Circumsized or uncircumsized?

Funny story.

I'm adopted, and was in the foster care system for six years. During those six years when I was an infant 4 different doctors were supposed to circumcise me, but bizzarre events always got them canceled. So as of now I'm uncut, and the four girls I've slept with never complained. Just gotta wash it every day, and it kinda feels good so no complaints here from your Italian.

 

I'm uncut and I hope to keep it that way

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that your circumcised son has healthy genitals. Healthy by what standard ? In the 19th and 20th centuries, many people used to believe that circumcision was healthy as a "cure" for the plague of masturbation. The "reasons" have changed since then, but the new reasons are no less insane than the old reasons.

It's only natural that the practice would be declared "healthy" by the medical industry, since the industry would be leaving itself open to litigation if it ever conceded otherwise.

There's something like a 99.9999999 percent chance that your ex boyfriend didn't need to be circumcised. Medical doctors actually foster the practice by giving bad advice to their patients, and then when the patient/victim heeds the doctor's bad advice, the episode culminates in the "need" for a partial penis amputation. It is sooooooo freaking insane ....

 

im cut too, it looks better man..

 

its just a stupid debate, it doesn't matter.

and sores on the penis? thats damnation from God for touching little boys lol

 

I'd like to know what makes you think that you have any rights at all if you don't even have a right to keep all of your own body parts ? If somebody can amputate a large portion of your sexual organ without even consulting with YOU about the matter and without even having to worry about facing any legal consequences for the commission of criminal assault and battery against a minor child, then it speaks volumes about you and your standing in society: you are walking around bearing the mark of abject slavery, and your amputation scar (along with your desensitized penis) only serves to identify you as a slave. Society can send you packing off to war, too, because you are a laughing stock ... you are little more than a caricature of a free man, and the only right that you really have is the right to follow orders (and btw, the judge is going to laugh you right out of the courtroom when he grants custody to your ex-wife). As a class, men are slaves, and we are going to remain that way until it becomes generally acknowledged that we have a right to determine whether or not we'd like to keep all of our own body parts. If you don't even care about your own state of abject slavery, then why should society care when it sends you off to the meat-grinder or when it steps on you in every way imaginable ?

 

You can "click" on the following internet link (see below) but only on the expressed condition that you want to see the picture of an amputated sexual part that was taken from the body of a living and struggling human infant.

I am posting this information strictly for educational purposes only.

Please do not "click" on the following internet link unless you want to see the picture of an amputated sexual part.

http://twitpic.com/1ud1i

 

See, the problem is no circumcised person thinks like that, they think they're fine, and the few that do are just fuckin loud and vocal and a minuscule percent. The question for you is if you're uncut why are you militant about it or if you're cut again why are you so militant about it, most cut guys are pretty happy with it

 

Different things for different people.



I guess they just dont know what they're missing.

 

Let's say just for the sake of argument that a "scientific survey" was taken, and that 100 percent of the respondents to the survey professed their
"happiness" that a stranger took a knife and hacked off even the smallest part of their sexual organs (circumcision as we know it actually removes a very BIG part of the penis, but let's ignore the facts of the matter for a moment). I contend that such a survey would be totally irrelevant and that it would have absolutely no bearing on the right of a child NOT to be subjected to a non-consentual bodily amputation.

You see, it doesn't really matter if men claim to be happy about it. Men are known for being dishonest most of the time anyway when it comes to sexual matters, so the issue of men's alleged happiness with circumcision is basically a "red herring" issue. The only issues that really matter are 1) the alleged medical indications for the procedure, and 2) the rights of non-consenting subjects if the procedure turns out to have no valid medical indications.

 

Again, you're just insane about this issue, circumcision is not considered mutilation in the medical community specifically for the fact there's no evidence it hinders or reduces sexual pleasure in any way.

But you know studies that have shown that even men who've experienced sex in both ways that there's no real difference between sexual satisfaction don't matter because men always lie about sexual things

 

Im uncircumcised and it makes sex more pleasurable. the glans that make it feel good are protected by the foreskin so they are more sensitive when you have sex. (or masturbate) so yea. im happy with mine.

 

I guess that depends on which "medical community" you're referring to. If you're talking about the Scandinavian medical community, the procedure is definitely considered mutilation by the medical community over there. I would imagine that if you spoke to a Jewish doctor about the subject, no doubt he would give you a different opinion, but that's to be expected because he's defending his religion.

The evidence is overwhelming that circumcision has a detrimental effect on sexual pleasure. It destroys the most pleasure intensive part of the penis.

Studies were conducted in the hope of keeping the practice alive, and were carried out by parties with a vested financial interest in the matter. The studies were formulated for two principle reasons: 1) they are trying to protect themselves against being sued, and 2) they are trying to stroke the egos of men who were already mutilated.

 

im circumsized...of course i can't imagine being any other way...

but, honestly, i dont think i would like the look of my penis if it were uncircumsized...just seems like it takes a lot of hassle away when they cut taht extra bit off...but then again, i really dont know...

i dunno...i like that im circumsized, and i'll prolly have it done to any sons i have in the future...

my mother used to work at a doctors office, she said she would NEVER participate in another circumcision again, because it was done in such a barbaric fashion...but, shit, it was done to me, and i have no recollection...so meh...anyways she still had it done to me, even though at that time i think docs still advised that it was better for medical reasons...

 

Sorry, try again, it's considered medically unnecessary over there, it's not considered mutilation by the general medical public and will still be performed if asked.

See, you keep saying this, but where's your proof when actual studies show have shown no real difference except uncut guys get more pleasure out of masturbation and cut guys can last longer in bed. But then again if we can last longer, maybe our initial pleasure isn't as a great, but our lady is more likely to cum and enjoy it more, and since we can hold off longer our orgasm is bound to be more powerful, maybe you wish you had been cut

Believe in the NWO too?

 

I have quite a lot of information which proves that partial penis amputation a.k.a. "circumcision" is detrimental to sexuality, but I cannot post this information right at the moment because I have too much going on right now.

Penis mutilation is harmful because it destroys lots of nerves and nerve endings, but the worst thing about circumcision is that it turns the victims into a bunch of auto-bot zombies who are willing to mutilate their own children's sexual organs.

 

<< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1572483.stm "They say they will not be able to find nurses or doctors to help them perform the
ceremony because many health professionals in Sweden view circumcision as a form of mutilation." "Sweden restricts circumcisions" (BBC) >>

The BBC article (above) illustrates that the practice is considered to be "a form of mutilation" by the Swedish medical community, and yet imo it doesn't really matter what the medical community thinks about it.

Circumcision must be "a form of mutilation" for the simple reason that it mutilates the penis. It must be "a form of mutilation" because of what it does to the human body and not on account of what it's considered to be according to the sacred authority figures of modern medicine.

You're telling me that doctors can be found who are willing to perform circumcision even in Scandinavian countries, but what does that prove ? It only proves that unethical doctors can be found in just about every nook and cranny of the globe, and that includes even Scandinavia.

 

Looking at it from a woman's perspective, the circumcised penis "feels like you're being poked with a broomstick" http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/ .

 

As a girl, I prefer it uncut. There seems something unnaturally cruel about cutting off a piece of a baby's body and there's no real purpose for it, outside of Jewish faith. And from what I hear, having been with both, it's more sensitive for the guy when it's uncut.

 

Like that site isn't biased at all