Here's a graphical explanation why circumcised sex harms women: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
Printable View
Here's a graphical explanation why circumcised sex harms women: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
:D
I also disagree in practise...butt...(and I'm quotin' a smart-arse) unless we're prepared to do a 'proper' study...ie. Have sex with 100 of each our 'research' is not conclusive. :rolleyes:
My only close encounter with the uncircumcised kind was a partner I had when I was 13. In fact, growing up in America, I have only ever known three uncut guys. (@_@)
Yeah, he tasted and smelled mildly different, but nonetheless yummy. (^_^)
Unfortunately, he was very shy about letting me really see and explore it, so he would only let me be intimate with him in the dark and nearly always wanted to enter me from behind. So I've received most all of my /visual/ experience of the uncut penis through photography.
/Seeing/ the difference does not make me think, "eww" or "eh..". Rather, it makes me feel tingly and like a little girl, again- very curious and eager to explore.
I cannot fathom how anyone could find it ugly, undesirable, or unclean. The only experience I had with a unclean penis was with a diff partner I went down on after he had been skateboarding for a few hours.
Now /that/ was unpleasant and goes to the reasoning that cleanliness is a determining factor in penile hygiene, while the presence of a foreskin is not.
Don't get me wrong... I love the circumcised penis, as well, and would never reject a guy based on the fact that he had been cut. There is no reason for circumcised males to be embarrassed or feel sexually inadequate, cause I can assure you that is not the case, yet I can understand if there is a small /personal/ feeling of loss.
Bottomline... I really do feel deeply that circumcision (outside of medical necessity) is just sick and wrong.
I think the term "foreskin" is extremely misleading, and serves to perpetuate a lack of understanding. I think many people view it simply as extra skin that can be sloughed off without consequence.
For the females who are having trouble identifying with or understanding what is lost to circumcision, try for a moment to imagine living without your labia and clitoral hood. (I realize that the clitoral hood, alone, is homologous to the foreskin, but since (a) we have the extra cover/protection and mucocutaneous flesh of the labia, and (b) there are similarities between nerve receptors in the labia and foreskin,... I think the effect of circumcision can be better understood by removal of both.)
So gone is your labia and those receptors to touch and heat they contain. If you have ever played with the stimulation of warmth and cold to your inner and outer labia or even just had the wet warmth of a mouth/tongue there, then you know how far these sensors and consequent sensations can take you. Circumcision does not remove all of these receptors, but I think the loss of any at all sis reason to mourn.
The deliciously sensitive tip (glans) of the penis is not as responsive as your clitoris (since we have more nerve endings there and many many more per area, as they are located very close together in what is a much smaller package , but it /is/ the second most sensitive part of human (both male and female) anatomy, and is therefore comparable. Your clitoris would not have the soft, fleshy protection of the lips & the clitoral hood to keep it moist & fully encased, away from friction and other irritants. It would be rubbed against by the material of your panties, pants, chairs, benches, bike seats, etc., resulting in discomfort, pain, and eventual desensitization.
The lack of moisture, protecting from the harsh exposure to air would result in a hardening of the flesh, called keritazation (keritan being what "water-proofs" and, essentially toughens the outer layer of skin, absent on eyes, clits, glans...) . It is the same thing that would happen to eyeballs, if you were to remove the lid and the same thing that happens to the head of circumcized penises (to varying degrees)... resulting in further desensitization.
None of this is to say that the circumcised male does not benefit from the pleasures of sexual stimuli. Of course, we all know that he does. I am just saying that there is medical evidence (in addition to common sense) that suggests that the physical sensation in response to sexual stimuli is lessened, to an unknown extent. Why, then, would anyone want to, voluntarily, do this to another human being (let alone their own child), once they are presented with the facts?
Would you want your labia taken, with or without your consent, because it was determined that without the damp, warm environment it presents, there is less likelihood for the harboring of bacteria, yeast, sexually-transmitted infection,etc. and it would be easier to clean?
No, thanks.
And could you ever justify slicing off your daughter's labia or clitoral hood for these reasons?
Just a point, I never said that circumcision is a justifiable act or better for men.
It is obvious that cutting a part of your body at random is not very natural. There are, however, cases where it is necessary and as long as the individual is a consenting male, I see no reason to think of it as sick (a different case is when it is done to male babies just because their parents think it looks better/it's healthier)...
saying that, in my limited experience, hygiene does seem to be better (which again, is not to say that it is justifiable or a good thing to do)
I can tell you that as an uncircumcised adult male, I would never do it now. While living in America, I heard of men that had undergone surgery, but their reasoning seemed all wrong as it was due to a perceived (social pressure) notion that uncircumcised men were not as attractive or clean ... I would be careful not to perpetuate such stereotypes, but I could be all wrong ... Perhaps the anglo-saxon ideal includes a man that has a dick without a foreskin :confused:
I know a couple of circumcised adult males that are quite happy with their choice and I don't think that in the UK (or Spain) there is ANY kind of social pressure (unless you are from certain religious background). Also, I don't think that aesthetically one choice is better than the other, I was just making a point on why some people prefer circumcised to not.
You obviously like cut dicks Manzana, I get your point (uncut dicks are not as clean), but you make it sound like this is no big deal (as the couple of adult males 'happy' with their guilt-free choice would testify for you) ...
This is off-topic, but the other thing I noticed in the UK is that people hide their true beliefs behind a mask of politeness, I was going to start a different thread on this topic ...
A mans right to choose but why not leave it as you find it if it functions ok that way. ;) Quite frankly, I think they're lovely whatever. That Frank enough for you Toro Rosso. And I'm English!! :-O
I meant no offense, I really like the English, you just have a hard time getting things off your chest sometimes :) ...
Anyways, I really think there is no way a healthy non-denominational adult male would undergo circumcision surgery, and risk all the complications that come with it, if it weren't for social pressure. I would like to hear an opinion to the contrary.
Why are people discussing which is better for sex??? As an expert on the female species, I know what is really important to women. Big and hard. That's all. Nothing more.
Hard, yes. Big, no.
I can't really tell if you're joking, John. If you're not, you should look at the ton of info out there about women's perception of the male penis, and they all conclude the same thing: we don't care about size. This is from an article I read earlier:
"Any woman reading this article may find it puzzling that so many men are concerned about the length of their penis"
"No matter how often it's written that penile size doesn't matter, and that women aren't attracted to a man because of the length of his organ, the average male continues to think the same way."
First, I might slightly prefer cut but it is not something I feel that strongly about (i.e. I do not think it is a big deal as long as there is consent) For the time being I am enjoying "cut" and I was quite surprised to see that much opposition in this thread.
Second, I have no problem talking openly about my true believes. I am quite straight forward and open and if you are suggesting that this is a "british thing", you'll be glad to know that I am 100% spanish and have only lived in the UK for a few years so your theory does not apply.
I think it depends on the environment. I'm very honest with my freinds but might be more mindful with work colleague or those I didn't know well. I see no reason for politeness on this board though and if I bother to say something on a topic it is honest.
Wash, don't amputate.
As for the higher HIV susceptibility, it shouldn't make a difference should it because we're using condoms if we're unsure. Right? Right?
P.S Another plus:
My nob is way more sensitive than a circumcised guy's apparently. TMI, I know.
if you are an older fella then it is an advantage for you but without a 100% stiffy then the additional tissue flapping about puts the lady at a distinct disadvantage.
if you are a young stud then a degree less sensitivity could help the fun last more than 30 seconds....
I don't think sensitivity has much to do with how long guys last, it's a lot more to do with their state of mind. My last bf was circumcised, but so underconfident that he lasted about 30 seconds (TMI, I know). My current bf is uncircumcised and he can literally go for hours without stopping (way too much info LOL :) )
If I ever have a male child, I will let him stay intact unless he has a serious medical problem that requires it. I really don't think it would be my place to make that kind of decision about my child's body.
Since this is somewhat related, I felt I'd make a quick(ish) response: I 100% agree with this. Although I personally love piercings, I was pierced at two months old and I believe it was unfair of my parents to do that to me. My two younger sisters did not have their ears pierced and I'm glad of it because they dislike piercings of all types and, after years of having your ears pierced, they're kind of impossible to close up. Just as with circumcision, they can't exactly tape foreskin back on if they decide as adults that they like the look of uncut penises more.
Actually there is a form of reversal; google the word "epispasm".
I don't think it matters a whole lot either way. Some people think circumcision is a good way to preventing bacteria, but I think if you have good hygeine this shouldn't be a problem at all.
Aside from Jewish people, I really don't understand why people would feel the need to circumcise their children at all. Maybe there's some good reasons I don't know about. I haven't read through this thread yet so maybe there's some ideas in there.
Well, I posted about circumcision on the masturbation thread, and I stuck to my guns because I felt it was a masturbation issue that my ex had been circumcised as an infant and thus had a hard time coming. In fact, all the scar tissue (which occasionally becomes inflamed) that the circumcision left desensitizes the head, and because the glans is exposed, it rubs against his pants. How natural is this?
I'm past the age at which I'll ever have to make a decision of whether to circumcise a male child or not, but my vote was definitely no.
Oh no, I guess I’m not really a “vegan” then! :D ;)
Seriously though, I think a lot of cultures teach both girls and boys to think of female genitalia in a poor light, taboo, and something to be ashamed of. That’s sad. Media here in the US couldn’t even use the word “vagina” when Eve Ensler’s play “The Vagina Monologues” first came out a few years ago [they do now though, I think].
One of the most important books in women’s health, “Our Bodies, Ourselves”, first published in the 1970’s but now updated and on-line, tries to reverse the taboo and encourages women to explore, accept diversity, and properly identify parts of their own genitalia using a hand mirror. (click on “Sexual Anatomy: The Self-Guided Tour” in Chapter 13 here)
People, of both sexes, shouldn’t think of their own or anyone else’s genitalia as “yucky”.
'Beef curtains' 'hairy axe wound' 'meat taco'...there are loads of disgustingly offensive colloquialisms for the female genitalia. Very few derogatory ones for men of course.
Any man who ever uses such language in front of me gets a thorough grilling as to why they think it is acceptable to use such terms. That, or a punch in the mouth. I hardly ever do though, I think misogynists can spot a woman they shouldn't mess with a mile off because they're cowards. Such grossly offensive terms stem from feelings of fear and disgust about women and their genitals, and the men who use them are more like slugs (no offence to slugs) than people.
Don't stand for it, there's no such thing as 'only language' - language serves a purpose and if it feels hurtful it was meant to be.
I agree 100% about language we use (keep nasty opinions to yourself) but when I hear the 'C' word (women as often as men) I good-naturedly query how it came to be that the ugliest insult imaginable is a birth canal?
and you are right, Frank L, wearing pants is not natural ;)
My friend studied feminism as part of her politics course at uni and she said the tutor used the word c**t all through one of the lectures and loads of people got really flustered.
I say c**t if I'm particularly angry, occasionally people get offended, but people say pr*ck or d*ckhead all the time - I hate it when people say things like 'c u next tuesday' as a euphemism.
I had never thought about male circumcision as its not that common in UK I don't think. I was always against female circumcision for obvious reasons but I had never thought about male. I think it is mutilation, I can imagine some circumcised men must feel quite angry about it.
I just found out that by a mistake, members belonging to the 'Not A Vegan Yet'-category could in some cases vote in polls (in this subforum), which explains why as many as 6 "vegans" voted 'Yes' to circumcision of male babies/children. I double checked this by clicking on the 'Who voted'-button in the admin panel. According to this article (contains image of boy being circumcised), the Norwegian Dept. of Health has received suggestions from midwives who want to make circumcision of boys illegal, and they are still 'working on it'.
http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimed...SI_586163s.jpg
Its mean mean mean to circumcise a baby. It traumatises them. :(
Um thats my totally unemotional, rational response. :rolleyes:
NO! Circumcision was started in tha Jewish tradition to prevent masturbation of boys. There's alot of evidence to support it. It only improves "hygene" because it revomes a nook, but so would cutting off your ear. It's entirely possible to wash your penis all over, people. And it DOES increase sensitivity which DOES shorten stamina. http://www.circumcision.org/ Lots of info.
yes to circumcision.