i wish i had a foreskin...

They are not even remotely similar. Cutting off a girls clitoris so that she cannot have an orgasm is not the same as cutting off foreskin. The male equivalent of FGM would be cutting off the entire head of the penis so please stop embarrassing yourself. Its not cute.
Also, the number of women who would voluntarily have their clitorsis cut off is virtually zero. Bye.

That's awful.

Hahahaha, **** off back to tumblr you social justice warrior. I merely exposed a hypocritical case of double standards among present society (which you quite perfectly portrayed), I didn't say one is worse than the other--just that they're both bad.

You can keep thinking that you, a female, are right over the entire NHS on a /male/ health issue in your little deluded world. Do let us know when you get off your pretentious high-horse and stop thinking that your opinions are factual. Just because you've had a few penises inside you doesn't make you an expert in the field.

I wasn't serious - I was just trying to frame the level of ridiculousness that the person that said "circumcision is like an ear piercing" was giving off

Hahahaha, **** off back to tumblr you social justice warrior. I merely exposed a hypocritical case of double standards among present society (which you quite perfectly portrayed), I didn't say one is worse than the other--ju
You can keep thinking that you, a female, are right over the entire NHS on a /male/ health issue in your little deluded world. Do let us know when you get off your pretentious high-horse and stop thinking that your opinions are factual. Just because you've had a few penises inside you doesn't make you an expert in the field.

That last sentence though,talk about escalation.

So does that mean if you both end up having a son as a child you will force them against their own will to have part of their sexual organ to be cut off? I think that's absolutely sick and the fact that you're both female just makes it horrendously worse.

If foreskin is so bad why does nature intend that all males have one then? It's primarily a physical barrier to protect the whole penis. The whole point of sex is procreation not so the female can enjoy it as long as possible. If you want a guy to last longer then there are plenty of other natural and ethical ways to train a male to do so. If you feel that circumcision is necessary then why don't you wait until the son reaches the age of consent (age 16) and then you as a mother can ask the son if he wants it. That way you're acting more democratic and it doesn't breach your own son's personal autonomy.

What has that got to do with the NHS and circumcision?

Anyway on their webpages you can find this as a reason against it.

"
Reduced sensitivity – an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex."



agreed

Being circumcised is also more hygenic and looks cleaner and neater (IMO). I've never heard a girl say she actively prefers uncircumcised guys. Girls either seem to say they don't mind either or they prefer circumcised guys.

I guess the best of both worlds would be to have a nice supple foreskin that easily rolls all the way back so the guy can leave it retracted and see what its like to be circumcised or roll it up and enjoy having a foreskin.

That's a classic non-sequitur. Yes, circumcision makes the penis less sensitive. But no, it doesn't make sex less enjoyable for men. On the contrary, it means it takes them a lot longer to climax, which means there's more of a build-up for them, so when they cum it's a lot more intense.

Your first paragraph explains why it's better for guys to be circumcised (most girls prefer it that way or don't care; very few want the skin still on it).

That's a classic non-sequitur. Yes, circumcision makes the penis less sensitive. But no, it doesn't make sex less enjoyable for men. On the contrary, it means it takes them a lot longer to climax, which means there's more of a build-up for them, so when they cum it's a lot more intense.

So no, there's no way I'd want my son to wait until he was 16 to be circumcised. That's just cruel!

Your first paragraph explains why it's better for guys to be circumcised (most girls prefer it that way or don't care; very few want the skin still on it).

See scrotgot's post.

It makes it less sensitive so sex may be less enjoyable. It's my body not someone elses to decide. Foreskin does have uses and if you want go into detail it does feel different when the head is stimulated with a foreskin and without it. So no foreskin = less variety. So just from my won experience masturbating I would rather have a foreskin.

Yes, if I ever have a son, he will be circumcised as soon as the doctors are willing to do it. This isn't just for the reasons you mention but because it's a lot healthier. Uncircumcised baby boys have a lot more medical problems (for instance urinary tract infections) than circumcised ones, and the same goes for children, adolescents and adults. As someone once said, if an injection was invented that has as many benefits as routine infant circumcision, it would be mandatory.

So no, there's no way I'd want my son to wait until he was 16 to be circumcised. That's just cruel!

No sweetie, it would not be like removing your earlobes. That would serve no purpose while removing the foreskin has actual benefits. Removing your earlobes wouldnt be problematic if it had benefits or if they were generally perceived as ugly and improved your appearance if you had them removed.

Circumcised looks hot :-). Seriously, it's like it's permanently erect, with the glans always on show. Yum!