Actually I don’t want anyone sucking on my dick, so I really don’t give a dam, and study have show that sensitivity is unaffected and that sexual satisfaction and performance is actually more often improved after a circumcision, then decreased.
Ban male circumcision. Why or why not?
- Thread starter tony2
- Start date
I think I left links somewhere back there. Sorry but the idea of someone sucking on my dick is so not appealing to me.
i hear ya, the idea of someone sucking off ball-sweat is just sick
weed_eater_guy said:
So be sure to wash 'em. I know that it can be difficult to remember while you're sitting on the internet, but hygiene can be very important.
Anyway I'd have to back up Well Cooked Fetus here, I think circumcised guys are more likely to get head. At least in the US. This is simply because circumcision here is so common that if you were uncut I'd imagine that most girls would be likely to look at you funny and treat you like you've got some sort of disease. We're very accustomed to thinking of the circumcised penis as its "natural" state of being, and tend to be taken rather off guard by foreskin.
nonsense
actually,the foreskin can make a woman cum in no time
all circumcised men out there, there is hope "plastic surgery"
actually,the foreskin can make a woman cum in no time
all circumcised men out there, there is hope "plastic surgery"
how can foreskin make women cum in no time?
I think the theory the survey raised was that an uncircumcised penis is more likely to taste and smell worse then a circumcised penis because of the smegma produced by a uncircumcised penis.
I think the theory the survey raised was that an uncircumcised penis is more likely to taste and smell worse then a circumcised penis because of the smegma produced by a uncircumcised penis.
WellCookedFetus said:
Didn't that survey take into account the near magical power of body hygiene? Was it conducted in some godforsaken wasteland where the concept "shower" remains unknown?
Seriously, if a guy in a developed country is so disgustingly filthy as to require circumcision for hygienical reasons, he may as well get his entire dick chopped off, because no self-respecting person is going to touch him with a ten feet pole, anyway.
On the other hand, I guess circumcision (willing and informed) is fine if you have limited access to water or if conducted for medical reasons.
Apparently man on average don't clean them selves as often as you would recommend. A shower is not going to clean it off, you need to roll back the foreskin and clean it off, this requires intentional cleaning, many men might not be aware of this.
WellCookedFetus said:
Well, of course. That's my whole point: the survey doesn't prove that circumcision is beneficial per se, but rather establishes the (long known) fact that some guys are knuckledragging cavemen.
If we applied the same saddeningly low standard to dental hygiene, total tooth remotion would be considered just as reasonable, no?
Maybe, then again many women don't know how to clean their vaginas properly and small worse down there then unclean uncircumcised man, but unless told of their odor and lack of cleanliness they will go on to live life ignorant to their lack of hygiene. Unlike tooth loss being nearly assured with a modern diet and lack of brushing, unclean genitalia is going to cause an increase in the chance of infections but that does not mean if you don’t clean you will get an infection.
WellCookedFetus said:
Well, yes, the need of genital hygiene is even greater for women (thank Dog I haven't had any traumatic experiences in that regard), since they have the analogue issue of clitorial smegma to deal with, aside from the vaginal secretions. All I'm saying is, I much prefer hygiene to mutilation.
So keeping the appendix is better then removing it simply to reduce your chances of appendicitis?
WellCookedFetus said:
Oh, please, come on! When was the last time you washed your appendix?
I'm just saying the removal of a useless and vestigial appendage is not necessarily mutilation.
Well duh, that's why we use the word "extirpation" or "amputation" for those cases.
So yeah, agreed: one mutilates perfectly healthy, functional limbs or organs, while one extirpates or amputates "vestigial, useless" or diseased ones.
The prepuce isn't vestigial nor useless, much in the same way that the eyelids aren't (if to a lesser extent).
Basically, if you consider that the removal of a healthy foreskin is mutilation (and not extirpation) I'm with you.
So yeah, agreed: one mutilates perfectly healthy, functional limbs or organs, while one extirpates or amputates "vestigial, useless" or diseased ones.
The prepuce isn't vestigial nor useless, much in the same way that the eyelids aren't (if to a lesser extent).
Basically, if you consider that the removal of a healthy foreskin is mutilation (and not extirpation) I'm with you.
Too much hygiene is not necessarily good for genetalia.
spuriousmonkey said:
Nobody said that. Regular use of water would suffice.
Then you did not read my explanation many post ago about how it was vestigial and the evidence why?
The links I provide also posted scientific studies and surveys showing that circumcision does not affect fertility (err virility) that it reduces the chances of infection, reduce maintenances and in some studies improves sexual performance and function.
The foreskin has the same case for it that as the appendix: in humans unlike many other mammals its size and apparent function are greatly reduces and its know to cause more problems then benefits.
The links I provide also posted scientific studies and surveys showing that circumcision does not affect fertility (err virility) that it reduces the chances of infection, reduce maintenances and in some studies improves sexual performance and function.
The foreskin has the same case for it that as the appendix: in humans unlike many other mammals its size and apparent function are greatly reduces and its know to cause more problems then benefits.