Circumsized or uncircumsized?

I'm uncut and happy that way.

 

You'll never be president.

 

I'm circumcised, and I'm perfectly happy with it.

 

uncircum, ill get whenever i feel like it or wena girl wants me too.

no one says anything and ya...

 

>> Uncut and happy <<

That makes no sense. Most of the US presidents have been intact, including Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy (cut at age 21 after an accident), Reagan, and maybe even our current one.

 

Maybe he'd prefer to be Prime Minister?

 

if you don't get how a circumcised guy can masturbate without lube then you must somehow not understand basic male anatomy or that there are all sorts of ways to masturbate.

and yes, if the head is constantly exposed it does become desensitized. there are very simple ways for any cut guy to substantiate this for himself. one way is to cover the penis from where the foreskin would've attached (the ring) and up and over the head with something like small piece of plastic wrap, leaving it off for showers and bed; it won't be even two weeks before one will experience far more sensitivity in these areas. guys don't get that if you're cut then your penis is at least in a mildly calloused state all the time, from where it would be under normal circumstances.

 

That's what the uncut media WANTS you to believe. Don't buy everything you hear, turtleneck.

 

Agreed. It was only when I Saran Wrapped my dick for two weeks that I realized just how much I'd been missing all these years. I'm now on the waiting list for a foreskin donor.

 

Infant circumcision is basically a hideous form of child molestation which is carried out by circumcised doctors and mohels. Like most other forms of child molestation, infant circumcision has its roots in criminal sexual pathology. I doubt that education alone can ever put an end to the practice of infant and childhood circumcision, given how this "surgery" rests on a virulent criminal pathology in the brains of doctors and mohels. Maybe there IS a chance that the practice CAN be stopped, but this can only happen if men allow their love of money to over-rule their desire to see themselves as being "normal." Men who are greedy for $$$$ can always sue the cocksuckers for mucho dinero, and then not only would there be an enormous net reduction in the incidence of infant and childhood circumcision, but there would also be a concurrent NET INCREASE in the number of doctors and mohels who are standing alongside the entrances of interstate highways, holding signs in their hands and looking for handouts from passing motorists.

 

I would also hasten to add that the overall percentage of circumcised men is bound to dwindle as women become "hip" to the fact that it TRULY SUCKS when they engage in sexual intercourse with a circumcised penis. Natural selection is bound to kick in sooner or later, and when it does, I predict that natural selection is going to "select" against the circumcised penis. It would also help to aid the process along by imposing appropriate legal sanctions against doctors and mohels who are found guilty of performing infant and childhood circumcision.

 

Jesus will someone give this guy back his foreskin so he doesn't spend the next 50 years thinking he's mutilated too

Have you ever thought to yourself considering the fact most, and by most I mean the vast majority of circumcised men are perfectly happy the way their dicks are and the fact most people from either side don't see it as a form of mutilation, that perhaps you have much deeper issues at hand that need investigating and you just prefer to use your childhood circumcision as a excuse?

 

hey we'll just take your word for it next time

 

because that's all they will ever know, if you never have something it's hard to be unhappy when it's gone

it is mutilation, just because it's done so early that the men won't know what they are missing does not make it ok

 

I don't think that's true. I think if you asked them: "Would rather have the male equivalent to a pleasure-receptive clitoris back?" most would say that if it was possible they'd sign-up.

Be careful when you say most. 95% of the non-Muslim world does not circumcise.

 

no, mutilation is not circumcision, because the penis still works fine afterwards. You can argue the fact that it is and cut people just don't know, but the fact is all studies done into people who were circumcised at a later age after having sexual contact in both forms have generally stated they felt no less satisfaction in sex after being circumcised.

Unless you know we want to believe the former point that was brought up in the fact men always lie about sex, so yea cut guys don't feel shit after being cut, but all men like so uncut guys don't feel shit either, so woooooo, no man feels anything from sex, hence why we're all a bunch of arrogant assholes.

 

Actually most of the muslim world does circumcise


Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one-sixth[51] to a third.[52] The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim.[8] Circumcision is most prevalent in the Muslim world, parts of South East Asia, Africa, the United States, The Philippines, Israel, and South Korea. It is relatively rare in Europe, Latin America, parts of Southern Africa, and most of Asia and Oceania. Prevalence is near-universal in the Middle East and Central Asia.[8] The WHO states that "there is generally little non-religious circumcision in Asia, with the exceptions of the Republic of Korea and the Philippines



Epic fail

 

Madcap-
"no, mutilation is not circumcision, because the penis still works fine afterwards. You can argue the fact that it is and cut people just don't know, but the fact is all studies done into people who were circumcised at a later age after having sexual contact in both forms have generally stated they felt no less satisfaction in sex after being circumcised.

UROLOGY, Volume 64, Number 6: Page 1267,
December 2004.
Senkul et al. failed to ask the crucial question, “Is sexual pleasure increased or decreased by circumcision?” Another study, carried out in a different culture (America) answers that question. Denniston carried out a survey of 38 adult males who were circumcised at least 2 years after they commenced sexual intercourse. Thirteen men felt that sexual intercourse was better after circumcision, but 22 felt that intercourse was worse and would not have the circumcision again, because of loss of sexual pleasure."


# Denniston GC: Circumcision and sexual pleasure, in Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF (Eds): Flesh and Blood: Perspectives on the Problem of Circumcision in Contemporary Society. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004, pp 45–53.

 

See, you only use one study though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings

all the studies taken as a whole show no correlated difference in either direction

In fact the only concrete evidence either way is on one side uncut guys tend to get more out of masturbation, but cut guys are less likely to premature ejaculate and last longer in bed, and that's about it

 

Thanks, guy. You're the first one to ever say that intercourse with me TRULY SUCKS. I didn't think it was that bad.