Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/13/12 05:24 AM, JBK wrote: Thats just terible to call it mutilation.

it's perfectly correct, because it's true

Circumcised penises look much better than uncircumcized.

maybe in whatever backwards place you come from, in the civilized world we consider penises with all their functioning parts still attached to look better

At 9/13/12 11:14 AM, JaY11 wrote:

Circumcised penises look much better than uncircumcized.

maybe in whatever backwards place you come from, in the civilized world we consider penises with all their functioning parts still attached to look better

I didn't know you were gay.

At 9/13/12 11:34 AM, JBK wrote:

I didn't know you were gay.

cool

At 9/13/12 11:13 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: This goes the same for people regardless of if they had a circumcision or not, should always wash it anyway for your partner and use protection unless you are both clean / on the pill etc. It is just a bit more of a pain to clean beneath the foreskin than people who are circumcised for obvious reasons.

How would you know? You allegedly were unable to retract your foreskin when you had it (which, by the way, is completely natural in any pre-pubescent boy. Retraction should not be possible until at the earliest age 6 and at the latest age 18. If it's 'difficult', that can be remedied by stretching).

Oh yea, and that's bullshit. Did you know that women produce smegma naturally, just the same as dudes? It's a combination of skin cells and whatnot. Further, it is not 'more of a pain' to clean 'beneath' the foreskin, as when you have retracted the foreskin there is no 'beneath'.

And finally, http://io9.com/5942916/sexually-aroused-women-find-everythin g-less-disgusting . It doesn't even really matter that much if you're having sex with a woman, anyway. As long as your penis isn't absolutely vile, and if it were, the warning signs would be there long before you were naked enough for her to notice (aka: the rest of you would be absolutely vile as well, not to mention smelly).

People really seem to treat it like it makes a huge difference, sure it slightly lowers your pleasure without the added foreskin retracting over your head but many people find they prefer it anyway, makes masturbation worse as sort of a fact but sex with someone is still grand, some people however find they prefer sucking a guy off who is circumcised or vise versa as personal taste, and frankly when it comes to personal taste and not a needed operation it really does just depend on if you want it or not.

"Many people find they prefer it anyway." AKA: once the decision has been made it is irreversible so what alternative do you have? Nobody PREFERS mutilation, they just live with it and justify why they shouldn't feel bad that they've been irrevocably mutilated. Instead of learning about how unnecessary it was, they pass on the misinformation in the form of mutilating their children. Yes, you will still enjoy sex, however you will enjoy it with diminished sensation and the woman will enjoy it less with higher incidences of too much dryness. The circumcised will also face higher incidences of erectile dysfunction, and other negative effects.

It's funny how so many people seem to see male circumcision as some sort of destruction of their manhood etc. sure if I was uncircumcised and didn't have phismosis then I would likely not want to have the operation, but that would more than likely be due to the fact I just really don't want to have to deal with the pain for a few weeks. As adult circumcision did prove to be quite painful to go through for me, the worst part being when I got errect since the bandages really didn't give way for the expanding area.

Your phismosis was likely a consequence of misinformed doctors. I bet you were diagnosed with phismosis between the ages of 12-16, no? It's likely that as a result of forcible retraction at an earlier age your phismosis was actually the result of scarring caused by some idiot pediatric doctor or nurse. Furthermore... it's not even necessary that your foreskin fully retract. Think about it... how are you going to get disgusting stuff between the glans and your foreskin if you can't even pull it back enough to expose the glans?

In the absolute WORST CASE scenario, phismosis can be solved with a small incision on the foreskin to facilitate pulling it back with ease. It is not necessary to remove it entirely.

To those who are circumsized: read and learn, don't just accept what has happened to you and pass it on to your sons. It is a barbaric practice that should be ended.

At 9/13/12 07:19 AM, Retrospeck wrote:

At 9/13/12 02:58 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUTCHER MY CHILD'S COCK BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO

way to be disrespectful of other peoples belief cunt

Yes, that's what I was going for.

It really trouble me that people still circumcise young men.
Here's a little known secondary function of the foreskin to consider, but first I have to teach you a term.
Smegma. Smegma, for lack of a better term boys, and dudes, is sometimes referred to as 'head cheese'. Its the white stuff on the head of your cock. Health professionals once thought it came from sebaceous glands, the things that make your pimples, and bacne, but it is really part of a healthy penis.

It collects between your foreskin and penis head, and provides a little lubricant to promote, among other things, a healthy bit of moisture and anti-head-chaffing properties.

If you don't have a foreskin, your smegma won't collect where it should. It might not even be produced effectively. I don't know where it goes in circumcised dudes, but I'd rather have it collect somewhere I can regularly clean, and not get it smeared on my clothes while I walk around.

At 9/13/12 02:31 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: I was 19 I believe when I had the operation

Ah. It was still overkill.

Retracting it to clean is more effort than simply cleaning, like I said it is more of a pain to clean, I didn't say it was difficult to clean or it hurt to clean, pay more attention next time.

Ha ha ha, you're grasping at straws here if you think there's any extra expenditure of effort in retraction. You said "a pain," which can LITERALLY be taken as 'painful'. It's not on me to pay more attention with that one, it's on you to choose phrasing that more closely reflects what you apparently mean.

Again it seems as if you are taking everything out of context. I know of no people that would stop sexual relations due to things like whether they have foreskin or not, if anyone did they would be a shallow cunt. That doesn't change the fact women tend to prefer the penis either way, if it has been circumcised or not. I'm not claiming "Oh no you have the snip I won't have sex with you" I'm claiming it's simply a thing they enjoy, I have talked about it to several people and it is a well known fact regardless that some simply prefer circumcision or not.

I was putting things INTO context, actually. The point was to make you step back and apply what you're saying to an actual situation. I like that you agree that it's ridiculous that a woman is going to be disinterested at the revelation that a dude is circumcised or intact. However, those 'preferences' are overwhelmingly for intact penises. The foreskin provides vital functions in keeping vaginal secretions within the vagina, reducing overall friction, and otherwise facilitating the woman's enjoyment. Studies have shown (you may look them up [http://www.circumcision.org/harmswomen.htm] cites one such study) that women overall enjoy sex with the uncircumcised male more. That doesn't mean circumcised men are 'broken' or 'useless' or 'incapable of intimacy' or anything, it's not an attack against a circumcised dude as a person. It just means that all things being equal, both parties would likely enjoy sexual intercourse more if they had not been mutilated as a baby.

It's obvious you see circumcision as some sort of stupidly cruel act like the other imbeciles considering you are using phrases like mutilation, so I really don't see any reason to continue this. If you want to rant against people go ahead, if you actually want to have a proper discussion then loose the obviously hateful views you want to spurt out and post with some decency.

I do see it as a cruelty, born of ignorance. I've not yet once resorted to name-calling, and here you are calling me and others who are against the barbaric practice 'imbeciles'. I call a spade a spade. What else would you call chopping off 12 square inches of the most sensitive skin on the human male's body? Would you voluntarily let someone lop off the tip of your pinky finger, stick a blunt instrument in the chopped off part, and separate the skin from your bone? Why not? It's just an extra, almost nobody needs all 10 of their fingers and you can get along just fine with 9. Do you see how ridiculous the argument is when applied elsewhere?

I'm not ranting against "people," with the exception of those that perpetuate the practice of circumcision. Even then, the rant is not about THEM, it's about circumcision itself and how obviously useless and furthermore: hurtful it is to society and its people.

Consider this: the 10 countries with the largest incidences of violence against women are those with the highest circumcision rates. Domestic violence is known to be associated with childhood trauma. Circumcision is traumatic. Connection? Unknown... correlation does not imply causation. But it's interesting to note and should give pause for thought.

Look, I'm sorry you're offended by my frank discussion of this subject. I don't have any problem with your choice, just take issue with what was probably poor advice from your physician, and I definitely take issue with the practice being performed on defenseless infants. There is no 'hate' here, and the only reason you're perceiving a personal attack is because you feel that being circumcised identifies you as a person. So if I'm railing against it, I must be against YOU or something. False.

Have you ever seen an uncut cock?

They look utterly revolting and disfigured.

At 9/13/12 03:57 PM, Tarah wrote: Have you ever seen an uncut cock?

They look utterly revolting and disfigured.

I feel the same way about vaginas of any description.

I agree unless you want it later on in life or need to get it done for health reasons. I believe that your parents shouldn't have that choice,at all.

At 9/13/12 03:57 PM, Tarah wrote: Have you ever seen an uncut cock?

They look utterly revolting and disfigured.

disfigure
verb
1. damage, scar, mutilate, maim, injure, wound, deform

So what you're saying, is that you're revolted by the natural body, without disfigurement. Circumcision is just another religious practice from thousands of years ago that people still feel compelled to practice for no reason other than tradition.

At 9/13/12 05:42 PM, Psycho666 wrote: disfigure
verb
1. damage, scar, mutilate, maim, injure, wound, deform

So what you're saying, is that you're revolted by the natural body, without disfigurement. Circumcision is just another religious practice from thousands of years ago that people still feel compelled to practice for no reason other than tradition.

How about you get a sex change, have a cunt, get fucked by specimen a. uncut and specimen b. cut then come back to me and try to whine about how circumcision is wrong.

At 9/13/12 03:57 PM, Tarah wrote: Have you ever seen an uncut cock?

They look utterly revolting and disfigured.

uncircumcised dicks are great

At 9/13/12 06:57 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: But Painbringer, I thought you would like pain?
Hi five anyone?

no

At 9/13/12 06:01 PM, Tarah wrote:

How about you get a sex change, have a cunt, get fucked by specimen a. uncut and specimen b. cut then come back to me and try to whine about how circumcision is wrong.

unfortunately what you prefer getting fucked by is completely irrelevant when discussing the pros and cons of circumcision

if you had grown up somewhere in which penises were left intact at birth, your opinion would most likely be different

circumcision made my dick crave pain

I think any surgical procedure that gives you the luxury of not having to shower for weeks at a time aint a bad thing. just sayin.

Does anyone else have deja vus from last weeks obligatory circumcision topic?

At 9/13/12 06:11 PM, Yert wrote:

At 9/13/12 03:57 PM, Tarah wrote: Have you ever seen an uncut cock?

They look utterly revolting and disfigured.

uncircumcised dicks are great

My only experience is with uncut penis and it was nice.

At 9/13/12 03:57 PM, Tarah wrote: Have you ever seen an uncut cock?

They look utterly revolting and disfigured.

They remind me of drowzee

Hitler just tried to save the children.

At 9/13/12 08:51 PM, kmau wrote: Does anyone else have deja vus from last weeks obligatory circumcision topic?

Seems like there is always at least one active one up.