Katrinchen wrote:
but 99 % of this circumcision is not medically
that is horrible
Uncut dicks
-
-
I think there’s alot of weird stuff going on here that doesn’t add up
-
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
-
BlackParadePixie wrote:
Katrinchen wrote:
but 99 % of this circumcision is not medically
that is horrible
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
-
gagefromtx wrote:
I think that it was once thought that boys should be circumsized for health reasons to keep the penis cleaner.
Yeah, like a long time ago. The "reasons" have changed every so often in order to keep the money flowing.
There is a very minor difference in UTIs, but only for one year after birth. -
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? -
kmcd wrote:
Birds18 wrote:
OMG lol who cares it was a decision that our parents all made while we were babies.
-
Birds18 wrote:
kmcd wrote:
Birds18 wrote:
OMG lol who cares it was a decision that our parents all made while we were babies.
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. -
yes, I'm sure those babies are crying because of being cut.
Babies cry. Period. -
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?
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?
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. -
I'm uncut and a lot of my friends are. I think around where I live it's like around 50/50 of being uncut or not.
-
It is probably 80 percent are cut and 20 percent are uncut where I am in Texas.
-
i am uncircumcized
-
I think this is so weird. Why would you do that to a baby boy???
-
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
-
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
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
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
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.
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0