If you wanted to join the USMC (U.S Marine Corp) you would be unlikely to pass the medical if you were not circumcised. That is what I was told by an American I know who was in the USMC in the early 2000s). It is so expected in the States that I suppose that might apply to the rest of the military. Given that America has often had conscription, I suppose many parents think it better to do it when their son is a baby rather than make him go through it at 18. I am no expert on the military, but I read a book some years ago that mentioned when we have national service, it was not uncommon for recruits to go through the procedure as well - clearly the medical requirements are tougher than they were in school, where most blokes usually had their original encounter with a dr. Remembering bck to school I could never understand how some lads got way with tight umoveable foreskins, and I don't even know if they still have school medicals - given how shy many kids are now, I imagine there would be an outcry if they were forced to "drop em" as they used to say. It is really not hygenic if you can't pull your foreskin back to wash underneath, which was the reason I had it done myself - all that talk about using creams etc, just makes the problem more obvious. Though I am neither Jewish or American, I would be happy to be so. Foreskin is overrated. IMO.
Uncut = dirty?????
- Thread starter Peter Wood
- Start date
If you wanted to join the USMC (U.S Marine Corp) you would be unlikely to pass the medical if you were not circumcised. That is what I was told by an American I know who was in the USMC in the early 2000s). It is so expected in the States that I suppose that might apply to the rest of the military. Given that America has often had conscription, I suppose many parents think it better to do it when their son is a baby rather than make him go through it at 18. I am no expert on the military, but I read a book some years ago that mentioned when we have national service, it was not uncommon for recruits to go through the procedure as well - clearly the medical requirements are tougher than they were in school, where most blokes usually had their original encounter with a dr. Remembering bck to school I could never understand how some lads got way with tight umoveable foreskins, and I don't even know if they still have school medicals - given how shy many kids are now, I imagine there would be an outcry if they were forced to "drop em" as they used to say. It is really not hygenic if you can't pull your foreskin back to wash underneath, which was the reason I had it done myself - all that talk about using creams etc, just makes the problem more obvious. Though I am neither Jewish or American, I would be happy to be so. Foreskin is overrated. IMO.
The US Military has no policy on circumcision and it being a requirement. The Marines included. In fact, in a survey taken a few years ago, a Marine was more likely to be and remain uncircumcised. The men in the Navy were more likely to be circumcised upon enlistment. My friend who is an Airforce Sergeant and medic told me that there are many uncircumcised recruits and the vast majority remain uncircumcised. He has worked in the natal unit of a Naval hospital and says that a great many newborns are left uncircumcised.
I have no personal experience - I was just saying what a friend of mine told me who was in the UMSC in the early 2000s.
I don't believe being uncircumcised should be a synonym for poor hygiene.
Hygiene depends on each and everyone of us, regardless of foreskin. Yeah, it can accumulate smegma if you don't keep it clean, but uncut penises can get dirty as well.
Hygiene depends on each and everyone of us, regardless of foreskin. Yeah, it can accumulate smegma if you don't keep it clean, but uncut penises can get dirty as well.
*** but cut penises can get dirty as well.
Being uncircumcised I can say that intimate hygiene depends above all on how much (and how) a person washes his penis and it is often not the fault of the presence of the foreskin if the glans remains dirty or stinks, but of those who do not retract the skin to wash it. However, a circumcised penis is for various reasons potentially cleaner than one with the foreskin. This of course does not mean that the penises of the circumcised are all clean and perfumed nor that the uncircumcised ones are dirty and smelly regardless (also because I would go against myself). In short, one should reason and discuss without preclusions or fixations due to one's status. If not, as is almost always the case, the circumcised will defend their lack of the foreskin with the thesis of greater hygiene and, on the contrary, the uncircumcised will say that that piece of skin is essential or fundamental.
DiamondJoe
Superior Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Posts
- 6,577
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 7,877
- Points
- 133
- Age
- 44
- Location
- Glastonbury (Somerset, England)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Lint from underwear or trousers if you freeball. Sweat from your balls. Pubic hair stuck to it. Smegma. Yes, circumcised men still make smegma.
I don't get lint or pubic hair under my foreskin. I don't get sweat under my foreskin. There are no sweat glands inside a foreskin. I used to have smegma but I haven't seen any since puberty ended.
So, it seems to me that a circumcised dick is dirtier than an uncircumcised one.
Found this today - www.acroposthion.com - which is quite instructive regarding the uncircumcised penis. Worth a read.
There are significant diffrerences betwene foreskins that affect cleanliness. A very long foreksin that never needs to retract during erection is very different from a shorter foreksin that doesn't cover meatus when flaccid and fully retracts with every erection. The latter makes a difference during norcurnal erections which provide a "self cleaning" cycle where any dead skin rubs off against bed sheets as opposed to forming smegma under a long foreksin.
With regards to US military. There are too many stories of men getting cut in military to ignore. And this is what makes it interesting as there appears to be no official traces of circumcision being recommended/required.
However, once stumbled on a book from a guy who volunteered to the Marines for WWII. Forget author's name. Book focus on Guadalcanal, but at the very beginning, he mentioned thst when he showed up at the recruitment office, he was told to get circumcised and come back when done, which he did.
Remember that for WWII, soldiers would have been born early 1920s before circumcision had ramped up. But by the time they signed up, circ had become more popular, so it may have been easier to convince a foreskinned soldier to get the snip, especially if they know they will get into combat situation with no hygiene once they're off the ship.
I suspect peer pressure and suggestions from doctors had more to do with it. For all the stories of males who got cut in the army, there are also many with foreksins who survived it.
With regards to US military. There are too many stories of men getting cut in military to ignore. And this is what makes it interesting as there appears to be no official traces of circumcision being recommended/required.
However, once stumbled on a book from a guy who volunteered to the Marines for WWII. Forget author's name. Book focus on Guadalcanal, but at the very beginning, he mentioned thst when he showed up at the recruitment office, he was told to get circumcised and come back when done, which he did.
Remember that for WWII, soldiers would have been born early 1920s before circumcision had ramped up. But by the time they signed up, circ had become more popular, so it may have been easier to convince a foreskinned soldier to get the snip, especially if they know they will get into combat situation with no hygiene once they're off the ship.
I suspect peer pressure and suggestions from doctors had more to do with it. For all the stories of males who got cut in the army, there are also many with foreksins who survived it.
I make no comment on your foreskin, but surely this is a wind up? In all my 38 years since I was circumcised I've never had even suggestion of smegma (which is, by definition, impossible if you have no foreskin left), lint or pubic hair. Sweat -of course, as on the rest of my body, but it washes off in the shower, with no effort on my part. Unlike what was under my foreskin before I was circumcised.
I would not presume to suggest that all uncircumcised penises are dirty -individual hygiene is key. But to suggest that it's easier to keep an uncut cock (that requires the foreskin to be retracted for washing) clean than it is a cut one (that does not) is utterly absurd.
I didn't mean to imply that uncut men are dirty - of course they are not - BUT: however clean you are, you have to urinate a couple of times a day, and putting it crudely, unless you have time to shake it about a bit, and carry baby wipes round with you, a very small amount of urine can smell very ripe after a couple of hours. I suppose it is not so bad if you have a short foreskin, but a lot of blokes have quite an overhang and that is where the urine collects. For that reason I would rather get close and and personal with a man who doesn't have a foreskin, in case I came in contact with a bloke like the first one I ever had relations with. It is a wonder it didn't turn me straight!
I am British, but I think you are wrong. In general most Americans are very hygiene conscious - look at their teeth for example - American teeth seem to be straighter, whiter than British and European ones, circumcision is often performed for hygiene reasons, and despite the comments of intactavists, I should say 8 out of 10 Americans are either happy to be circumcised or indifferent and never think about it. I would suggest a lot of the intactavists have body issues and general and if it wasn't the absence of a foreksin it would be hair colour, body hair or physique that they would focus on.
Unfortunate post in every way. Quite insulting infact. It should be born in mind that the majority of men in the world have not been mutilated and have the highest standards of hygiene. Believe me I've meant some stinky cut men.
I only have one thing to say about this stupid topic:
Uncut men are just as "stinky" or "dirty" as cut guys. Or as clean, however you like it.
Americans always make it sound so fucking pathetic. You guys make it sound like uncut guys don't know how to shower, which, infact, makes it more like sound like cut guys don't care about hygienic routines because their undies will take care of it.
No matter if cut or uncut. If you pee, shake your little sausages. I even squeeze out the last drop. If you do NOT shake it or squeeze the drop out it will either get caught in your foreskin and make you smell OR will get caught in your undie and will make you smell.
No matter if you are cut or uncut. You are supposed to shower twice a day. And WASH YOUR DICK. No matter what. I a not pro or contra skin because being cut or uncut doesn't make you stupid. But what makes you stupid is doing shit like this. "PS or XBox?", "Android od iOS?", "cut or uncut".
I could invent hunderets of reasons pro or contra cutting the skin off. Reasons no one could prove wrong or right due to the lack of studies. I could post some deadmans points which would put is into a dead end of the discussion which would be unfair for both sides, but all these are just stupid rhetorical ways to do what humans always do:
Find out who is "better".
I have a fact for you: No one is better. We are all equally shit if we are stuck discussing the hygienic states of cut and uncut dicks instead of solving real problems of this world.
Uncut men are just as "stinky" or "dirty" as cut guys. Or as clean, however you like it.
Americans always make it sound so fucking pathetic. You guys make it sound like uncut guys don't know how to shower, which, infact, makes it more like sound like cut guys don't care about hygienic routines because their undies will take care of it.
No matter if cut or uncut. If you pee, shake your little sausages. I even squeeze out the last drop. If you do NOT shake it or squeeze the drop out it will either get caught in your foreskin and make you smell OR will get caught in your undie and will make you smell.
No matter if you are cut or uncut. You are supposed to shower twice a day. And WASH YOUR DICK. No matter what. I a not pro or contra skin because being cut or uncut doesn't make you stupid. But what makes you stupid is doing shit like this. "PS or XBox?", "Android od iOS?", "cut or uncut".
I could invent hunderets of reasons pro or contra cutting the skin off. Reasons no one could prove wrong or right due to the lack of studies. I could post some deadmans points which would put is into a dead end of the discussion which would be unfair for both sides, but all these are just stupid rhetorical ways to do what humans always do:
Find out who is "better".
I have a fact for you: No one is better. We are all equally shit if we are stuck discussing the hygienic states of cut and uncut dicks instead of solving real problems of this world.
DiamondJoe
Superior Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Posts
- 6,577
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 7,877
- Points
- 133
- Age
- 44
- Location
- Glastonbury (Somerset, England)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Such stereotypes! There's plenty of Americans with wonky teeth... not everyone can afford the dentistry that gives straight, Hollywood pearly-whites.
And there's the rub - in the US their heath system is a marketplace where doctors are incentivised to sell you treatments irrespective of whether you might actually need them. Cosmetic surgery is a massive industry.
Circumcision is a prime example. The US preoccupation with male genital mutilation seems to stem from the late 19th/early 20th century ideas of hygiene and is essentially a redundant cultural practice serving no real purpose other than making money from gullible patients.
There are good medical reasons for some people to get it done but in the main it is an American obsession - just read the multiple threads on the subject on this site. I've never found a similar level of bizarre excited curiosity about the subject in any other country.
Besides, if you want a really hygiene-conscious people, look at the Japanese. They don't chop their bits up for no particular reason.
The argument is a phallasy
imo
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Posts
- 3,775
- Media
- 19
- Likes
- 5,391
- Points
- 443
- Location
- United States
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- Pansexual
- Gender
- Male
- Mule,
As @DiamondJoe says: The weirdly obsessive focus on circumcision just keeps on going at LPSG. It is a very strange phenomenon driven mainly by American men.
There are some facts that apply:
Short version: If a guy is gross, it's not because of his foreskin. Tell him to wash properly. Hey, make it fun and help him.
There are some facts that apply:
- The foreskin has biological purposes.
- It is protective.
- It has a sensory role in sex.
- It has a mechanical role in sex.
- People who keep themselves clean do so whether or not they are circumcised.
- People who don't wash smell bad. Circumcision status is irrelevant.
- Some people are dirty because they don't wash often and/or well enough.
- Their dirtiness has nothing to do with how much skin they have on their penis.
- Making the case that a guy is dirty because he has a foreskin is unfounded and illogical.
- Judging that a guy is dirty because he doesn't wash himself well enough makes sense.
- If you don't like your lover to be dirty, stay away from the dirty ones. It has nothing to do with foreskin.
- Because of biological functionality, it is unethical to circumcise without the penis-owner's consent unless it is medically necessary.
Short version: If a guy is gross, it's not because of his foreskin. Tell him to wash properly. Hey, make it fun and help him.
Example for stupid straw man argument:
Highly non-scientific researches from the ULPSGURF (Unofficial LPSG unscientific research foundation) have shown that cutting off the foreskin of a lifeform is 0.00001% reason why humanity fails the paris climate act goal.
Based on the research, the following things, needed for circumcision, consume more water and resources than washing your dick:
* The not-study has found out that additional to the usage of needed resources marked with *, block serious medical problems from being taken care off.
Highly non-scientific researches from the ULPSGURF (Unofficial LPSG unscientific research foundation) have shown that cutting off the foreskin of a lifeform is 0.00001% reason why humanity fails the paris climate act goal.
Based on the research, the following things, needed for circumcision, consume more water and resources than washing your dick:
- production of the needed tools
- production of clothes
- cleaning of the tools
- dumping the clothes
- occupation of the doctor*
- occupation of the room*
- occupation of everyone involved*
- electricity needed to handle all the "cut vs. uncut" debates online
- ... many more
* The not-study has found out that additional to the usage of needed resources marked with *, block serious medical problems from being taken care off.
