212
By bleh - / Monday 23 November 2009 22:29 / United States
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
Comments
Reply
  cokemollett  |  6

How do u kno what a dog suckin ur dick feels like

Reply
  22cute  |  17

He can still pleasure you. And if you're creative this is your chance to learn some new ways to please each other. Sex is not just intercourse.

Reply
  nypd613  |  0

Actually an uncircumcised penis looks Disgusting (with a capital D). Circumcision is so NOT mutilation.

Reply
  noype  |  0

What you think an uncircumcised penis looks like is an opinion. While circumcision can be necessary for a variety of reasons circumcision for cosmetic reasons, without the individuals consent is mutilation. How many people here would willingly have the skin cut off the head of their penis, with no anaesthetic unless it was medically necessary? I doubt many would

Reply
  DameGreyWulf  |  0

The foreskin isn't skin on the head. Otherwise, though, I agree with you, except for if a guy chooses it himself for cosmetic reasons. Personally I don't find either disgusting. How can someone find it disgusting? I actually... find the peek-a-boo thing quite erotic.

Reply
  DameGreyWulf  |  0

No, really, why is it disgusting? Because foreskin can get dirty? It's called washing, and if you don't wash your penis just because you're cut, that's quite a deal more disgusting.

Reply
  nypd613  |  0

Ok do you remember anything from when you were newborn? I doubt it. You don't ask a baby for consent you dumbass. The pain is there and gone before you know it. And who said anything about no anesthetic?

Reply
  nypd613  |  0

Actually I never thought of foreskin getting dirty (WTF)? If you came up with that in your own it must really be an issue, all the more reason to circumcise.

Reply
  DameGreyWulf  |  0

Actually, many people find it disgusting because like any other part of the body it can get dirty, but people unfairly pinpoint it to justify cosmetic circumcision. And it's not "there and gone" - you're CUTTING OFF A CHUNK OF SKIN, and of course you don't ask the child for permission but you could let him grow up and decide on his own. You know in Africa there is REAL genital mutilation performed on young girls because "it's traditional." Like young males here, the parents (specifically, the mothers) have it performed on them before they have their own voice. You know what they do? They basically remove the entire vulva which includes, in case you forgot, the clitoral hood, clitoris, the lips, even parts of the vagina itself that cause lubrication. It's TRADITION and VULVAS ARE DISGUSTING and get DISEASES and women who have them are DIRTY!... this is their basic mindset. Now, are you going to stop whining about a little bit of skin when there's much worse in the world to bawl about?

Reply
  nypd613  |  0

Ok I'm not even going to get into the whole Africa thing you very vividly described but if your mindset is to wait for a kid to grow up and ask him what HE wants, then you'll never get anywhere ever. It's obvious that people would make decisions differently when they're adults than if they were kids! And a circumcised guy would never come and say "I wish I was uncircumcised"!

Reply
  DameGreyWulf  |  0

Actually, I've met a few men who wish they weren't circumcised. And so you force an operation on a child in case they change their minds when they grow up? What kind of shit is that? Whatever happened to freedom? They don't get to make the decision AT ALL is the point.

Reply
  slimjim8094  |  12

Hi, I'm a circumcised guy. I wish I was uncircumcised. If I thought there was any benefit, I could make up my own damn mind. How's that? The foreskin is basically a big bundle of nerves, which is about half of the feeling. Plus it keeps the glans from drying out. Look, I'm not pissed at my parents or anything. But I'm pissed at the whole concept. A fairly important bit of skin (as skins go) is removed, and it can never, ever come back. I disagree with that.

Reply
  gama_c  |  0

 actually to those of you that keep pulling facts out of your asses about circumcision, better check again. The American pediatrics association, after funding multiple studies still sees absolutely no definite advantadges to circumcision, and found some disadvantadges.  for one, it is definitely true that although unapealing to some women, an uncircumcised penis is twice as sensitive as a circumcised one. the penis is an organ, meant to be soft and the foreskin keeps it that way. removig it leaved the tip to unneeded friction by clothing eventually hardening the skin. It also makes it better for the girls, you know those "ribbed for her pleasure" condoms? yea foreskin us the natural ribbing.    there is also very little proof to suggest that cutting it prevents the spread of HIV. and the few research out there is, dare I say, I'll funded. research also found that boys that underwent circumcision are more suceptible to pain as adults. really stop listening to all the religious fanatics out there, and stop submitting babies to that kind of torture. poor things don't even get anesthesia.  besides to those who are Christian and still practice circumcision, read your bible again. that's an old testament comandment trumped by Jesus' salvation. so.. Jesus FTW. 

Reply
  nat365  |  0

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/385?ijkey=f1a5a0d2a7e778d9f30f942f20c6be7b10e6810a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022534705650987 If you can be bothered to look through all the genuine medical references (particularly in the first one) you'll see that it's no myth that those without foreskins are less likely to get and spread STDs (even if you wash, things are still going to get dirty during the day, and how many people shower right before sex?) and in the first one the American Medical Association is actually accused of including this evidence in their report but ignoring it in their conclusion. The second one is conducted on people who had their foreskin removed as adults, and very few of them report any decrease in sexual pleasure. More actually reported an increase. I am not a religious nut (huh?) and why on earth would the religious argue for circumcision? Jews and Muslims will do it and don't care what anyone else does, and any Christian fanatics will go for the 'no sex at all!' angle. I don't actually have an aesthetic dislike of foreskin at all (if I'm 100% honest I have seen very few penises I've liked whether circumcised or not - for me the penis is very rarely an attractive organ, and guys, I'm sorry to say that most of my friends feel the same way - the majority of girls don't really like the look of them, but we push through anyway. For me, the major dislike factor is how hairy it is, but I'm digressing). I have no problem with the look of foreskin, I have no issues with guys who have them either, but I do think that it's naive to ignore the medical benefits of circumcision, particularly with regards to women, since men being circumcised lessens the odds of us getting things like cervical cancer. Female circumcision is a whole different issue. It is not done because of health, or aesthetics, it is done because of the belief that if a woman's ability to enjoy sex is removed, then she won't be promiscuous, and basically that the idea that a female orgasm is sinful. It is not just the removal of a bit of excess skin (and no, the major nerves are *not* in the foreskin, I don't know where you got that idea) it is the removal of the main (and often only) source of pleasure a woman has during sex, the clitoris. I've never heard of everything surrounding it being removed too, but other than clitoris removal I don't know a lot about the physical process of female circumcision, just that when I was asked to join a charity against it that it is designed to stop women from feeling down there, which is not the purpose or result of male circumcision, and really the two processes are so different they should probably have different names. There is far more evidence *against* the lessening of sensitivity and *for* the medical benefits than the other way around, and a friend of mine who is very sexually orientated and liberal (all about the pleasure) still plans to circumcise any male children she has (and she's not Jewish either) because having looked up everything she could find about it, she's concluded it's better done than not. I'm not saying every man should head for the hospital, but I cannot think of an equivalent on the body (female or male) that is so unnecessary and yet so open to infection.

Reply
  perdix  |  29

I recently went to a bris (Jewish circumcision ritual) for twins and they were given local anesthetic. Now, anyone who claims that religious circumcision is done with anesthetic is just misinformed, or ignorant of the current practice.

Reply
  DameGreyWulf  |  0

Nat, they do have different names. All major organizations and such refer to the "female circumcision" as real genital mutilation. The reason I brought it up is because there are worse things than the issue of a cut or uncut male. And really, so judgemental are we all on the absolute natural. "Uncircumcised penises are ugly!" jeez... that'd be like guys saying "Girls with boobs are ugly!" Have your preferences and all, but such statements are just unfair. Now I don't agree with the decrease in sensitivity, because I've read some things that say that the penis makes up for it somehow, but didn't you read what faxe said? Sure, many people don't shower before sex, but I can't imagine foreskin getting ungodly dirty in the amount of time between the shower of the day and sex. That's like saying we shouldn't have teeth because "how many people brush their teeth before they kiss?" lol...

Reply
  ImanAzol  |  4

There are no medical benefits to circumcision. It destroys 90% of the sensory nerves, and has a greater risk of infection and death than the very rare chance of cancer of the foreskin. Any potential, unproven reductions in risk of STI are better addressed by not fucking without protection and smart choices of partner. It would be akin to slicing off your clit and cauterizing the cervix for "health benefits." Most of the civilized world has outlawed it (regardless of whatever fucked up Bronze Age religions think) or stopped doing it culturally. It became popular in the US because Kellogg (the cereal freak) thought that chopping off chunks of the dick and eating corn would reduce the "heat of the blood" and stop boys from masturbating, "for the health benefits." It's ignorant, savage, abusive. If genital mutilation is your thing, feel free to take an axe to your own junk.

Reply
  ImanAzol  |  4

What evidence is there that removing 90% of the nerves in the penis doesn't lessen sensitivity? But there's an easy way to check--ask men who had it done later in life. 90% wouldn't do it again. If the skanky whore wants to mutilate genitalia because it's a fun thing to do, hand the bitch a belt sander and saber saw and she can have at her own filthy snatch.

Reply
  ImanAzol  |  4

Oh, and "the major nerves are *not* in the foreskin, I don't know where you got that idea"--I got that idea because the major nerves are in my foreskin. I have one, you don't, STFU, bitch. The clit is utterly un-necessary using your logic. There is no reproductive advantage to female orgasm. As long as the man spurts, the job is done. Not that I would do it, just pointing out your illogic. And there are no health benefits, so I don't know what your friend "studied." A speak and spell, maybe?

Reply
  razzberry  |  9

Actually, feminine desire and sex drive play a huge factor in reproduction. Why else would a woman get wet during sex if it wasn't to increase her pleasure and comfort during the act, while also allowing the penis to enter deeper into the vaginal canal? So that when he "spurts" (as you so eloquently put it), there's a much higher chance a sperm will make it to the egg. Both sets of genitalia are important in the act. Otherwise, have fun trying to enjoy sex with a dry vagina, because I can't imagine that would feel good for either party.

By  XxSKELETOxX  |  0

Eww! He deserves that for keeping his foreskin!! xO

Reply
  G0v3nat0r  |  7

What is with all these girls saying circumcised and uncircumcised penis's are gross? How about if you don't like them then just go lesbian already.

By  Silentknight  |  0

God says no sex before marriage :] sounds to me like He got His point across. Have a lovely honeymoon :]

By  Moeey  |  0

I agree with silver. Read a holy book for once in your life.

By  Th217  |  2

dirty. get that shit REMOVED. foreskin is gross and I don't know how girls deal with that.

Loading data…