Quantcast
Are you circumsized ?

Forums - NSFW Discussion - Are you circumsized ?

Are you?

Yes 37 38.54%
 
No 58 60.42%
 
undecided 1 1.04%
 
Total:96
bigjon said:

it is simply more sanitary. That is why it was originally done, the faiths adopted it as a practice (like not eating pork) for sanitary reasons. Until modern times when we understood how to cook pork it was quite deadly, same goes for the foreskin. The foreskin will capture more bacteria and removing it is prevents this.

Wow, people must have been incredibly dumb before modern times then.

You just cook pork the same way you do any other meat, that's not hard to understand...



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network

Nope.

My penis has not been mutilated for no good reason.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:
Nope.

My penis has not been mutilated for no good reason.

When you pee do you have to pull the skin out of the way?



RaptorChrist said:
KungKras said:
Nope.

My penis has not been mutilated for no good reason.

When you pee do you have to pull the skin out of the way?

Don't have to but it helps. Helps with aiming, helps with cleanliness. But at the same time, urine is mostly sterile (it is until it leaves the body), so urinating while not pulling back the skin can actually help to flush out undesirable bits of mess that may have accumulated (Say, if you ejaculate and don't clean up. I mean, you should clean up, but if you don't then this helps.) 

It's almost like the penis has evolved over time to more or less take care of itself. 

Just like vaginas. did you know that using douches and other 'vaginal cleansers' is actually bad for the bacteria inside it? a woman's body is self cleaning, internally. And while yes, it can be good to flush it out every now and then with warm water, it's not necessary to be clean. 

Crazy, right? Millions of years of evolution probably shouldn't be tampered with by religion or lazy parents. 



no... no i'm not...

but i'm vasectomized though...



Around the Network
Alara317 said:
RaptorChrist said:

When you pee do you have to pull the skin out of the way?

Don't have to but it helps. Helps with aiming, helps with cleanliness. But at the same time, urine is mostly sterile (it is until it leaves the body), so urinating while not pulling back the skin can actually help to flush out undesirable bits of mess that may have accumulated (Say, if you ejaculate and don't clean up. I mean, you should clean up, but if you don't then this helps.) 

It's almost like the penis has evolved over time to more or less take care of itself. 

Just like vaginas. did you know that using douches and other 'vaginal cleansers' is actually bad for the bacteria inside it? a woman's body is self cleaning, internally. And while yes, it can be good to flush it out every now and then with warm water, it's not necessary to be clean. 

Crazy, right? Millions of years of evolution probably shouldn't be tampered with by religion or lazy parents. 

You seem to have very strong opinions against this. I'm curious if you were circumcised if you would feel the same way. The only reasons people are giving against circumcision is based on religious or ethical reasons.

When I was a kid, I remember overhearing a kid getting made fun of because he said he wasn't circumcised. I was younger and didn't know exactly what it was, so I wasn't sure if I was even circumcised or not. I was relieved when I found out later that day that I was, and I think many kids would be self-concious of their penis if they weren't circumcised.



RaptorChrist said:
Alara317 said:

Don't have to but it helps. Helps with aiming, helps with cleanliness. But at the same time, urine is mostly sterile (it is until it leaves the body), so urinating while not pulling back the skin can actually help to flush out undesirable bits of mess that may have accumulated (Say, if you ejaculate and don't clean up. I mean, you should clean up, but if you don't then this helps.) 

It's almost like the penis has evolved over time to more or less take care of itself. 

Just like vaginas. did you know that using douches and other 'vaginal cleansers' is actually bad for the bacteria inside it? a woman's body is self cleaning, internally. And while yes, it can be good to flush it out every now and then with warm water, it's not necessary to be clean. 

Crazy, right? Millions of years of evolution probably shouldn't be tampered with by religion or lazy parents. 

You seem to have very strong opinions against this. I'm curious if you were circumcised if you would feel the same way. The only reasons people are giving against circumcision is based on religious or ethical reasons.

When I was a kid, I remember overhearing a kid getting made fun of because he said he wasn't circumcised. I was younger and didn't know exactly what it was, so I wasn't sure if I was even circumcised or not. I was relieved when I found out later that day that I was, and I think many kids would be self-concious of their penis if they weren't circumcised.

a few things to clear things up:

1 - Not a man, so can't be circumcised regardless. (And female circumcision is NEVER practiced here in Canada)

2 - My opinions on circumcision are based solely within logic and therefore are not rooted in religion at all. You should never mutilate someone based on religion because there's no logic in that, and the arguments about cleanliness are completely unfounded. It doesn't take much effort at all to clean yourself if you're not disgusting (which you should want to do regardless); the only arguments PRO circumcision tend to be religious or culturally based. IT's a sort of chain of causality stance; I don't hate circumcision because it's oftentimes a religious thing, I hate religion because they push irrational, foolish behaviour like this that has no ground in reality and are only later justified with claims of cleanliness so they don't sound like complete psychos by pushing infant genital mutilation for God. 

3 - Kids will literally tease kids for anything. Weight, class, glasses, color of skin, size, gender, it doesn't matter. Saying 'kids will tease me because my peepee is different' is an even less logical argument than one coming from religion. First of all, as I said, kids tease for everything and I'm reasonably certain penis-formation is pretty low on the list, and second of all, why the fuck would you insist kids share dick pics or whip it out to show? It's a nonissue. 



Cobretti2 said:
boyz in the hood

Ha! Brilliant!



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

bigjon said:
Jumpin said:

wCutting off a bit of your penis to show your devotion to God is really fucking weird if you think about it.
If you want me to worship a god, this is NOT my idea of a fun party!

Whoever came up with this is a sick freak! I’m looking at you pre-dynastic ancient Egypt priests!


Also, it’s incredibly unhealthy, as it can lead to impotence and lack of sensation during sex. If you ever listen to Jewish comedy, you get the picture: “I went from being too quick to lasting way too long” George Costanza.

Basically, without foreskin, men:
A) 90% of the pleasure sensation during sex is cut off with the nerve endings.
B) Lack control over cumming.
C) Women don’t like it as it doesn’t feel right, and can more easily damage them.

Honestly, I would recommend anyone who had this done to them as a baby to charge their parents with abuse. This is a disgusting and barbaric practice, and any parent that has this done to their own child needs mental therapy. They literally cut the a piece of their manhood away without consent.

It should not be associated with nazism to ban non-consensual genital mutilation, that is a fucking terrible argument. Additionally, this ISN’T akin to banning religious clothing, as religious clothing isn’t irreversible assault with lifelong sexual-health and psychological consequences.

Yes! I have strong feelings on this issue! My brothers across the world had their strong feelings cut off!

it is simply more sanitary. That is why it was originally done, the faiths adopted it as a practice (like not eating pork) for sanitary reasons. Until modern times when we understood how to cook pork it was quite deadly, same goes for the foreskin. The foreskin will capture more bacteria and removing it is prevents this.

You advocate destroying a person's future sex life via genital mutilation due to "less bacteria?" - on children who are far too young to give consent to such a horrific act?

On the contrary: http://www.cirp.org/library/death/ - reports show that in the 1940s between 16 and 19 babies died each year due to infections relating to circumcisions within the UK, and over 100 infants in the US - but due to underreporting estimates in the US are over 220 each year; again, directly related to infection caused by circumcision. And you would have to imagine this number was substantially higher when sanitation was not taken as seriously. The history has nothing to do with "bacteria" as humanity wasn't aware of bacteria until quite recently; additionally, the medical rationale was not developed until after the practice became widespread in the English world, it's largely a form of apologetics to justify a barbaric and disgusting ritual.

Circumcision became widespread in the English world during a time when the climate of attitude toward sexual pleasure was negative, especially concerning masturbation. It's designed to repress sexual stimulation. It causes tremendous damage to the erogenous nervous tissue for several reasons: 1. keratinization of the glans/head, 2. the loss of important tissue, 3. the loss of thousands of sensory nerve endings, 4. Loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and 5. Loss of the gliding mechanism. Children who have had this inflicted upon them have had the opportunity to have a full sexual experience revoked from them when they reach adulthood.

If someone used that same argument on a baby girl, removing the labia and clitoris on baby girls for the reason of "less bacteria," - as someone who I assume is from the English world - you would consider them to be a loathsome excuse of a person; anyone who actually DID this, should be charged with sexual assault.

 

Anyway, we can't stay serious in this forum (isn't it against the rules?),

So:

 

And YES, that is the guy who played President Kim in The Interview.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 28 February 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

No, thankfully I'm not genitally mutilated. And I always find amusing the human capacity to transform loss into some virtue.

Did you guys know if you cut off your own balls and toes, that can also prevent a lot of chances for infection, cancer etc.?

Huh huh.