• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

Circumcision?

I am intact and love it! My parents decided to leave me my foreskin because my mom is philosophically against any type of "body mutilation." Boy am I glad she did that, because it sure facilitates masturbation (and handjobs too!).
---5HT-2
 
This is completely due to social conditioning, however. Also, realize that as 85% of the world's males are intact, that means that your penis looks 'gnarly' to about 85% of the world's women -- who are used to seeing beautiful intact penises.
When you disregard my personal opinions and make assumptions that they are derived from forces such as conformity and social conditioning, it understandably pisses me off. You have no basis upon which to say that, and you're quite simply wrong. It is my personal belief that a circumcised penis looks better than an intact one and you can't change that. In particular my pernis. So please allow me to wallow in my own crapulence.
And BTW if 85% of men are intact, how do you go about attributing my attitudes to conformity?
Why is taboo to cut off part of a female's genitalia without consent but fine to cut off part of a male's?
For me it is ok because i do not have any issues or complaints with it. I like it, i sanction it, i bless it, i celebrate it.
The reason i am telling you not to confuse it with a clitorectomy, is because a clitorectomy is a procedure done to intentionally prevent a woman from generally experiencing sexual sensation and specifically to prevent her from having an orgasm.
Now that, i believe, is evil, unless, of course, a woman consents to do that to herself, social conditioning or not. It is obviously done with the intention of keeping a woman 'chaste' by preventing her from enjoying sexual intercourse. It seems rather obvious that that is an inhumane means of control that no human with a developed conscious would ever sanction.
Obviously, that was not the motive in my circumcision, and wouldn't you know it, i have no problem whatsoever feeling sexual sensations even from most subtle of stimulations. And to boot, i enjoy the aesthetics of my gentially mutilated dick!
So you see, i'm not really upset with my particular scenario. I do agree that universally, it is a judgement call as to whether to have it done with or without the child's consent. And by no stretch of the imagination am i advocating circumcising unwilling infants. I can see how you consider it a barbaric practice, particularly from your viewpoint. Overall, i don't think it's really that big a deal.
But as to you busting into my head and telling me how i feel and why i feel it and that i am wrong because i should feel bad about it........i don't think so.
[ 15 April 2002: Message edited by: liquidocean ]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Fairnymph, I know liquidocean vaguely said this but, if you're so keen to lay shit on to conformists, why do you persist in bringing up your 85% of men are intact statistic. I figure
a) It's easier to clean.
b) I thought women were clamouring for longer sex.
But I would say that cause I'm cut and I obviously never got over it.
I agree with your sentiment of letting kids choose for themselves but I think it entirely impractical. At the age which they would be able to choose, they would already have developed an attachment to what their own dick looks like and they know they'll remember the experience.
P.S If you can find me a non-dubious statistic on the impotency correlation, I may recant.
 
liquidocean -- I humbly apologize for offending you. If it comes across that way, I can only assure you that I meant no such thing. It has been my experience, however, that the vast majority of men (and women) who prefer the aesthetic look of "cut penises" do so because they are familar with them and have been taught that intact penises are 'arbnormal' and 'ugly'. I also think that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to discern whether we 'like' something as a result of social conditioning or actual individual taste. I know that even I (as much as I sometimes try) and not immune to social conditioning.
Furthermore, I doubt that any man would like to think that his penis were ugly, or to bemoan the lack of an irreplacable peice of flesh.(I am missing my left index finger (from an accident when I was 2) and while I do not necessarily find it 'ugly' I do wish that I had a finger there.) Also, as few men have seen their cocks in both intact and circumcised states, it would be difficult to compare. Also, it's almost a moot point -- as Xplore said, ALL COCKS LOOK THE SAME ERECT.
Male circumcision was started in the US for purely puritanical, non-medical reasons -- to prevent/reduce masturbation (as circumcision decreases sensitivity, and makes masturbation more difficult). Thus, male circumcision was also started (in this country) as a way to reduce the sexual pleasure of the circumsized person.
As for the 85% statistic -- that is worldwide. I quote that statistic to put things in perspective. But in terms of conformity/social conditioning WITHIN the USA, then about 70+% males are circumcised.
[ 15 April 2002: Message edited by: fairnymph ]
 
this thread makes me depressed. :(
*bYd runs to the doctor and gets his foreskin back.
 
IMPOTENCY:
Again, the rate of impotency in American males is unparalleled in
any other nation. It is estimated that over 30,000 penile
implants have been implanted in American males to date.
What is the cause of impotency? Perhaps one need not look too
far. Many physicians indicate that impotency is probably caused
by penile damage suffered in infancy. The supposition is that
the damage was caused by some accident which the male encountered
as a child, or by physical damage during intercourse.
Never is circumcision mentioned as a probably cause of either of
these situations. It is during circumcision that a major vein to
the glans, and the frenulum is destroyed, along with very
sensitive foreskin laden with millions of sensory receptors. The
glans penis subsequently becomes cornified and dry, and may
contribute to penile damage during intercourse. Why is impotency
so great in circumcised males, while the non-circumcised males
seldom suffer comparable problems even in old age? Of course the
advocates of circumcision would deny this. Adult males
circumcised in infancy are now revealing a multitude of
complications or injuries sustained during circumcision. Wasn't
circumcision supposed to prevent problems in the future?
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT HE RESEMBLE HIS FATHER OR HIS PEERS:
This is another argument supposedly to consider in circumcision.
Would this argument be a valid reason in favor of female
circumcision in Africa where it is still very prevalent?
Most of the males over 50, the fathers of current fathers, were
never circumcised. Why was not this reason important when most
males were intact? Or is it valid only when it supports
circumcision? Why is this reason seldom given in countries such
as Canada where the circumcision rate has rapidly declined and
where most males are intact? If valid, circumcision should have
reached zero level in Canada years ago.
Circumcision was once prevalent in Britain however, it declined
rapidly in a few years. Why was this logic not important to
British males, but somehow very important to American males?
Should not outmoded forms of medical treatment be discontinued
when there are no valid medical reasons for them?
Is not circumcision of an infant male in reality of greater
importance to the father, who because he was a victim, wishes to
deprive his son of something he himself was denied? Do fathers
and son regularly share their penises making similarities
important? What about baldness which is dominant in males? Is
it not likewise important if the father becomes bald, his son
should also shave his head? If resembling one's peers is so
important, why do many males seek hair restoration or purchase
hair pieces when most males have some sort of baldness? Seeking
hair restoration hardly supports the theory that males need to
appear similar in order to achieve emotional satisfaction.
Rather it supports the argument of retaining one's normal body
features as long as possible. If a visual comparison, such as
hair color, lack of hair, etc. is not important, then why would
non-visible resemblances have such great importance?
Why should any male
be subjected to the amputation of a part of his body which in all
likelihood may never pose a single problem during his entire
lifetime?
Do parents really have the right to amputate a normal, healthy
part of a non-consenting individual just because this organ may
someday present a problem? If so, how far does this rationale
extend? Just the foreskin?
From http://www.cirp.org/pages/riley/disease ...a FANTASTIC bit of reading about circumcision which debunks many common pro-cir myths.
For more on impotency, please see the following studies:
Impotence and adult circumcision. Stinson JM. Journal of the National Medical Association 1973;65:161,179.
Impotence following anesthesia for elective circumcision. Palmer JM, Link D. Journal of the American Medical Association 1979;241:2635-2636.
There are literally hundreds of medical journal articles documenting the complications of circumcision!
Prevalence of impotence in American men: 30 million. (~10%) This is a JAMA statistic. You can look it up on google if you want.
Another GREAT site, simply and eloquently worded: http://www.oil.ca/~dkettle/opinion.htm
Also, contemplate the fact that Viagra was developed in the US, and is hugely popular here.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ahem -
sorry, who exactly maintains that having a foreskin means you can't last as long during intercourse? because a) it's all about meditation and the mind and b) i've never had any complaints. except 'i haven't left the bed for 48 hours'.
;) bring it on!!! ;)
 
Originally posted by circlecircus:
1. If you are circumcised any er..stray drop(s) that might come out after you shake and zip would simply be absobed by the underpants.
2. if you are uncircumcised then the drop(s) stay trapped. A moist dark environment under the foreskin at body temperature.

Err, I don't know which bit of your penis you piss out of, but I piss out of the end. Definitely no drop retention here.
For anyone wanting a technical guide to foreskins, look here (Scientific content, includes photos - probably not to be looked at at work though)
Click to expand...
 
^^^
There is ZERO correlation between premature ejaculation and intact penises. (Hello, btw ;) )
BYd -- Don't feel bad. 1)It's not your fault. 2)You can make the situation better by making the decision to leave your sons intact, and by informing your friends that they have a choice to do the same with their sons. :)
liquidocean said:
Circumcision is not a big deal, and i'm not going to feel bad for having had it done to me.
This is exactly the type of mindset that I am trying to combat. Circumcision may not be a big deal to you (though I'd argue that it is, by the length and emotional intensity of your replies), but it IS to the thousands of men who had complications resulting from circumcision (from bent/curved penises to amputations of the penis, and ensuing sex changes), and the thousands of men who wish they had been left intact. Not to mention the WOMEN who wish they had the extra lubrication and friction provided by a foreskin-endowed male.
Click to expand...
 
I'm clean & lean,
No longer a teen.
A choice "cut"
Who wasn't given a choice!
But I'm only bitter dat I missed out on da ceremonial aspect of it. WelI, I was there, but I wasn't reallythere.
 
I love how girls talk about the effects it has on boys.
this argument seems vaguely familiar.
don't men (usually white haired Republican) say the same thing about abortion. (who believe me, if it wasn't for these "people" there would be no abortion issue.
if you are a woman you have no right to say anything about circumcision, unless you feel the need to sound ignorant and out of place.
 
<<<< Circumsized and proud of it...
Didn't have a choice, was very young and raised Jewish. I'm glad it was done at such a young age, when I don't remember it or remember feeling it.
What surprises me about this thread is that most of the women here seem to prefer the uncut ones. I don't get it, most of the women I know prefer circumsized dicks, and most seem kinda grossed out by the uncut ones. The girls I know say the uncut ones remind them of a farm animals genitals or something. I just hate having to picture that in my head. To each is own I guess.
FYI, if anyone has noticed, most porn stars are circumsized as well....
;)
 
Originally posted by pfunk:
if you are a woman you have no right to say anything about circumcision, unless you feel the need to sound ignorant and out of place.
Duh! 'Women' aka. 'Mothers' have rather a large right to partcipate in a discussion about circumcision. They may well be the ones making the decision.
Click to expand...
 
posted by fairnymph:
Also, it's almost a moot point -- as Xplore said, ALL COCKS LOOK THE SAME ERECT.
This must be a typo or i must be taking it out of context, but even in my humble experience, i have not found all penises to look the same erect. In fact, there is an incredible diversity to shapes and sizes this bizzare organ assumes.
Circumcision has been around longer than the US, and it is part of the ethnic and religious lineage (muslim, believe it or not) i was born with. I find your claim about the puritannical motives to be pretty wacky, do you have a source?
And where do we develop social standards of genital beauty that we are able to enforce through conformity and peer pressure? I mean there is a standard for what a woman's boobs should look like, but hardly is there a national consensus on what a penis should look like, i strongly doubt that i'm going to get shunned at the country club because my dick looks different than Joe Six-pack's.
By the way, i like butternut squash soup because i absorbed it with my senses, and my brain interpreted it as a pleasurable flavor on my pallette. I don't like butternut squash soup because 'everybody says it's the new hip thing'. Give us some credit in choosing our likings. Save the general indictments for mainstream America.
Click to expand...
 
Yep, circumcision was started in the US to "prevent masturbation" -- and you are right, it IS wacky!
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."
John Harvey Kellogg, the 'founder' of routine infant circumcision in the US (1888 )
Edit: Regarding my "all cocks look the same when erect" -- what I mean by this, is that circumcised and intact penises are pretty much indistinguishable when erect.
[ 15 April 2002: Message edited by: fairnymph ]
 
I'm cut and happy to be so... To me it looks cleaner and most girls seem to prefer it.
 
just a short note - cutting off my foreskin certainly hasn't inhibited my masturbation, not one iota.
 
^^^
Yep, it definitely doesn't effectively prevent (or even reduce) masturbation...some people even hypothesize that it has the opposite effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top