Started by #107069 [Ignore] 05,Jul,11 17:35
 | right guys and girls, i'm considering a high and tight circumcision. Who thinks i should go for it. would it suit my cock?
Thanks for answers! |
New Comment Rating: 0
Similar topics: 1.So why is it that straight guys... 2.circumcision 3.anybody turned on by circumcision? 4.Considering Circumcision 5.Circumcision in the UK press
Comments:
1) It is obvious that you want to, so do it and don't worry about what others say, it's your cock.
2) You won't have to worry about getting those ugly Pearly papules that make you look like you have some disease.
3) It will look like a cock and not the trunk of an elephant.
I have always wondered if you could pick up peanuts with it ?!?!?
4) No nasty gunk under the skin.
5) For the religious people - Genisis 17:10 to 17:14.
Point 2 - Perhaps you do not have Pearly Papules around your coronial ridge, but a lot of un-cut men do. One has to look no further than the photos posted on this very site to see them. Are they unattractive? In my eye, yes, and apparently they are in Beans's eye as well. But this is subjective as some people like them.
Point 3 - Very subjective. It comes down to what the viewer likes. To my eye, ALL un-cut cocks look good when they are soft. Indeed, I think it's super hot when an un-cut guy has a large well shaped glans and the outline of his glans shows thru his foreskin. It's when these cocks become erect that the problems arise. First, there is the issue of Pearly Papules mentioned in Point 2. Secondly, if the foreskin is really tight, it can look as though it's choking the cock. On the other hand, I've seen hundreds of really attractive hard un-cut cocks. Either the foreskin is small and loose so it retracts completely when the cock is erect or it is long enough that it still covers the glans so the cock comes to a nice nipple tip.
Point 4 - Obviously you keep yourself clean, but not all un-cut men do. I cannot begin to count the number of times I've pushed back a man's foreskin to discover really rank "head cheese" underneath. Again, this is subjective as some are turned on by this, but I am not.
Are the arguments in favor of circumcision stupid? I don't think so. They're not as strong as they once were, say in the 1920's but they still have merit. So what are they? One, the incidence of cervical cancer in the female sex partners of cut men is lower than it is for the partners of un-cut men. Two, the incidence of transmission of HIV is lower for cut men. Three, the incidence of penis cancer is lower for cut men. For all three of these the difference is very small, but it is measurable.
I hope this information is useful.
I think there is some myth in the US that if one is uncut, there are likely to be all kinds of problems with the foreskin and the parts under it. There is NOT!
Most of Europe is walking around uncut, do you think we have a massive problem here? I can tell you, I live here: we don't! And I have engaged my part of cocks!
I don't even wash my cock with soap, just rinse it in the shower. That's it! Smegma? I don't know what it is.
For your last argument;
about cervical cancer:
- smoking is a factor of 150%
- anticonception is a factor of 120%
- 5 or more pregnancy against 1 or 2: 200%
- number of sexual partners, 6 or more? 300%
- age of sexual intercourse < 18 y/o? 220%
so now what?
About the transmission of HIV being lower:
So, and now what? No more safesex? We can tell youngsters they don't have to use condoms anymore if the guy is cut??
BTW, the USA has the HIGHEST circumcision rate AND the HIGHEST HIV-infection rate among heterosexuals in the western world! NOT a strong point!
Penis cancer, BIG DEAL! You know how many b o y s die being circumcised (and/or from the complications) every year?? MORE! Would YOU like to be circumcised in Africa?
So, let us keep it at this: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
First, about the myth here in the USA that there will be all kinds of problems with a penis if it is un-cut. That is simply not true. One need not go to Europe to find un-cut men as there are millions of them right here and the overwhelming majority of these men have no problems what-so-ever with their foreskins or what's under them. The vast majority of Americans know this.
I think I provided a pretty fair evaluation of Beans's points, having pretty much dismissed point 3 (elephant trunk) as total nonsense. Perhaps I should have mentioned in point 4 (nasty gunk) that for the vast majority of un-cut men this is not an issue (you, for example), but for some un-cut men it is.
Now about the health issue. Please re-read what I wrote, especially the last sentence: "For all three of these the difference is very small, but it is measurable." Does that sound like I'm advocating circumcision as a panacea for cervical cancer, HIV and penis cancer? Of course I'm not. I just pointed out that it has some very small benefit.
Of course other factors more greatly influence cervical cancer. Of course everyone should keep practicing safe sex to prevent HIV. As for complications from circumcision, yes, they happen. I've even heard of one case. But they do not happen very often in the industrialized world. The fact remains that there are hundreds of millions of circumcised men alive today who had no problems what-so-ever. Do more die from complications with circumcision than die of penis cancer? Maybe. I honestly do not know.
Your mention that we have the highest circumcision rate and highest HIV-infection rate, as if those two facts were related, was really a low blow. The main reason for our high HIV-infection rate (and high teen-age pregnancy rate, I might add) is that religious fundamentalists fight tooth and nail against condom availability and any kind of meaningful and accurate sex education.
As for routine circumcision of infants, that is your only really valid point. But we are moving away from that. There was a time here in the USA when it was done as a matter of course in most maternity hospitals, often without even consulting the baby's parents. Now, at least, the parents must give their informed consent. But what about the infant? He's just days or even hours old and is hardly in a position to give consent. I don't know what the right answer is here.
Now rather than trotting out all the old BS why not just be honest and say that there's absolutely no reason to circumcise nor any advantage conferred (actually hardening of the glans is an issue but we'll ignore that). If you prefer the look of a circumcised dick that's great, go ahead and cut and enjoy your attraction to that aesthetic but don't try and wrap it up as being either 'better' or 'healthier'.
So, I think we agree that circumcision of ALL guys is NOT the way to help penile hygiene, stop cervical cancer, and stop HIV.
Great! Because that is being said over and over in this kind of discussion.
And I think you are right that sex-education might do a lot of good in your country!
If you think religious fundamentalists are a problem in your country, and I think you're right (man, am I glad I don't have to live with THAT!), adress the problem RIGHT THERE! NOT at the foreskin!
I don't care about a small benefit in this or that survey. And maybe the other way around in another study. What is the IMPACT of the outcome? I don't care about a percentage here or there!
99% of the time, the foreskin functions as it is designed for, if some (health) instuction is needed, that's what parents are for, and HIV, cancer and other diseases are NOT caused by foreskin!
Now on to the thoughts I had about foreskins and this is going to sound as though I'm coming around to the anti-circumcision side. As you surely know, foreskins come in various sizes, from short ones that just cover the coronial ridge and very little more and which fully retract when the penis is erect, to long ones that fully cover the glans ending in a nice nipple tip even when the penis is fully erect.
If foreskins are bad, why didn't they evolve away? If men with smaller foreskins have some biological or evolutionary advantage over men with long foreskins, one would think that they would survive longer and reproduce more so that over the millennia foreskins would become ever smaller until they were gone. 'Just asking.
I've often said that one of the most rewarding parts of SYD is the exchange of thoughts and ideas with other members here on the Forum. Thank you for an interesting discussion.
i agree with you that a discussion should have manners, and not end up in name calling or vitriol. you provided, i hope you don't think of me otherwise.
you wouldn't be surprised to know that i am still pro-foreskin, but it is interesting to see that some questions make you come around a bit.
like: why didn't it evolve away? maybe, because it has a function! and if that's the case, and uncut men testify that foreskin is a GOOD thing to have, maybe little b o y s shouldn't be robbed of it at birth to keep the doctor in business!
thank YOU for this discussion and the exchange of thoughts and ideas!
i have, quite rightly, laughed at the pathetic pro-cutting arguments and used irony to show how ridiculous the argument is when the gender is changed.
as i said before i have no agenda to change anyone's view of circumcision or to try to change their affection for a cut cock. however i will comment when folks trot out the same old BS to justify cutting or promoting it as beneficial to health or disease prevention.
First, if you haven't already read my Forum post asking for civilized conduct, please do so.
Then you are going to have to admit you were wrong and apologize. I am not asking you to admit you were wrong about circumcision because I respect your opinion and I respect your humanity, though you have shown precious little respect for mine.
But you were very wrong in how you presented your arguments. If this is your idea of being "very civilized", then your notion of civilization is vastly different from my own.
What did you do wrong? First you replied in all caps. That is the typographical equivalent of shouting. Is it "very civilized" to shout at someone? Even someone with whom you disagree?
Then you dismissed what I wrote as "BS", not worthy of consideration, and went on to be sarcastic (WORLD PEACE) and to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation (often called female circumcision) when there is no similarity what-so-ever. Male circumcision is done for health reasons (which are indeed questionable), aesthetic reasons (which are indeed subjective), traditional and cultural reasons (which can be very powerful) and religious belief. Female genital mutilation is done to remove any pleasure the woman might get from sexual activity. It shows the woman that she is chattel.
So what should you do? Say: "Sir (or madam) I respectfully disagree. Help me to better understand your position and I will help you to better understand mine so that perhaps we can find some areas of agreement. Some disagreement will probably remain, but let us remain cordial and let us remain friends." Stand in front of a mirror and practice saying that until you can do it and sound sincere. You'll win a lot more arguments that way.
NO SIMILARITY between female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation??? You've got to be kidding or be blind!
ONE: KNIFES involved on childrens genitalia! How can one ever think of this? It's BARBERIAN!
TWO: All sorts of stupid reasons why it is a good idea to cut away sexual sensitive tissue that is essential in the feeling of sexual pleasure for the rest of your life.
THREE: Making it a TRIBES rite or a RELIGIEOUS rite or a NATIONS rite and calling it "in the best interest of the c h i l d".
75% of the men in this world are UNCUT, and even more women have NOT been mutilated. So, if more than 75% of worldpopulation can do without, what -next to religious argumentation- could be the reason?
Could it be something like: It started in the 1920's. My grandfather was done, them my father was done, after that I was done, and I wanted my son to look like me, so he was done.
STOP IT! Do NOT think a boy's circumcision is NOT a mutulation OR a BARBARIAN act! Mayne you could wait for his consent at 18 y/o!
Also what about the numerous men who have had adult circumcisions, either by choice or for conditions such as phimosis, are they homosexuals also.??????
Really, you are offended by this dumb comment, because this stupid person insinuates a cut guy is gay? (yes, I agree! realy stupid..!)
And you can't let it pass as just stupid, but have to argument why you are NOT GAY?? Why? Do you think that being gay is any less?
Why do you have to argument that you, and most other cut guys are NOT gay?
If I were to call you a NEGRO, would you say you are not black but white, or would you say you don't like the prejudice and name-calling?
New Comment Go to top