notches on their bedposts. And many of my friends also prefer uncut men as well.
As for the chick who asked if it was a birth defect--I hope you didn't fuck her. She's too stupid to fuck.
Don't be too quick to judge American girls! There are a lot of us who appreciate uncut men--it's just a matter of finding us. And those of us who appreciate the uncircumsized definitely know what to do with it.
B_ScaredLittleBoy
Experimental Member
It seems like based on your own bad experiences and your own inability to think for yourself and not have your mind made up by the opinions of others, you want to mutilate your own flesh and blood.
Even if this is how you truly feel, you would be wise to let your sons grow up without human or surgical intervention. Let them choose what they want to do with their own bodies.
If you're truly intact then you're a hypocrite! Before you have you're future sons circ'd, you have it done. Then wait 10...20 years for keratinization to affect sensitivity.
You say realize that it's traumatizing and that they loose feeling and yet you say you'll probably have them circ'd? You're contradicting yourself in one sentence. Have you been reading pro-circ bullshit?
The are no health issues that require an immediate circumcision of a healthy infant. Not even the AAP would say that. As for the "social thing," the USA circ rate has been declining and by the time you have kids it might be below 50% so 15...20 years from now girls will have familiarity with either. As for his "peers" the majority them would be intact. The ones getting "shit" might be the cuts since they'd be in a minority.
Your "irrefutable facts" were very well dealt with by the earlier writers. So will you get cut or leave future your sons intact?
The Carlson twins are very handsome but there's something missing.
They're outnumbered by the 1.3 billion Chinese + 1.1 billion Indians. Add in the rest of the world including Brazil, Russia, Japan, and Mexico and we have billions of men with whole and complete penises.
Most Chinese and Japanese men have short foreskins. Most adult Chinese and Japanese men have their glans totally or partially exposed when flaccid. In China, Japan and Korea, most circumcisions take place in childhood and adolescence due to foreskin problem. In these countries, a totally covered glans when flaccid already constitutes a medical reason for circumcision, irrespective whether there is phimosis or not.
Mistakes can be made during this procedure, ruining the poor boy for life.Talk about lockeroom humiliation.People will get over this when they get educated and when ins.companys stop paying for it. Muslims and jews do it for religious purposes even tho its rooted in their not being able to clean themselves. no not really, their elders did not want their boys enjoying themselfs to much so they MUTILATED them to stop them from touching themselfs.
I'd first off like to thank those who actually attempted to answer my questions, especially Eva and Spoiled Princess for being kind enough to explain. To the four PM's I recieved based on this topic, I also thank you for your support.
Inability to think and insecure? What the fuck?
But yes, you have discovered me. I am actually a satanist who is attempting to encourage the circumcision of young little boys in order to deprive them of a sex-life in order to compensate for a lack of my own. Because it's not like a fit, 6'3 dude who grew up in London and Manhattan can't get laid at college. Yeah. Keep thinking that.
I also eat babies. I'm just a god-damned Hannibal Lector for bringing up the subject around here. Jeez.
And let me ask you this question then, since I've opened a pandora's box. You're saying that a kid, sexually, has the right to get circumcized or remain intact. Kids, generally speaking, become sexually active at 16. So then if my unborn theoretical kid wants to go out and blast himself with cocaine and liqour until his liver explodes, should I allow that as well?
No, I do not spy on other men while in congress with another woman. If you care to look up my posting history, you'll see an entire thred to privacy in the locker room. Aside from that, I'm not even totally straight, but a rather curious bisexual.
Because chopping off a bit of skin is exactly akin to torture.
Inability to think and insecure? What the fuck?
But yes, you have discovered me. I am actually a satanist who is attempting to encourage the circumcision of young little boys in order to deprive them of a sex-life in order to compensate for a lack of my own. Because it's not like a fit, 6'3 dude who grew up in London and Manhattan can't get laid at college. Yeah. Keep thinking that.
I also eat babies. I'm just a god-damned Hannibal Lector for bringing up the subject around here. Jeez.
And let me ask you this question then, since I've opened a pandora's box. You're saying that a kid, sexually, has the right to get circumcized or remain intact. Kids, generally speaking, become sexually active at 16. So then if my unborn theoretical kid wants to go out and blast himself with cocaine and liqour until his liver explodes, should I allow that as well?
No, I do not spy on other men while in congress with another woman. If you care to look up my posting history, you'll see an entire thred to privacy in the locker room. Aside from that, I'm not even totally straight, but a rather curious bisexual.
Because chopping off a bit of skin is exactly akin to torture.
Similar threads
