Easy question to understand. Do yall girls/gays/bi's like dicks with or without foreskin?
And to all the straight guys, are yall circumsized or not?
I still have my foreskin
Posted under General
The only two pro circumcision arguments I can think of are for hygenic reasons and for aesthetic reasons.
The hygenic argument never made sense to me. Imagine cutting a part of your body just because you are too lazy to clean it. All it takes is one minute while showering and you're sorted. I've also heard it's to prevent STD's, which if you have been paying attention, it hasn't been all that effective. If you find circumcised dicks more appealing, that's your perogative, but if you don't want to be hypocritical, you should be ok with people saying they find vaginas which have undergone female genital mutilation more appeling as well. Funnily enough, labiaplasty (getting rid of the inner labia) has become quite popular recently.
Circumcision is mainly due to religious reasons. The foreskin actually holds a lot of nerve endings, so they get rid of it to avoid temptation as they believe sex should be used primarly for procreation. Muslims and Jews are well known for it. In North America it's because pilgrim settlers were puritans who thought protestants didn't go far enough during the reformation. South Korea is one of the few exceptions. I believe it's due to American influence during the Korean War.
I don't know about the rest of the lads here, but when I'm erect, my foreskin slides under my glans, so it never really gets in the way. Also, you can't tamper with perfection. God gave me gave me a cock to be proud of. I haven't looked too far into it because I'm uncut, but you can actually regrow your foreskin with some devices.
I have an intact schlong yes, the Jews never got my foreskin.
It’s barbaric and they should be ashamed that they still do it, but they have no shame, they’re Jews(and some Muslims though I’m pretty sure it’s mostly a Jewish/American thing).
And also like what someone else here said, when I’m erect the foreskin does slide under the glans snugly, so there’s almost no distinction between either.
I’ve heard that much like female genital circumcision, it’s to stifle sexual pleasure so that it’s not as fun/easy or enjoyable to have sex, therefore you think about it less and do other stuff, which is probably true to the extent that it stifles pleasure, but I wouldn’t say it can ever stop the sexual libido. So If anything it just exacerbates the problem, but what can ya do, Jews 🤷
Colonizer_God said:
Lmao, no you can't. Mind you, I'm cut, but once it's gone it's gone. There's nothing TO grow back.
There's a Wikipedia article dedicated to foreskin restoration. I've heard about a device called the TLC Tugger which can stretch the remaining loose skin over time and create a new foreskin, or at least it is claimed. There's other devices which promise similar results. I'm not endorsing it since I have no direct knowledge, so whomever may be interested should do some research.
BoundAcolyte said:
With foreskin. Without it, it gets thinner, drier, and numb. Not to mention foreskin acts as natural lubrication.
Nothing against cut dicks since they can look good too (I’m Bi since you were asking). I’m intact myself so I don’t know what it’s like but I don’t envy you guys.
That's not true.
Source: doctors cut mine off because I live in the USA.
People do too much fear mongering about circumcision. It's easier and healthier to do when the baby is first born but there is also no consent from the child about it so I guess there is a discussion there about ethics and health. But adults make decisions for kids all the time. I think it should be between the doctor and their parent and the child (if they are able). I guess that's not too different than from when someone is on life support in a coma and the next of kin has to make the decision when or if to pull the plug. Next of kin / parent/ guardian makes the decision for the person who is unable to communicate. It's just the way the system works because I think people want to give the power to families in the USA under the advisement of experts. Making decisions for other families doesn't seem right to them if you don't know them. You can only project your personal attitudes onto them. Although there has been some laws passed where individuals are beginning to have power to exercise over others in some states. Like reporting doctors if a person thinks they performed abortions in Texas, reporting teachers if they think they are teaching lgbt or critical race theory in Florida. Individuals are starting to have some kind of executive powers to perform over others.
I don't know. It's a weird world. I don't think it's right for individuals to have more rights over the majority. That's the whole problem with the "land doesn't vote" thing but 75% of the districts are red. Nobody on either side likes the electoral system because of that, or on the other side they don't like the electoral because the person who got the most votes actually lost. The whole voting system in the USA is fucked up.
MexiSpicRP said:
That's not true.
Source: doctors cut mine off because I live in the USA.
So then you dont know what it's like to have it.
People do too much fear mongering about circumcision. It's easier and healthier to do when the baby is first born but there is also no consent from the child about it so I guess there is a discussion there about ethics and health. But adults make decisions for kids all the time. I think it should be between the doctor and their parent and the child (if they are able). I guess that's not too different than from when someone is on life support in a coma and the next of kin has to make the decision when or if to pull the plug. Next of kin / parent/ guardian makes the decision for the person who is unable to communicate. It's just the way the system works because I think people want to give the power to families in the USA under the advisement of experts. Making decisions for other families doesn't seem right to them if you don't know them. You can only project your personal attitudes onto them. Although there has been some laws passed where individuals are beginning to have power to exercise over others in some states. Like reporting doctors if a person thinks they performed abortions in Texas, reporting teachers if they think they are teaching lgbt or critical race theory in Florida. Individuals are starting to have some kind of executive powers to perform over others.
FGM is banned. it's discrimination if male circumcision isnt. The only reason it's not banned is because of jewish lobby groups. any time a country tries banning it they get a bunch of lobby groups going after them.
I don't know. It's a weird world. I don't think it's right for individuals to have more rights over the majority. That's the whole problem with the "land doesn't vote" thing but 75% of the districts are red. Nobody on either side likes the electoral system because of that, or on the other side they don't like the electoral because the person who got the most votes actually lost. The whole voting system in the USA is fucked up.
The electoral college has nothing to do with land voting. A massive state like alaska has less votes than tiny states. The point of the electoral college is to give every state a say. If anything it doesnt go far enough because of the compromise. It shouldve just been 2 votes per state, not 2 votes plus additional representatives based of population size.
fkiblaze said:
So then you dont know what it's like to have it.
True but I know what it's like to not have it and what people say about it and the reality is much far off from what people say. I never have never had complaints about size or being thing but I have had compliments about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Mr. Big PP coming to steal your women, I am just speaking from experience.
FGM is banned. it's discrimination if male circumcision isnt. The only reason it's not banned is because of jewish lobby groups. any time a country tries banning it they get a bunch of lobby groups going after them.
I couldn't care less about the victimization of it all. I already said what I had to say about it.
The electoral college has nothing to do with land voting. A massive state like alaska has less votes than tiny states. The point of the electoral college is to give every state a say. If anything it doesnt go far enough because of the compromise. It shouldve just been 2 votes per state, not 2 votes plus additional representatives based of population size.
Yes the "land voting" is the response often given to republicans who complain about election results when the district maps are all red. Yes they have less people because "land doesn't vote". I would go more into my response to you but this isn't the thread for that.
TallWhiteAndHung said:
The only two pro circumcision arguments I can think of are for hygenic reasons and for aesthetic reasons.
The hygenic argument never made sense to me. Imagine cutting a part of your body just because you are too lazy to clean it. All it takes is one minute while showering and you're sorted.
Make that 30 seconds or less
bigdicksquid said:
I feel like circumcision is a good way to mark inferior or weak guys, making sure they don't enjoy sex as much if they got a chance. Real superiors should have their cocks untouched, like they're supposed to be.
It's kinda hard to determine the strength of a man when they're about 1 day old.