Uncut dicks

    • Alright. Anyone here who knows me, know that I'm totally against mutilation of baby boys, it's a disgusting trend that needs to die. That being said, it wouldn't be a deal breaker if I was single and met a guy who happened to be cut (although it's not likely, as that shit is not common here), I mean, it's not his fault he's got crazy parents. And, just to be clear, if the reason for the dirty deed was because of medical reasons, it is of course a totally different story.

      I'll also add that I'm not big on ridiculing guys for their dicks, cut or uncut, as someone whose name I shall not mention has done in this thread. That's just low.
      Keyboard not found. Press F1 for help.

    • Pultost wrote:

      Alright. Anyone here who knows me, know that I'm totally against mutilation of baby boys, it's a disgusting trend that needs to die. That being said, it wouldn't be a deal breaker if I was single and met a guy who happened to be cut (although it's not likely, as that shit is not common here), I mean, it's not his fault he's got crazy parents. And, just to be clear, if the reason for the dirty deed was because of medical reasons, it is of course a totally different story.

      I'll also add that I'm not big on ridiculing guys for their dicks, cut or uncut, as someone whose name I shall not mention has done in this thread. That's just low.
      Talk about being low... Calling it mutilation and saying parents are crazy is not really higher :/

    • Starlord wrote:

      Pultost wrote:

      Alright. Anyone here who knows me, know that I'm totally against mutilation of baby boys, it's a disgusting trend that needs to die. That being said, it wouldn't be a deal breaker if I was single and met a guy who happened to be cut (although it's not likely, as that shit is not common here), I mean, it's not his fault he's got crazy parents. And, just to be clear, if the reason for the dirty deed was because of medical reasons, it is of course a totally different story.

      I'll also add that I'm not big on ridiculing guys for their dicks, cut or uncut, as someone whose name I shall not mention has done in this thread. That's just low.
      Talk about being low... Calling it mutilation and saying parents are crazy is not really higher :/
      I have to agree Pultost. If there is no medical reason, why would you cut off a part of the body? It has a purpose - protection. That's like cutting a babies finger off because it's tradition. You can live with one less finger, but why would you force that on poeple?
      curious open-minded short but not so short guy from Germany. open for conversations/PMs, all topics, all ages, all genders

    • Starlord wrote:

      Talk about being low... Calling it mutilation and saying parents are crazy is not really higher :/
      well the dictionary definition is

      Genital Mutilation - any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs

      And as any surgery can cause damage and have complications after. Any circumcision could cause irreparable damage (short or long term). So in medical term any unrequired procedure is irresponsible. And illegal against females, so with gender equality shouldn't it be the same for males ?(

      Good Friend :play: Kinda Romantic :love: Ready to Rock :zomg:

      "If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day."

    • BJade wrote:

      Starlord wrote:

      Talk about being low... Calling it mutilation and saying parents are crazy is not really higher :/
      well the dictionary definition is
      Genital Mutilation - any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs

      And as any surgery can cause damage and have complications after. Any circumcision could cause irreparable damage (short or long term). So in medical term any unrequired procedure is irresponsible. And illegal against females, so with gender equality shouldn't it be the same for males ?(
      The word mutilation is mainly used for people who lost an arm or a leg or whose face has been disfigured, like during the war
      Using the same word for that and for removing a small piece of skin is just stupid

      Talk about dictionary ? I just checked : female circumcision often removes the clitoris and the lips. That would be like cutting the glans or the penis...
      Sorry but the 2 dont compare

    • Starlord wrote:

      The word mutilation is mainly used for people who lost an arm or a leg or whose face has been disfigured, like during the warUsing the same word for that and for removing a small piece of skin is just stupid

      Talk about dictionary ? I just checked : female circumcision often removes the clitoris and the lips. That would be like cutting the glans or the penis...
      Sorry but the 2 dont compare
      so which of those points are you believing
      • taking a small area of skin isn't mutilation
      • Taking a small area of skin (like the clitoris) is mutilation
      Someone who cuts there wrists and gets scar from it can be described as mutilated to

      I didn't say it's as bad for males. But both are modifications to genitals for a purely religious reason. Though in females it's done to stop them pleasuring themselves, or can be sown up to make sure they are a virgin.

      Isn't that another thing in common. Circumcision make your penis head less sensitive, possibly in an attempt to reduce masturbation or pleasure from sex ?(

      Good Friend :play: Kinda Romantic :love: Ready to Rock :zomg:

      "If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day."

    • BJade wrote:

      Starlord wrote:

      The word mutilation is mainly used for people who lost an arm or a leg or whose face has been disfigured, like during the warUsing the same word for that and for removing a small piece of skin is just stupid

      Talk about dictionary ? I just checked : female circumcision often removes the clitoris and the lips. That would be like cutting the glans or the penis...
      Sorry but the 2 dont compare
      so which of those points are you believing
      • taking a small area of skin isn't mutilation
      • Taking a small area of skin (like the clitoris) is mutilation
      Someone who cuts there wrists and gets scar from it can be described as mutilated to

      I didn't say it's as bad for males. But both are modifications to genitals for a purely religious reason. Though in females it's done to stop them pleasuring themselves, or can be sown up to make sure they are a virgin.

      Isn't that another thing in common. Circumcision make your penis head less sensitive, possibly in an attempt to reduce masturbation or pleasure from sex ?(
      The clitoris isn't just a piece of skin :sarcasm:
      I haven't had sex yet but I take a lot of pleasure masterbating and being sucked

    • Starlord wrote:

      BJade wrote:

      Starlord wrote:

      Talk about being low... Calling it mutilation and saying parents are crazy is not really higher :/
      well the dictionary definition isGenital Mutilation - any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs

      And as any surgery can cause damage and have complications after. Any circumcision could cause irreparable damage (short or long term). So in medical term any unrequired procedure is irresponsible. And illegal against females, so with gender equality shouldn't it be the same for males ?(
      The word mutilation is mainly used for people who lost an arm or a leg or whose face has been disfigured, like during the warUsing the same word for that and for removing a small piece of skin is just stupid

      Talk about dictionary ? I just checked : female circumcision often removes the clitoris and the lips. That would be like cutting the glans or the penis...
      Sorry but the 2 dont compare
      Removing the baby’s foreskin is mutilation
      It’s the forced removal of a perfectly natural and functional part of the body without that persons consent - if it’s for religious reasons that’s disgusting because it’s forcing someone’s beliefs ok a baby

      It should be against the law

    • Aimie wrote:


      It should be against the law
      If you make it against the law then what might happen is that religious people will move away with their families to somewhere else and your country won't be somewhere where people want to live. But I agree with you it shouldn't be something that families should do to young children if there's no medical need I just wonder what would happen to religious people's families if there was a law like you say.

    • joannainthemiddle wrote:

      Aimie wrote:

      It should be against the law
      If you make it against the law then what might happen is that religious people will move away with their families to somewhere else and your country won't be somewhere where people want to live.
      Yeah, I think there was a fear of that happening when FGM was made illegal. Luckily for the most part it made family consider if it was an acceptable thing to do. And gradually on a cultural level it seems to be working (or atleast its hoped)

      But I do wonder (other than the US) how many countries see it as an acceptable thing to do. Like the UK has had plans to ban male circumcision, which has support I believe from some religious leaders, and doctors

      Good Friend :play: Kinda Romantic :love: Ready to Rock :zomg:

      "If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day."