This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- Circumcision or not
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- Revision circumcision
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Frenulectomy
- My boyfriend's ****
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
- Circumcision lumps and bumps
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Glans/Foreskin issues
- Circumcision Fetish
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
- Uncircumcised: How do you masturbate
- Can you have sex without pulling back the foreskin?
Circumcision 2 - Poll
Scroll to see replies
Do you even bother doing proper research?
I've read dozens of papers on the subject, medical archives and personal accounts/blogs.
You lose sensitivity, its LESS hygienic and its nothing more than mutilation of the body - It only gained popularity in America because they wanted to cut down on young men masturbating.
The same was done to females - only they'd have their clitorises removed, and repeat offenders would have acid poured on them.
Ignorance!
I've read dozens of papers on the subject, medical archives and personal accounts/blogs.
You lose sensitivity, its LESS hygienic and its nothing more than mutilation of the body - It only gained popularity in America because they wanted to cut down on young men masturbating.
The same was done to females - only they'd have their clitorises removed, and repeat offenders would have acid poured on them.
Ignorance!
Dero
Do you even bother doing proper research?
I've read dozens of papers on the subject, medical archives and personal accounts/blogs.
You lose sensitivity, its LESS hygienic and its nothing more than mutilation of the body - It only gained popularity in America because they wanted to cut down on young men masturbating.
The same was done to females - only they'd have their clitorises removed, and repeat offenders would have acid poured on them.
Ignorance!
I've read dozens of papers on the subject, medical archives and personal accounts/blogs.
You lose sensitivity, its LESS hygienic and its nothing more than mutilation of the body - It only gained popularity in America because they wanted to cut down on young men masturbating.
The same was done to females - only they'd have their clitorises removed, and repeat offenders would have acid poured on them.
Ignorance!
LOL! it seems that your research is a bit skewed-let's review;
1) Sensitivty of the glans is slightly reduced however this can be beneficial as a slight reduction in sensitivity prolongs stimulation and thus reduces the risk of premature ejaculation.
2) How is it less hygenic,lol? When the skin on an uncircumcised penis consists of mainly 'mucoas epithelials'-i.e more moist and so prone to infections and buid up of bacteria. Whereas on the circumcised penis the skin of the penis is more hardened and is closer to 'normal' skin than that of the uncircumcised penis. Plus-the fact that the glans is covered can never be good for hygiene where build up of bactera and 'smeg' is consideable.
Yes it's true-hygiene depends on the individual but there are unversal truths.
3) you mention female circumcision or in particular infibulation-this gave me quite a chuckle-you seem quite confused. Female circumcision is carried out for mainly cultural or idealogical reasons-nothing to do with religion or hygiene
4) who wanted to cut down on masturbation,lol? The government or the FBI? is it a conspircy? even though many american health proffessionals agree that mastrbation is healthy.
And how does circumcision prevent masturbation? because extra lubricant is needed?
The list is endless-it seems that your research was very selective and quite narrow minded-yes there are negatives associated with circumcision but the same applies with no circumcision.
Sorry for the long post!
Its not about the lasting longer at all.
It feels really nice to have the foreskin 'gliding' up and down the glans. It is natures intended way for the penis to work.
I don't care about lasting long, I care about the overall experience, and the ejaculation at the end isn't the only thing sex is about. Indeed, sex can actually be worse if you are circumsised, for both parties. The foreskin tends to smooth up the action, and without it, if you are having really frequent sex, you can make the woman slightly sore because its just not as smooth.
As for the reasons for circumcision, and female circumcision:
I didn't say it was carried out routinely anymore, I merely said that in America in the late 19th century, it was a common practise ( still less common then men ) to circumcised young females to prevent masturbation. ( Same reason as males ).
It was misguided, for males, it was about masturbation and the irrational fear of congenital phimosis ( STILL diagnosed too frequently in some countries for my comfort ).
As for hygiene, the foreskin is a protective layer, it keeps what is meant to be covered up, covered up.
Your argument there is like saying, remove the flaps of skin around the clitoris/vagina, because THOSE are very much the same. Smegma occurs there too - it just isn't done. And it still remains healthy.
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a well-known fundamentalist health reformer and medical journalist (his 1888 "Plain Facts for Old and Young" included roughly 100 pages dedicated to "Secret Vice [Solitary or Self Abuse]") who went on to create the world's preeminent corn flake, was more direct in his approach. "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision," he wrote. "The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."
He was an asshole, and should have been shot.
I can't find the article I read about the mother who had both circumcised and uncircumcised children. Nearly all the medical benefits of circumcision have been proved false, thats just the way it is.
Having said that, on the 12th of July, I'm still getting circumcised, for medical reasons. Its not something I take lightly. I've had 6 months to read up on the subject, and as its my decision, I think I'm probably the person around here to know more on the subject, considering I needed to make an informed one.
BTW, I'm using America as my main standpoint, because thankfully, people are a lot more sensible about it in the UK. And most of my opinion comes from the HISTORY of circumcision, and not the current 'excuses' to make it alright.
It feels really nice to have the foreskin 'gliding' up and down the glans. It is natures intended way for the penis to work.
I don't care about lasting long, I care about the overall experience, and the ejaculation at the end isn't the only thing sex is about. Indeed, sex can actually be worse if you are circumsised, for both parties. The foreskin tends to smooth up the action, and without it, if you are having really frequent sex, you can make the woman slightly sore because its just not as smooth.
As for the reasons for circumcision, and female circumcision:
I didn't say it was carried out routinely anymore, I merely said that in America in the late 19th century, it was a common practise ( still less common then men ) to circumcised young females to prevent masturbation. ( Same reason as males ).
It was misguided, for males, it was about masturbation and the irrational fear of congenital phimosis ( STILL diagnosed too frequently in some countries for my comfort ).
As for hygiene, the foreskin is a protective layer, it keeps what is meant to be covered up, covered up.
Your argument there is like saying, remove the flaps of skin around the clitoris/vagina, because THOSE are very much the same. Smegma occurs there too - it just isn't done. And it still remains healthy.
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a well-known fundamentalist health reformer and medical journalist (his 1888 "Plain Facts for Old and Young" included roughly 100 pages dedicated to "Secret Vice [Solitary or Self Abuse]") who went on to create the world's preeminent corn flake, was more direct in his approach. "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision," he wrote. "The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."
He was an asshole, and should have been shot.
I can't find the article I read about the mother who had both circumcised and uncircumcised children. Nearly all the medical benefits of circumcision have been proved false, thats just the way it is.
Having said that, on the 12th of July, I'm still getting circumcised, for medical reasons. Its not something I take lightly. I've had 6 months to read up on the subject, and as its my decision, I think I'm probably the person around here to know more on the subject, considering I needed to make an informed one.
BTW, I'm using America as my main standpoint, because thankfully, people are a lot more sensible about it in the UK. And most of my opinion comes from the HISTORY of circumcision, and not the current 'excuses' to make it alright.
^ what they said ^
Why cant I see the results? Whats going on?
onlylittleme
I prefer it personally from a girls point of view, it just looks nicer and in my opinion cleaner 
:dito:
"Because it looks nicer"
What a stupid reason to mutilate your body.
What a stupid reason to mutilate your body.
Dero
"Because it looks nicer"
What a stupid reason to mutilate your body.
What a stupid reason to mutilate your body.
you can make the same argument for piercings and plastic surgeryAnd I do.
Although earrings are nice, its not like you're causing the same about of damage.
Plastic surgery however I disagree with.
Although earrings are nice, its not like you're causing the same about of damage.
Plastic surgery however I disagree with.
1) Sensitivty of the glans is slightly reduced however this can be beneficial as a slight reduction in sensitivity prolongs stimulation and thus reduces the risk of premature ejaculation.
1. so what. Still less sensetive.
2) How is it less hygenic,lol? When the skin on an uncircumcised penis consists of mainly 'mucoas epithelials'-i.e more moist and so prone to infections and buid up of bacteria. Whereas on the circumcised penis the skin of the penis is more hardened and is closer to 'normal' skin than that of the uncircumcised penis. Plus-the fact that the glans is covered can never be good for hygiene where build up of bactera and 'smeg' is consideable.
2. Two things. give me sources that agree with this, and explain why we have evolved a foreskin if it is more likely to lead to infection.
4) who wanted to cut down on masturbation,lol? The government or the FBI? is it a conspircy? even though many american health proffessionals agree that mastrbation is healthy.
And how does circumcision prevent masturbation? because extra lubricant is needed?
4. yes. what is you have no lube? whatcha gonna do? clearly, it does hinder it, as you have to pay for lube as well. common sense argument.
1. so what. Still less sensetive.
2) How is it less hygenic,lol? When the skin on an uncircumcised penis consists of mainly 'mucoas epithelials'-i.e more moist and so prone to infections and buid up of bacteria. Whereas on the circumcised penis the skin of the penis is more hardened and is closer to 'normal' skin than that of the uncircumcised penis. Plus-the fact that the glans is covered can never be good for hygiene where build up of bactera and 'smeg' is consideable.
2. Two things. give me sources that agree with this, and explain why we have evolved a foreskin if it is more likely to lead to infection.
4) who wanted to cut down on masturbation,lol? The government or the FBI? is it a conspircy? even though many american health proffessionals agree that mastrbation is healthy.
And how does circumcision prevent masturbation? because extra lubricant is needed?
4. yes. what is you have no lube? whatcha gonna do? clearly, it does hinder it, as you have to pay for lube as well. common sense argument.
Lub for solo fun
for a duo, the vag shold moisten enough for the fun to begin.
If thats not the case, then more foreplay!
for a duo, the vag shold moisten enough for the fun to begin.
If thats not the case, then more foreplay!
isnt it open yet o_0
umm help!?
umm help!?
Poll shows the majority like foreskin.
some AMERICAN girl said "in my opinion cleaner" there is no opinion about it, its either cleaner or its not.. and in fact there both the same, both guys wash they are both clean. but if you don't wash then.... ewwwwww so dont be silly and say in my opinion cleaner. being a girk you have had 0 experience except maybe seeing a skanky boy friend that had a problem with his, or never cleaned it.
in fact being an american I'm not surprised you say that, your country is full of dis-information spread by the government, one time in america it was standard to cut foreskin at birth.. fu**ing stupid
Having no foreskin is not cleaner, foreskin is healthier, keeps the glands protected from infection and soreness, stops the glands from becoming un-naturally tough (come on girls imagine what it would be like if your clitoris wasnt sensitive) thats what a circumsised guys glands are like, there are hundreds of nerve endings in the foreskin which a circumsized guy doesn't have, having no foreskin reveals the skin underneath which should really be kept covered for teh most part (protection), there is no way a circimcision is better than not, unless there is a medical reason for it. any good doctor wil tell you that you shouldn't get your foreskin cut off unless theres a sound medical reason for it..
and all this non-sense about premature ejaculation.. I've never had a problem with my foreskin, never had an infection, never had urine gather behind it, never prematurely ejacualted...
If a guy with foreskin washed everyday and if a guy without washed everyday, then they will be as clean as each other..
The only people that will say different to this are ladies that dont really understand, and guys that had theres cut off when they were young, or when they had medical problems, so they only ever saw the bad side of having a foreskin.
But really.. it makes no difference wether you have foreskin or not, either way you are a healthy male. lets stop this arguament and stop spreading fear, making guys with foreskin think they are dirty, and making guys without worried that they will get every infection under the sun
Wash everyday and practice safe sex and you will be just fine.
some AMERICAN girl said "in my opinion cleaner" there is no opinion about it, its either cleaner or its not.. and in fact there both the same, both guys wash they are both clean. but if you don't wash then.... ewwwwww so dont be silly and say in my opinion cleaner. being a girk you have had 0 experience except maybe seeing a skanky boy friend that had a problem with his, or never cleaned it.
in fact being an american I'm not surprised you say that, your country is full of dis-information spread by the government, one time in america it was standard to cut foreskin at birth.. fu**ing stupid
Having no foreskin is not cleaner, foreskin is healthier, keeps the glands protected from infection and soreness, stops the glands from becoming un-naturally tough (come on girls imagine what it would be like if your clitoris wasnt sensitive) thats what a circumsised guys glands are like, there are hundreds of nerve endings in the foreskin which a circumsized guy doesn't have, having no foreskin reveals the skin underneath which should really be kept covered for teh most part (protection), there is no way a circimcision is better than not, unless there is a medical reason for it. any good doctor wil tell you that you shouldn't get your foreskin cut off unless theres a sound medical reason for it..
and all this non-sense about premature ejaculation.. I've never had a problem with my foreskin, never had an infection, never had urine gather behind it, never prematurely ejacualted...
If a guy with foreskin washed everyday and if a guy without washed everyday, then they will be as clean as each other..
The only people that will say different to this are ladies that dont really understand, and guys that had theres cut off when they were young, or when they had medical problems, so they only ever saw the bad side of having a foreskin.
But really.. it makes no difference wether you have foreskin or not, either way you are a healthy male. lets stop this arguament and stop spreading fear, making guys with foreskin think they are dirty, and making guys without worried that they will get every infection under the sun
Wash everyday and practice safe sex and you will be just fine.
Related discussions
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- Circumcision or not
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- Revision circumcision
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Frenulectomy
- My boyfriend's ****
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
- Circumcision lumps and bumps
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Glans/Foreskin issues
- Circumcision Fetish
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
- Uncircumcised: How do you masturbate
- Can you have sex without pulling back the foreskin?
