Circumsized or uncircumsized?

.... but you still didn't answer the big important question:. Are you cut or uncut?

 

:toetap05:

 

I mean, he's either cut and really pissed off about it. Some sort of psychological trauma that scarred him about the issue. Or he's uncut and jealous. Wants everyone else's cock to look like his. Hm.

The dick of my dick envy is cut. How dare someone decide that my non existant cock be mutilated. Damn. Let me go rant about it.

 

Bingo

Freud would probably have some cool things to say on the subject

 

Freud would have a lot to say about me in general. I have been called an enigma by some psychologists. A borderline by others.

With this guy, Freud would probably say that his mother said nasty things about his penis or that he thought his mother was thinking horrible things about his penis, but he'd say it in a more sophisticated 1800's way.

I mean, I'm all for people being passionate about something, but there comes a point where you're pushing the issue beyond realism.

 

Right, Freud could have tons to say about me too, but like jesus I'm transgendered and don't even want my penis but I'm more comfortable with my dick then this guy is with his own

 

I'll take it off your hands. We'll both be happy :cheers2:

Honestly, with the way society is, I wonder what Freud would think now about a lot of the things we go through.

 

I'm down for some back alley surgery


Freud was onto something though, scientifically they've shown we do in fact go after people who are like our parents. But Freud was right for all the wrong reasons. It's like doing math and having all your formulas done wrong, yet still coming up with the right answer at the end in some weird way that made no sense.

 

His theories on the Oedipus and Ophelia complexes have influenced a lot of my writing heavily, because I agree. It's a matter of reading through the BS and chicken scratch to find the answer. That was sort of the direction I was headed this morning with my response about having circumcision done simply because the father is circumcised, but I wasn't able to word it cleverly enough when I just woke up.

 

And it makes sense in that case from both directions, the male child normally wants to be like his father, and the father as with most people are generally pretty fond of themselves and would want their kid to be just like them.

 

Right, but it's a far cry from what he's suggesting about circumcised men mutilating children simply because they're circumcised.

I'm adding you as a friend, if that's all right?

 

yay friends

I'm still waiting for the answer to the big question

 

Chances are, we probably won't get one or it'll be side stepped in leu of our Freudian discussion and the need to rip it apart.

 

"viv-i-sec-tion Show Spelled Pronunciation [viv-uh-sek-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. the action of cutting into or dissecting a living body."

 

Epic fail once again, cutting into a living body basically describes all surgical procedures

 

>> "viv-i-sec-tion Show Spelled Pronunciation [viv-uh-sek-shuhn] <<

Yeah, but only a third of infant circumcisions are done with effective anesthesia, and they are done routinely without first finding any pathology or defect, and without the endorsement of any national medical society on earth (not even Israel's), and they are done without consent just as if the victim was a lab animal, so the typical infant circumcision is really uniquely (within medicine) akin to the brutal practice of vivisection and all that the word connotes.

 

Hi,

No way! It's clothing the foreskin protects the glans from. Clothing and air dries and abrades the mucosal parts of the penis which are naturall and normal covered by the skin tube.

It's not consciously remembered, but early pain has a string imprinting effect on the limbic system. In the UK they did double-blinded analysis of children's reaction to innoculatioins. The circumcised kids were siginificantly more likely to have an exaggerated reaction to the impending pain of the needle. They were separately deemed more introverted in analysis of play patterns.

If some pain were important to my child's future health, I wouldn't let it stop me from protecting their health, but routine circumcision is not endorsed by any national medical association on earth.

Taking a valuable sexual pleasure-receptive body part forever damages someone's ability to sense pleasure stimuli, as surely as poking out an eye reduces his ability to see.

Different from whom? Most of the world is intact. Most of the cut men on earth were cut in adherence to Islam (even though neither male or female genital cutting is mentioned in the Qur'an).

The guys unhappily intact can have an operation that's as painless as vasectomy and be back to sexual activity in two weeks. They can choose exactly what style of cut they want, they can manage their own pain control, and they don't have to heal in a dirty diaper. Turns out only 2 out of every thousand intact men choose to do that.

Guys unhappy with being cut can tension their shaft skin for typically four years to get back a fraction of their lost function and sensation. They'll never get back the 20,000 lost specialized sensual nerve endings, but they can help the nerves they've got left work better. They can't undo pits and gouges to the glans, malopposition, hair growing half-way up the shaft, and other common disfigurement that never gets counted among circumcision complications. But about 200,000 men are non-surgically restoring their foreskins.

Cheers,
-Ron

 

Maybe all these people in reality are just jealous their penis is over sensitive so when their orgasm itself finally comes it's quicker and not as intense and a very dissatisfied woman is left laying there.

And no, it's not clothing, the foreskin was evolved in a time when homo sapiens were running around through bushes naked, unless your rubbing jeans up against your dick all day and night long there's really not that much harsh rubbing

 

Also, coming back to post after making 1 post near 2 years ago just to say all that goes back to this point:

 

- The procedure must be carried out for a legitimate therapeutic purpose in order for it to qualify as a valid surgical procedure.

- The repair of wounds (as in hernia repair) and the removal of foreign objects and diseased tissue (such as cancerous tumors and embedded bullets) are two examples of valid surgical procedures.

- Circumcision has no valid medical indications except in rare cases of BXO and preputial carcinoma which do not respond to lesser measures.

- Circumcision simply destroys a normal bodily structure for a host of contrived and spurious reasons.

- The procedure is carried out on a patient who is healthy, and in the total absence of tissue pathology.

- Circumcision cannot be justified on medical grounds as a surgical procedure, and that's why it falls under the heading of "mutilation."

- One might say that circumcision falls under the heading of cosmetic surgery, except that cosmetic surgery is always a personal decision which is actively sought by individuals.

- Cosmetic surgery is never applied to large populations of non-consenting subjects in willy nilly and across-the-board fashion, based solely on the expressed whims of third-parties.

- In order for a procedure to qualify as cosmetic surgery, the patient must give his full consent and agreement to the procedure, after being fully informed of the risks and potential benefits.

- Proxy consent on minors is valid, but can be undertaken only in cases where there's a demonstrable need for the surgery.

- You aren't asking the doctor to perform "surgery" on your son if you want the doctor to mutilate your son's penis so that he can look like you or because you want him to look like the other mutilated kids in the locker room.