I think it is wrong to impose it on babies for any reason except medical necessity. Adults can make up their own minds though I wonder how many elect to do so... it seems an odd thing to remove unless it is causing a problem.
... What I find particularly annoying though are those that have been circumcised, or those that support it, being morally righteous that they are in fact cleaner than other males. ...
You never know - you might find that privately lots of men agree with you - as many as 0.00000000001% of men will entertain the possibility that their willy is not some kind of perfect specimen.
For the requisite sarcasm side of things, perhaps people should cut off their ears because it takes so long to clean behind them! And noses for bogie prevention...
I'd imagine part of the problem is with use of the word 'mutilation' because even if the general principle of opposing it is the same, the specifics of FGM sound somewhat more horrific. And in relation to my first point, surely even fewer will want to use the word 'mutilated'...
I've had a boyfriend who was cut and he certainly didn't lament his lack of foreskin. Quite the opposite in fact - he was very proud of his todger. I don't disagree with circumcision even though I personally prefer men as nature intended, I simply don't like it being done on babies who can't consent and don't understand.
I think it is mutilation and like the female equivalent it should be banned. Certainty in children at least.
The medical reasons are weak - and it is only done for religious beliefs or profit (USA)
Apart from any real medical reason or an adult's personal choice, I agree. It's a barbaric traumatising act of cruelty to children and babies, performed without adequate anaesthesia, as it's impossible to achieve, or none at all, which is "accepted" because of damned man made religions.
Apart from any real medical reason or an adult's personal choice, I agree. It's a barbaric traumatising act of cruelty to children and babies, performed without adequate anaesthesia, as it's impossible to achieve, or none at all, which is "accepted" because of damned man made religions.
Couldn't agree more. You just don't know what's going on in people's heads and in those cases they think they can justify it. In their mind it's normal and fine.
My friend got circumcised in his teens. He hates it. The problem is he knows what he’s missing. He didn’t have a choice in the matter. He had an accident. His biggest complaint is the head is less sensitive due to it rubbing on his clothes during the day. He also hates that he has to use to lotion to masturbate to avoid soreness.
What I don't like about cut is the head of the penis often looks dry and scarred. Plus it's a different colour to the rest of the penis, so it looks mismatched. Don't get me wrong a dick’s a dick, but if I had to choose between cut and uncut, then I would choose uncut every time. Some people think that a guy who is uncircumcised is automatically unclean. Obviously a guy is going to be unclean if he doesn't wash thoroughly every day. However, I'm not circumcised and have never had any complaints. I'm not a dirty person. I shower every day.
Circumcision shouldn’t be for the parents to decide. I know circumcision is better at birth, but it should be up to the guy if he wants to lose his foreskin. I'm thankful that my parents chose to leave me intact. The foreskin keeps the head extremely sensitive, something that's highly beneficial to the guy. It feels amazing when someone pulls the foreskin back and touches the head. Foreskin is natural, hacking if off for no good reason isn’t.
...Foreskin is natural, hacking if off for no good reason isn’t.
Pushing on an open door there, beliefs or custom aren't a good reason for me.
However when it's done for medical necessity these people are not then victims, mutilated or missing out on anything.
The comments from those chaps who were mutilated at birth are all pretty pointless.
How could you possibly claim to prefer being sans foreskin when you have no knowledge of what it's like to have one ?
As for the lame excuses in favour of sexually assaulting infants.......most of us have a shower at home - along with access to 'soap'.
The comments from those chaps who were mutilated at birth are all pretty pointless. How could you possibly claim to prefer being sans foreskin when you have no knowledge of what it's like to have one ?
As for the lame excuses in favour of sexually assaulting infants.......most of us have a shower at home - along with access to 'soap'.
It looks disgusting, UGLY, that's the truth, uncomfortable, circumcised penis feels better in the mouth.
The comments from those chaps who were mutilated at birth are all pretty pointless.
How could you possibly claim to prefer being sans foreskin when you have no knowledge of what it's like to have one ?
As for the lame excuses in favour of sexually assaulting infants.......most of us have a shower at home - along with access to 'soap'.
They don't know and wiill never know. Their parents made that decision for them and so I guess for many of them they just convince themselves in their mind that it is better, that their parents did the right thing, it's not what the majority of men have but I suppose you need to rationalise it in your mind, especially in a country like the UK where it's not a normal thing. It really is only done for religious reasons here and the odd case in adulthood where there are genuine real problems with the foreskin.
I've always wondered if men with no foreskin ever wish they had it.
My friend who is 27 says that he is unhappy he has no skin there. I'm assuming most Americans are circumcised and most English men are not.
My ex wife says she liked my foreskin. Her current husband is a Pakistani elder gent who has no foreskin.
What do you men think and ladies prefer?
And if you could ever get it back would you?
Your ex wife (now married to an elderly Pakistani gentleman) reminisces about your foreskin?
Pushing on an open door there, beliefs or custom aren't a good reason for me.
However when it's done for medical necessity these people are not then victims, mutilated or missing out on anything.
Quite. If it's a choice between the foreskin and, well, fear the worst, you're hardly missing out. But if it's all working, why mess with it? I'd put it on a level with a boob job, I guess. I don't see the point of that either.
Two of my exes were circumcised late for medical reasons. Both were unhappy about it and complained of numbness. It's not an ideal state for a penis and some of its sensation and function have been compromised.
Two of them had their foreskins and were happy about it.
I much prefer uncircumcised and don't really understand why anyone would do it, to a child, or to themselves as an adult, but an adult has the choice.
This whole idea that it's 'ugly' seems wrong to me, it's just fashion or something. But I suppose labia plasty is some sort of equivalent, no I don't understand that either.
The comments from those chaps who were mutilated at birth are all pretty pointless.
How could you possibly claim to prefer being sans foreskin when you have no knowledge of what it's like to have one ?
As for the lame excuses in favour of sexually assaulting infants.......most of us have a shower at home - along with access to 'soap'.
If you apply a modicum of critical thought it's easy to work out.
I have no problem and am peferctly happy with all functionality.
Men who have been circumcised as adults (apart from those experiencing bad surgery) report no issues arising from the benign change.
I can infer from that that I'm not missing out on anything or suffering from issues I can't perceive.
QED.
Your argument could be equally applied to uncircumsised men who imagine what it might be like.
It looks disgusting, UGLY, that's the truth, uncomfortable, circumcised penis feels better in the mouth.
But how it feels in your mouth and the person who has the penis are different things. I like vagina that has been mutilated, so you should get it cut up. Doesn't really add up does it.
It has been proven than circumcision makes the penis duller, you lose some of the feeling to it. If its for medical reasons thats fine, thats helping a fella who has an issue. But normally, its better to leave alone.
As some others have pointed out as well, the hygiene one actual tells you a lot about a person. My penis is clean because I shower regularly, but those that claim its cleaner are talking crap, one poster on here spoke about not needing to clean it as often, nice.... Just keep in mind the only reason their penis is "cleaner" is because some of it was hacked away, thats the only thing helping, not regular cleaning.
Is it ok with you if it's done for medical purposes?
PS it's absolutely not even close to faintly resembling what's done to females in deed or intent.
Yep absolutely, but I am very against it being done to children for religious or vanity reasons. Adults can make their own informed decision.
Men lose 20000+ nerve endings, some specialised tissue and natural lubrication for reproduction when the foreskin is lost. Its a crazy practice for zero health benefits.
I wonder how long it takes for the head to become desensitised, or even if it happens at all to everyone who is circumcised. I was circumcised in my twenties (about 11 years ago) and haven't noticed any difference in sensation. Sex is just as pleasurable for me now as it was when I was uncut so I've often wondered if I'm ever going to lose sensation down there.
And for what it's worth, I think circumcision in infants should be banned. IF there were clear health benefits to it then surely everyone would have it done, like immunisation. The fact that it's a choice (at least for the parents) suggests to me that the evidence is weak at best. For me personally there's no disadvantage to being circumcised (no loss of sensation, it's not uncomfortable and masturbating is still easy enough) but I'm grateful to have been given the choice myself.
Comments
No offence lol
Do you like a big sausage in the morning
I'm normally a fruit and fibre guy to be honest...
For the requisite sarcasm side of things, perhaps people should cut off their ears because it takes so long to clean behind them! And noses for bogie prevention...
I'd imagine part of the problem is with use of the word 'mutilation' because even if the general principle of opposing it is the same, the specifics of FGM sound somewhat more horrific. And in relation to my first point, surely even fewer will want to use the word 'mutilated'...
Apart from any real medical reason or an adult's personal choice, I agree. It's a barbaric traumatising act of cruelty to children and babies, performed without adequate anaesthesia, as it's impossible to achieve, or none at all, which is "accepted" because of damned man made religions.
Couldn't agree more. You just don't know what's going on in people's heads and in those cases they think they can justify it. In their mind it's normal and fine.
What I don't like about cut is the head of the penis often looks dry and scarred. Plus it's a different colour to the rest of the penis, so it looks mismatched. Don't get me wrong a dick’s a dick, but if I had to choose between cut and uncut, then I would choose uncut every time. Some people think that a guy who is uncircumcised is automatically unclean. Obviously a guy is going to be unclean if he doesn't wash thoroughly every day. However, I'm not circumcised and have never had any complaints. I'm not a dirty person. I shower every day.
Circumcision shouldn’t be for the parents to decide. I know circumcision is better at birth, but it should be up to the guy if he wants to lose his foreskin. I'm thankful that my parents chose to leave me intact. The foreskin keeps the head extremely sensitive, something that's highly beneficial to the guy. It feels amazing when someone pulls the foreskin back and touches the head. Foreskin is natural, hacking if off for no good reason isn’t.
Pushing on an open door there, beliefs or custom aren't a good reason for me.
However when it's done for medical necessity these people are not then victims, mutilated or missing out on anything.
How could you possibly claim to prefer being sans foreskin when you have no knowledge of what it's like to have one ?
As for the lame excuses in favour of sexually assaulting infants.......most of us have a shower at home - along with access to 'soap'.
It looks disgusting, UGLY, that's the truth, uncomfortable, circumcised penis feels better in the mouth.
They don't know and wiill never know. Their parents made that decision for them and so I guess for many of them they just convince themselves in their mind that it is better, that their parents did the right thing, it's not what the majority of men have but I suppose you need to rationalise it in your mind, especially in a country like the UK where it's not a normal thing. It really is only done for religious reasons here and the odd case in adulthood where there are genuine real problems with the foreskin.
Your ex wife (now married to an elderly Pakistani gentleman) reminisces about your foreskin?
Quite. If it's a choice between the foreskin and, well, fear the worst, you're hardly missing out. But if it's all working, why mess with it? I'd put it on a level with a boob job, I guess. I don't see the point of that either.
This made me laugh out loud
Two of them had their foreskins and were happy about it.
I much prefer uncircumcised and don't really understand why anyone would do it, to a child, or to themselves as an adult, but an adult has the choice.
This whole idea that it's 'ugly' seems wrong to me, it's just fashion or something. But I suppose labia plasty is some sort of equivalent, no I don't understand that either.
Don't you discuss intimate body details of new partners with your Exes? Really, what is the world coming to these days:D
I used to always describe my ex-girlfriends labia to my then current girlfriend. You sometimes underestimate how hard a woman can punch.
If you apply a modicum of critical thought it's easy to work out.
I have no problem and am peferctly happy with all functionality.
Men who have been circumcised as adults (apart from those experiencing bad surgery) report no issues arising from the benign change.
I can infer from that that I'm not missing out on anything or suffering from issues I can't perceive.
QED.
Your argument could be equally applied to uncircumsised men who imagine what it might be like.
But how it feels in your mouth and the person who has the penis are different things. I like vagina that has been mutilated, so you should get it cut up. Doesn't really add up does it.
It has been proven than circumcision makes the penis duller, you lose some of the feeling to it. If its for medical reasons thats fine, thats helping a fella who has an issue. But normally, its better to leave alone.
As some others have pointed out as well, the hygiene one actual tells you a lot about a person. My penis is clean because I shower regularly, but those that claim its cleaner are talking crap, one poster on here spoke about not needing to clean it as often, nice.... Just keep in mind the only reason their penis is "cleaner" is because some of it was hacked away, thats the only thing helping, not regular cleaning.
There's no need to do it at birth though, you don't put babies penises in your mouth.
Yep absolutely, but I am very against it being done to children for religious or vanity reasons. Adults can make their own informed decision.
Men lose 20000+ nerve endings, some specialised tissue and natural lubrication for reproduction when the foreskin is lost. Its a crazy practice for zero health benefits.
And for what it's worth, I think circumcision in infants should be banned. IF there were clear health benefits to it then surely everyone would have it done, like immunisation. The fact that it's a choice (at least for the parents) suggests to me that the evidence is weak at best. For me personally there's no disadvantage to being circumcised (no loss of sensation, it's not uncomfortable and masturbating is still easy enough) but I'm grateful to have been given the choice myself.