TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- are you circumcised?
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

I think originally circumcision was used by the Jewish religion for cleanliness issues. If you haven't figured it out, the jews are obsessed with cleanliness (not a bad thing, most of the time). If you're circumcised, you probably don't have to deal with something called smegma, which is produced by the glans penis and builds up under the foreskin. If you're circumcised this waxy substance does not accumulate and you don't have to deal with cleaning it.

I think in nature, as said before, the foreskin is to protect both the head of the penis as well as the urethral opening. Since most of us wear something called clothing now a days, it's not really an issue. Besides, also as said before, since 99.9% of the penises seen in porn and the media are circumcised, and American girl would be a little shocked to see an uncircumcised penis, at least in the US.

I think the health and hygene issues outweigh any percieved loss in sensitivity. Since I have not had a foreskin since birth, and since I assure you I am still able to have an orgasm, I do not miss something I've never had. Besides, if you're practicing safe sex, you have to pull the foreskin back anyway, so it really wouldn't do you much good anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by Emil Yes I am. If you are not, you are most likely to develop phimosis, a condition which doesn't allow the foreskin to retract. Only solution? A circumcision.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I'm not entirely sure if you're being serious or not, so I'll just assume that you are. Suffice to say that you're actually dead wrong. Random fact: The US is (I believe) the only western nation that still has a high rate of routine circumcision, most other western countries have long since 'won the battle' against it.

quote:

Originally posted by starglider You are more likely to develop phimosis since circumcised individuals have no foreskin. Of course, that is a worthless statement. Regardless, circumsion is rarely performed as a means of alleviating the condition since there are less destructive methods available, e.g., steroid creams.

Where in the blue hell in my original post am I wrong? Maybe you guys have selective reading? Let me try again: IF YOU ARE NOT CIRCUMCISED YOU ARE MORE likely to DEVELOP PHIMOSIS.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think originally circumcision was used by the Jewish religion for cleanliness issues. If you haven't figured it out, the jews are obsessed with cleanliness (not a bad thing, most of the time). If you're circumcised, you probably don't have to deal with something called smegma, which is produced by the glans penis and builds up under the foreskin. If you're circumcised this waxy substance does not accumulate and you don't have to deal with cleaning it. I think in nature, as said before, the foreskin is to protect both the head of the penis as well as the urethral opening. Since most of us wear something called clothing now a days, it's not really an issue. Besides, also as said before, since 99.9% of the penises seen in porn and the media are circumcised, and American girl would be a little shocked to see an uncircumcised penis, at least in the US. I think the health and hygene issues outweigh any percieved loss in sensitivity. Since I have not had a foreskin since birth, and since I assure you I am still able to have an orgasm, I do not miss something I've never had. Besides, if you're practicing safe sex, you have to pull the foreskin back anyway, so it really wouldn't do you much good anyhow.

Egyptians first circumcised, and it's hypothesized that they weren't the ones who started it. It was probably more for the prevention of phimosis than for cleanliness.

Smegma is not a negative thing. Many many mammals have it, and it's quite natural.

Circumcision in the US is going down to rates of nearly a half, and it varies based on your location.

And don't stereotype the Jewish population, even if it's a positive one...pretty much everyone these days is obsessed by cleanliness, and it's reinforced in the media with x-million ads for antibacterial products.

don't take offense since there seems to be a lot of uncut kids here, but i think in most parts of america its considered kinda dirty to be uncircumsized...i don't really know any girls that have been with uncircumsized guys...and if i was a girl i sure as hell wouldn't want to give a bj to a guy who wasn't...

i like circumcized

the g-spot is bullshit

work the clit, boys

that is all

I'm saying the modern day circumcision in western countries was influenced by the jewish culture, and their reason for doing it was for cleanliness issues. This whole idea of it making masturbation less enjoyable is news to me. I can also tell you that the percentage of Americans being circumcised at birth is still around 70%. I still have found no arguements that make me wish I was uncircumcised. It's not like it was some traumatic event for me. And for another reason, as said before, it has shown that circumcision helps to prevent the spread of AIDS.

http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Netwo...ecurcumsion.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Bliss the g-spot is bullshit

some women don't have a g-spot or it may not be overly sensitive, but it does exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Bliss i like circumcized the g-spot is bullshit work the clit, boys that is all

You're obviously young and inexperienced.

But I'll defer to the other females here.

quote:

Originally posted by Emil Where in the blue hell in my original post am I wrong? Maybe you guys have selective reading? Let me try again: IF YOU ARE NOT CIRCUMCISED YOU ARE MORE likely to DEVELOP PHIMOSIS.

Where did I say you were wrong? You were right, of course. I simply said your condition was worthless, which it was. Since phimosis involves the foreskin and circumcized individuals have no foreskin then obviously they are less likely to develop the condition. That's like saying "men are more likely than women to develop prostate cancer".

hhmm, for some reason I don't think I am gonna bother reading through all these pages.

Mostly becasue I don't enjoy reading about everyones wang.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think originally circumcision was used by the Jewish religion for cleanliness issues. If you haven't figured it out, the jews are obsessed with cleanliness (not a bad thing, most of the time). If you're circumcised, you probably don't have to deal with something called smegma, which is produced by the glans penis and builds up under the foreskin. If you're circumcised this waxy substance does not accumulate and you don't have to deal with cleaning it. I think in nature, as said before, the foreskin is to protect both the head of the penis as well as the urethral opening. Since most of us wear something called clothing now a days, it's not really an issue. Besides, also as said before, since 99.9% of the penises seen in porn and the media are circumcised, and American girl would be a little shocked to see an uncircumcised penis, at least in the US. I think the health and hygene issues outweigh any percieved loss in sensitivity. Since I have not had a foreskin since birth, and since I assure you I am still able to have an orgasm, I do not miss something I've never had. Besides, if you're practicing safe sex, you have to pull the foreskin back anyway, so it really wouldn't do you much good anyhow.

yeah... and now we have showers. Use one.

Is it really so hard to clean your dick? geez...

wanna know if while maybe, gettin a blow job, girls might like a circumcised wang better.

quote:

Originally posted by whiskers some women don't have a g-spot or it may not be overly sensitive, but it does exist.

there is no spoon... err i mean g-spot
and congrats guys, this thread i thought for sure was going to be hijacked and it hasnt A+!

quote:

Originally posted by starglider Where did I say you were wrong? You were right, of course. I simply said your condition was worthless, which it was. Since phimosis involves the foreskin and circumcized individuals have no foreskin then obviously they are less likely to develop the condition. That's like saying "men are more likely than women to develop prostate cancer".

quote:

Originally posted by Emil Where in the blue hell in my original post am I wrong? Maybe you guys have selective reading? Let me try again: IF YOU ARE NOT CIRCUMCISED YOU ARE MORE likely to DEVELOP PHIMOSIS.

Oh my god. Are you paying attention to what I am saying? I AM SAYING IF YOU ARE NOT CIRCUMCIZED YOU HAVE A LIKELY CHANCE OF DEVELOPING PHIMOSIS. I don't get why you keep on arguing my point back to me?

quote:

Originally posted by Emil Oh my god. Are you paying attention to what I am saying? I AM SAYING IF YOU ARE NOT CIRCUMCIZED YOU HAVE A LIKELY CHANCE OF DEVELOPING PHIMOSIS. I don't get why you keep on arguing my point back to me?

An unlikely chance of getting phimosis.

And aside from that, it's not always a negative thing.

Aside from that, if you do have phimosis and want to get circumcised for it, you can always do it later.

quote:

Originally posted by Lephaid An unlikely chance of getting phimosis. And aside from that, it's not always a negative thing. Aside from that, if you do have phimosis and want to get circumcised for it, you can always do it later.

So you are saying if you are NOT circumcized, your chances of developing phimosis is small?

The bottom line is that I've still to see anything that would convince me that being uncircumcised is a good thing. I can only find reasons why being uncircumcised is a bad thing. Again, the only thing I can think of is that it increases sensitivity, but since I was pratically born without a foreskin, it's something I'm not missing since I've never known life with it. And I'd love to see some evidence that circumcised men either enjoy sex or masturbation less. I just see no condition in which having a foreskin is a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Emil So you are saying if you are NOT circumcized, your chances of developing phimosis is small?

Yes, they're very low:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues...pi10278_fm.html

It's a highly overdiagnosed condition, and it isn't even diagnosed that often.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf as to southern girls... ...let em spend a night with me and then ask again.

ill make sure and do that. i dont think girls where im from have ever heard of it not being the way it is. plus ive never seen a porno where a guy hasnt.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Bliss i like circumcized the g-spot is bullshit work the clit, boys that is all

Okay, maybe you don't have a g-spot. Don't speak for all women though...

yup
since day one

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The bottom line is that I've still to see anything that would convince me that being uncircumcised is a good thing. I can only find reasons why being uncircumcised is a bad thing. Again, the only thing I can think of is that it increases sensitivity, but since I was pratically born without a foreskin, it's something I'm not missing since I've never known life with it. And I'd love to see some evidence that circumcised men either enjoy sex or masturbation less. I just see no condition in which having a foreskin is a good thing.

There is no reason to subject infants to a risky surgical procedure with no demonstrable benefits.

It has also been shown that it can produce significant psychological trauma in an unknown percentage of cases:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision...al_effects.html
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2002/6/prweb41148.php

It's also a myth that circumcision can help prevent sexually transmitted diseases:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

Male circumcision and female circumcision are equal practices in terms of medical and ethical validity. Both inflict needless harm to produce absolutely no benefit, and both should be prohibited by law without the expressed consent of the individual.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It has also been shown that it can produce significant psychological trauma in an unknown percentage of cases: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision...al_effects.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/2002/6/prweb41148.php

eh, wouldn't there be a lot more psychologically messed up people in the world if this was true. sounds more like someone trying to prove their theory correct and ignoring some type I error rates.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou If we honestly didnt need it, then we wouldnt have evolved to have them, now would we?

no.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller don't take offense since there seems to be a lot of uncut kids here, but i think in most parts of america its considered kinda dirty to be uncircumsized...i don't really know any girls that have been with uncircumsized guys...and if i was a girl i sure as hell wouldn't want to give a bj to a guy who wasn't...

do i sense some insecurity....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.