Uncut dicks

    • Sean2001 wrote:

      CayceStars wrote:

      I understand what you're saying, but nah....too many red flags here. This isn't a "cause" for girls, and none of us are dying on this hill fighting this battle
      So what you have implied, but left unsaid, is that you suspect those who are here as girls and have strong view on the subject are actually guys masquerading as girls. It is something we should always bear in mind - that people on a forum such as this may not be who they claim to be - but I don't think I have the evidence to come to the conclusion that you appear to have done. I could understand a guy portraying himself to be older or younger but not a different gender lol

    • BlackParadePixie wrote:

      Katrinchen wrote:

      but 99 % of this circumcision is not medically :(
      that is horrible
      oh...did you take a poll??
      the most is for religious reasons, no medical reasons
      i think this is horrible like the female genital mutilation :(


      Edit:
      this is a translation from the german site Men´sHealth about the reasons for cirumcision:
      Why are men circumcised?
      Around 40 percent of all men worldwide are circumcised, in Germany it is around 10 percent. There are many reasons for this: some were already circumcised as little boys, especially for religious reasons. The removal of the foreskin was already practiced by the ancient Egyptians and is still part of the religious tradition of believing Jews and Muslims. In many African countries, the so-called circumcision is also part of the cultural identity and serves as an initiation rite for young men.

      Oddly enough: In the USA, circumcision of newborn boys was almost a matter of course until the 1970s, since the circumcised limb was considered to be particularly hygienic and circumcision was seen as a kind of pre-therapy for the frowned upon masturbation. Today, however, the numbers there are declining, because there is now criticism of child circumcision: some as adults feel uncomfortable with their pruned penis and would have preferred to make the decision for or against the foreskin themselves.

    • Katrinchen wrote:

      BlackParadePixie wrote:

      Katrinchen wrote:

      but 99 % of this circumcision is not medically :(
      that is horrible
      oh...did you take a poll??
      the most is for religious reasons, no medical reasonsi think this is horrible like the female genital mutilation :(
      but why does it matter to you especially of the guys who are are ok and don't even care?

    • Birds18 wrote:

      kmcd wrote:

      Birds18 wrote:

      OMG lol who cares it was a decision that our parents all made while we were babies.
      But shouldn't it be the person's choice?
      So do you want the doctor to ask an infant? Hey little baby boy do you want me to trim the skin off of your penis?

      You don't want to see the photos of the babies screaming.

      Naturally, you'd wait until the kid is old enough to decide for his own penis.

    • Birds18 wrote:

      So do you want the doctor to ask an infant? Hey little baby boy do you want me to trim the skin off of your penis?
      No of course not. If an operation was actually needed for the future health of the child then the doctor would need to proceed with the parents consent. This is exactly what would happen if a baby had a heart defect that, if uncorrected, would make it unlikely he would survive for very long.

      But the benefits those in favour of circumcision claim are marginal and there are plenty of places in the world that do not do routine infant circumcision. The UK, where I live, is one of them and boys in this country do just fine. So there is no rush to do anything. It is perfectly reasonable to leave the baby boy alone until he is old enough to understand what it is all about.

      A decision to circumcise at birth is something the boy himself cannot completely reverse if he later disagrees and would prefer to be natural. Restoration is a thing, but it is never quite the same.

      A decision not to circumcise a baby boy is not final. If, when he grows up, he things it looks better circumcised or would appreciate it being very slightly easier to keep clean then he can seek circumcision when he is ready.

    • Sean2001 wrote:

      Birds18 wrote:

      So do you want the doctor to ask an infant? Hey little baby boy do you want me to trim the skin off of your penis?
      No of course not. If an operation was actually needed for the future health of the child then the doctor would need to proceed with the parents consent. This is exactly what would happen if a baby had a heart defect that, if uncorrected, would make it unlikely he would survive for very long.
      But the benefits those in favour of circumcision claim are marginal and there are plenty of places in the world that do not do routine infant circumcision. The UK, where I live, is one of them and boys in this country do just fine. So there is no rush to do anything. It is perfectly reasonable to leave the baby boy alone until he is old enough to understand what it is all about.

      A decision to circumcise at birth is something the boy himself cannot completely reverse if he later disagrees and would prefer to be natural. Restoration is a thing, but it is never quite the same.

      A decision not to circumcise a baby boy is not final. If, when he grows up, he things it looks better circumcised or would appreciate it being very slightly easier to keep clean then he can seek circumcision when he is ready.


      The only thing I'd disagree with is that "slightly easier" bit. Some of my friends had it done and others didn't. It's about 50/50 with my.clos

      It's literally all of about three 3-4 seconds in the shower.

      There's also damage done during circumcision. They lose a lot of nerve endings, the frenulum and can end up with a scar. There's also potential damage to the urethra plus there can be erection issues. (My friends who aren't circumcised don't get the bending.)

      And why parents would deliberately want to put their babies into situations where they'd cry or even pass out is mind-boggling.

      I've seen protests where men who had it done are complaining. If someone didn't have it done, well, nobody is gonna complain about not having it done when the option is there for them to schedule an appointment.

    • Butlersbus wrote:

      I know a kid, he’s older than me, he was talking about jacking off and he was jealous of uncut guys because he had to use lube, but uncut guys could just “grip it and rip it”. Thought that was funny
      I have read a suggestion that circumcision first spread beyond Jews and Muslims because puritans wanted to stop boys from masturbating and I believe John Harvey Kellog, notable for the invention of Corn Flakes, was an advocate of this.

      Fortunately, for anyone who is cut, it didn't have that effect but I do think the foreskin probably makes it a little easier and certainly I have never needed lube. For one thing, with a foreskin, the glans remains moist then, while your hand may be be making a sliding motion, there is no movement and therefore friction between hand and skin and between the skin and the glans it is a rolling/unrolling motion rather than a sliding motion which also reduces friction on the glans while retaining stimulation.

    • Sean2001 wrote:

      Butlersbus wrote:

      I know a kid, he’s older than me, he was talking about jacking off and he was jealous of uncut guys because he had to use lube, but uncut guys could just “grip it and rip it”. Thought that was funny
      I have read a suggestion that circumcision first spread beyond Jews and Muslims because puritans wanted to stop boys from masturbating and I believe John Harvey Kellog, notable for the invention of Corn Flakes, was an advocate of this.
      Fortunately, for anyone who is cut, it didn't have that effect but I do think the foreskin probably makes it a little easier and certainly I have never needed lube. For one thing, with a foreskin, the glans remains moist then, while your hand may be be making a sliding motion, there is no movement and therefore friction between hand and skin and between the skin and the glans it is a rolling/unrolling motion rather than a sliding motion which also reduces friction on the glans while retaining stimulation.
      You’re like a scientist

    • Sean2001 wrote:

      Butlersbus wrote:

      I know a kid, he’s older than me, he was talking about jacking off and he was jealous of uncut guys because he had to use lube, but uncut guys could just “grip it and rip it”. Thought that was funny
      I have read a suggestion that circumcision first spread beyond Jews and Muslims because puritans wanted to stop boys from masturbating and I believe John Harvey Kellog, notable for the invention of Corn Flakes, was an advocate of this.
      Fortunately, for anyone who is cut, it didn't have that effect but I do think the foreskin probably makes it a little easier and certainly I have never needed lube. For one thing, with a foreskin, the glans remains moist then, while your hand may be be making a sliding motion, there is no movement and therefore friction between hand and skin and between the skin and the glans it is a rolling/unrolling motion rather than a sliding motion which also reduces friction on the glans while retaining stimulation.
      I'm cut and I've definitely wondered if someone that is uncut retains more sensitivity in their glans do to the fact they aren't exposed all the time. But what done is done.