A Real Beauty...It's A Shame He's Uncut

[Rick Munroe]

>I'm very suspicious of the "no-circ" types: they're on a

>real crusade, and the anger and reeking contempt they

>express towards their parents for having circumcised them as

>infants I think is just a mask for other deep-seated issues

>these men have with their families, or their internalized

>self-hatred.

 

Wow, that's quite a generalization. As for me, I'm on no "crusade." I didn't even know the term "no-circ" until yesterday, when I did a search on google for "circimcision" so I could post a reply to Les. A lot of the info I read made sense, and I still see no rational reason for circumcision in today's world. Why aren't you arguing for all girls to have their labia removed? It performs the same function as the male foreskin. Or is that not part of your Jewish faith that you blindly follow? (I'm Jewish, too, btw, before anyone calls me an anti-Semite). Also, I am very close to my parents, to the point that they are my friends...and I'm sure that the last thing anyone would associate with me (and my inflated ego) is "self-hatred." I have no anger towards my parents, any more than I could have for not being breast-fed (doctor's orders!). I just think it's unfortunate that they weren't given the chance to make an informed decision.

 

>They rant on about circumcision referring

>to it as "mutilation," but don't seem to have anything to

>say about guys who mutilate their precious intact foreskins

>by piercing them, or using PA's, or doing other non-natural

>things to their penises or foreskins.

 

That's pretty naive. Getting a PA is not mutilation. Is getting your ear pierced the same thing as cutting off your ear? Come on. And they are adults making their own decisions about their own bodies. Are you saying an infant has that same power of choice? How can you compare the two? Are you also saying that it's OK to fuck babies and children? Babies can't choose whether or not to get circumcised, and they can't choose whether or not to be raped. So...you must think pedophilia is just another "choice," huh?

[Guest curious2000]

I am not on a crusade and have never heard of the term "non-circ" in my life. What I have is simply an "opinion". Now, I could make a generalized blanket statement about you and go the other extreme and call you a "pro-circ" type on a crusade of supporting the continued practice of slicing off baby boy's forskins who have no control over this practice being done to them by an adult.

 

I am not speaking for all men, but I do find the continued practice of surgically removing the forskin of a penis more "scary and repulsive" than expressing an opinion about it.

 

Rick's analogy of piercing an ear but not chopping off the whole ear was brilliant. Actually, a better comparison might be that most people pierce their ears, but don't slice off their earlobes, since circumcision involves slicing off extra foreskin, and not the entire penis.

 

The point is, adults should have the right to make thier own decisions about their bodies.

 

Although I am not "suspicous" of other men who express repulsion of uncut cocks, I find it hypocritacal that they use words to describe this beautiful guy's penis as "ugly" "discusting" or "gross" and make light that he just needs a "little snip" as if you're just getting your hair cut. It's a much more painful,serious surgical procedure than that.

 

but hey, that's just my opinion. Cut or uncut, I think we can all agree we love cock ;-)

[Guest pshaw]

I have no real preference for cut or uncut - a good-looking guy is a good-looking guy. I'm one of those who received the routine lop as an infant and have never been bothered by it, just curious as to what it would feel like if I hadn't been cut. As there don't appear to be real medical reasons for circumcision these days, I asked some of my male coworkers if they had had their sons circumsized. Almost to a man, if the father was cut, the son was cut; if the father was uncircumcized, so was his son. It now seems to be more a matter of family tradition.

 

As I tend to prefer asian or latino guys, I frequently find myself having fun with those who are uncut. Some of the asian guys in particular expressed a wish that they had been cut as they found a circumsized cock more aesthetically pleasing for some reason. I guess it's a case of the grass is greener.

[Rick Munroe]

>they use words to describe this beautiful guy's penis as "ugly"

>"disgusting" or "gross" and make light that he just needs a

>"little snip" as if you're just getting your hair cut.

 

Yeah, that in itself was gross. That attitude is what got me all riled up here!

[trilingual]

Adults can do whatever they want to do to their bodies. Children don't get that choice. For example, they don't get a choice about whether they're going to get stuck with a needle to be immunized. Parents get to make those decisions for their children.

 

Male circumcision is not in any way, shape or form comparable to female "circumcision." Male circumcision is usually done either as a symbolic religious/cultural act or to relieve phimosis. Occasionally some men do it because they weren't circumcised as children and don't like the way they look, uncut. (I know at least one person who did it for this reason. Personally, I thought he looked just fine uncut; a very handsome man with a very handsome cock. But he looked good circumcised, too! Conversely, I have a friend in Germany who was circumcised as an adult for medical reasons but never felt comfortable about his appearance subsequently and has tried one of those stretching devices to restore the appearance of a foreskin. Last I heard, he seemed to be happy with it. But this was mainly an issue of how he looks in the locker room, and not a change in physical sensation.)

 

There is no good evidence showing that circumcision affects sexual pleasure or performance. Enough men are circumcised as adults that there would be a substantial body of evidence if that were the case. No such evidence exists, so that can't be a legitimate justification for the no-circ'ers crusade.

 

Female "circumcision" is mutilation, in the true sense of the word, because its intent is to prevent a woman from experiencing sexual pleasure and/or to control her chastity. (Female mutilation processes usually involve clitorectomy and sewing up the entrance to the vagina, not just removal of the labia.) I think that's objectively wrong, because it's not merely an aesthetic change, like male circumcision. Female "circumcision" is comparable to having a hand or leg cut off in terms of a woman's ability to function normally.

 

As for the proselytizing "no-circ" crowd, all one has to do is read their stuff to see the anger directed toward their parents, as well as their totalitarian "I know what's best for everyone" mentality. Some (maybe all) of that anger is misplaced, because it sounds like the real underlying issue is an inability to accept their bodies the way they are and laying blame for that elsewhere (as in "the reason I'm not getting laid is because everyone thinks my circumcised penis is ugly, so it's all my parents' fault I'm fucked up" when the real reason almost assuredly is something else, like people not wanting to go to bed with someone that angry or so screwed up about their self-image). Another underlying issue may be self-hatred about being gay or Jewish (or both, the real double-whammy!). There are way too many guys out there who have never really reconciled, integrated and accepted their conditions as gays and/or Jews. They hate being part of often-despised minorities when it's a condition they can't really change. So they blame it on someone or something else. These aren't the only reasons for the "no-circ" anger and blame-laying, but I'll bet it covers 80% - 90% of it. Some of the rest is just very thinly disguised anti-Semitism, of the type that also tries to ban kosher meat slaughtering, which objectively is as humane as any other kind of slaughtering methods.

 

Again, I find the no-circ'ers position inconsistent, since they claim to base their opposition to circumcision on its supposedly adverse effect on health and sexual functioning. These folks rail against infant circumcision, but they're against circumcision for adult men, too. If the foreskin is really that sensitive and essential, then it would stand to reason they also would oppose other actions that alter the foreskin's natural state and can expose it to infection or other damage, like piercing, tattooing and some of the other things guys do to their cocks. But there seems to be total silence on that front from the "no-circ" crowd. That leads me to believe there's really another agenda operating here, so I remain unconvinced by the no-circ'ers.

[phage]

>But I do think that all men should be given the opportunity

>to express what I believe is an important choice about what

>is done to their body. I wish I could have decided at the

>age of 15 or 18 or 21 if I wanted to be circumcised.

>Unfortunately it was done before I could exercise any say in

>the matter. And I deeply regret that.

 

This is exactly the crux of the matter and I agree with you 100%. Parents are making an irreversible decision that has a lifelong impact. Granted it is not going to ruin anyone’s life, but I also regret that it was done to me. Since there is little or no (it’s still open for debate) medical benefit, why make this permanent decision for a child? If only one child in a thousand regrets it, why do it?

 

My niece had a child last year and they chose to have him circumcised. The reason? My niece’s husband was afraid the other boys would tease him. My niece just thinks uncircumcised penises are “ugly.” Is that stupid or what? First of all, as recently discussed here, young guys rarely get naked with each other anymore and I’m fairly confident that if they do they don’t comment on one another’s penis. And second, well, I don’t even know how to react to my niece’s concern about the esthetics of her son’s penis. I guess mothers have to worry about EVERYTHING.

[trilingual]

>That's pretty naive. Getting a PA is not mutilation. Is

>getting your ear pierced the same thing as cutting off your

>ear? Come on. And they are adults making their own

>decisions about their own bodies. Are you saying an infant

>has that same power of choice? How can you compare the two?

> Are you also saying that it's OK to fuck babies and

>children? Babies can't choose whether or not to get

>circumcised, and they can't choose whether or not to be

>raped. So...you must think pedophilia is just another

>"choice," huh?

 

Actually, some people and cultures view ear and other piercing as a mutilation. And in many cultures (for example, in Latin America) it's customary to pierce a very young girl's ears. This is a decision by the parents. In other cultures, ritual scarring or tattoing is done to children. All of these practices are considered to make someone more beautiful, or to symbolize their belonging to their tribe or group. As long as these practices don't seriously interfere with an individual's ability to function normally in life, they aren't widely viewed as being unjustified mutilations. However, they aren't "natural" and carry some risks of diseasor or worse, so you'd expect the no-circ'ers to be opposed to such practices, too, just to be consistent. But noooo, all is silence. . .

[phage]

>Adults can do whatever they want to do to their bodies.

>Children don't get that choice. For example, they don't get

>a choice about whether they're going to get stuck with a

>needle to be immunized. Parents get to make those decisions

>for their children.

 

Parents do not have an absolute right to do whatever they want to their children. Obviously, children don’t get a choice about immunizations and going to the dentist and the other things that we all recognize is in their best interest. However, circumcision is not the same as immunization because it is not universally accepted that it is in the child’s best interest.

 

I understand and agree with you that male circumcision is a far cry from female circumcision, but it is just a matter of degree. If you truly believe that parents should have the right to make this decision for the boy, then they should have the same right for a girl since they are doing it for the same cultural reasons.

 

>As for the proselytizing "no-circ" crowd, all one has to do

>is read their stuff to see the anger directed toward their

>parents, as well as their totalitarian "I know what's best

>for everyone" mentality. Some (maybe all) of that anger is

>misplaced, because it sounds like the real underlying issue

>is an inability to accept their bodies the way they are and

>laying blame for that elsewhere (as in "the reason I'm not

>getting laid is because everyone thinks my circumcised penis

>is ugly, so it's all my parents' fault I'm fucked up" when

>the real reason almost assuredly is something else, like

>people not wanting to go to bed with someone that angry or

>so screwed up about their self-image). Another underlying

>issue may be self-hatred about being gay or Jewish (or both,

>the real double-whammy!). There are way too many guys out

>there who have never really reconciled, integrated and

>accepted their conditions as gays and/or Jews. They hate

>being part of often-despised minorities when it's a

>condition they can't really change. So they blame it on

>someone or something else. These aren't the only reasons

>for the "no-circ" anger and blame-laying, but I'll bet it

>covers 80% - 90% of it. Some of the rest is just very

>thinly disguised anti-Semitism, of the type that also tries

>to ban kosher meat slaughtering, which objectively is as

>humane as any other kind of slaughtering methods.

 

You just moved from reasonable debate into bizarro land. In the US, the vast majority of circumcised men are neither Jewish nor gay. Maybe you’ve had some bad experiences with men who are obsessed and on a crusade, but most people I know just think it’s a bad choice without any unreconciled this or disguised that.

 

Also, don’t you see the irony in making a statement like, “the real underlying issue is an inability to accept their bodies the way they are…”? You mean of course, “the way their bodies were altered.”

[Rick Munroe]

>Female "circumcision" is mutilation, in the true sense of

>the word, because its intent is to prevent a woman from

>experiencing sexual pleasure and/or to control her chastity.

 

From the article I linked to above (which you obviously didn't read), "Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis...The antisexual motivations behind an operation that entails cutting off part of the penis are obvious."

 

>it's not merely an aesthetic change, like male circumcision

 

You've got to be kidding. :7

[Rick Munroe]

>As for the proselytizing "no-circ" crowd, all one has to do

>is read their stuff to see the anger directed toward their

>parents

 

Between yesterday & today, I've read quite a bit of the information on anti-circumcision websites. Most of it is directed at the medical establishment, and how lucrative this otherwise unnecessary surgery is (human foreskins being sold to make such things as breathable bandages, etc.) I haven't read anything that expresses anger at parents. If anything, they seem to be encouraging education, not blame.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Most of it is directed at the medical establishment, and how >lucrative this otherwise unnecessary surgery is (human foreskins >being sold to make such things as breathable bandages, etc

 

Not to mention cocktail party finger food such as tinned smoked oysters :-(

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Verde]

Huh...? Say that again...?

 

http://161.58.208.54/artchive/m/michelangelo/david.jpg

 

Thank goodness, Mike had the good artistic sense to keep him intact as God (or nature, whatever) intended it to be.

[Guest Les]

Unfortunately as great as Mike was...he was not a historian...David was Jewish. :7

[Rick Munroe]

>Unfortunately as great as Mike was...he was not a

>historian...David was Jewish.

 

You're right...everyone knows we have fatter dicks, too.

[Guest Verde]

RE: I think you're missing...errr...the point

 

Of course Mike and the whole world know David is Jewish.. you don't have to be a historian...and you're talking a renaissance man here? You are missing the POINT (no pun intended)!!!.

[Guest Les]

RE: I think you're missing...errr...the point

 

>Of course Mike and the whole world know David is Jewish..

>you don't have to be a historian...and you're talking a

>renaissance man here? You are missing the POINT (no pun

>intended)!!!.

 

LOL..no doubt I am...what point are you making?

:7

http://cruises.about.com/library/graphics/florence/101-0112_IMG.JPG

 

When I saw the David I thought his cock was much smaller than in your photo...maybe it's all in the camera angle.

[Guest Verde]

RE: I think you're missing...errr...the point

 

>LOL..no doubt I am...what point are you making?

 

 

Fuggehdaboutit. Sorry if it caused some difficulty...

 

No really...!

[Guest Les]

RE: I think you're missing...errr...the point

 

Dove sta un villaggio per anzianni?, per che volglio nuovi Nonni.

Auguri! :7