Post: #126

I've always assumed something like this:

- Female hysteria over cleanliness.

See also: any commercial showing a baby crawling on a freshly-disinfected kitchen floor that implies 'good' mothers are vigilant against exposing their children to germs. Remember, back when this was normalised, no 'good' girl would give a blowjob - that was for hookers. Every girl knew ANY dick was 'dirty' and 'germ-ridden', and would NEVER consider putting one in her mouth.

- Female prudishness about discussing sexual matters.

'The Talk' was the man's job. Someone would have to discuss with the son about washing his foreskin. You know how women respond to any sign of personal discomfort - far better to mutilate a child for life than experience an awkward conversation with a sexual undercurrent for three minutes. Maybe they should call foreskins 'creepers'.

- Female puritanism and uncritical acceptance of dogmatic thought.

Washing a foreskin would involve a child touching his dick, which, thanks to religious, news and academic media hysteria at the time, meant him discovering masturbation, going blind, becoming disfigured, then being doomed to the madhouse, with the social stigma involved from the other mothers knowing you raised a child who masturbates. (It's good to know the mainstream media is as accurate a guide to life as it ever was).

Despite the changes to society, these attitudes largely persist, even in Gen X'ers.

Before anyone says Millenial Girls aren't prudish, they still are, they're just so mentally-fucked up and dead inside that they crave the punishment and degradation a big, 'dirty' dick provides. They're still horrified and disgusted by sex to some degree, but they seem to think things like ass-to-mouth is what they deserve and actively seek it out. Such is modern female sexual empowerment: a normalised mental disorder. I didn't really see this attitude in Gen X girls.

Post: #127

Skip to 22:56 Also something about it at 18:12

Post: #128

(05-22-2014 06:33 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I've heard that circumcision removes a lot of the pleasure nerves and that sex with an uncircumcised dick would be much more sensitive. This comes from reports of people who became circumcised in adulthood.

On the plus side, I've heard you get something called "dick cheese" that builds up under the foreskin and it's pretty nasty.

Dick cheese only comes up if you haven't washed your dick in a long time. Of course circumcision removes nerve endings, it cuts off one of the most sensitive areas of skin in the body, which is why I wouldn't have my sons circumcised. Unless they turn out gay, start fucking intravenous drug users or go on bang trips to Africa there is no practical benefit to it.

Post: #129

(05-21-2013 12:09 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  No confirmation on my jew doctor theory?

Jewish doctors in my experience are AGAINST hospital circumcision.

Jews have Bris parties on the 8th day after a male birth, where the infant is circumcised by a specialist called a Mohel. If the child is already circumcised at the hospital by a Doctor, there's no Bris party. And not being able to hold a Bris party is a big faux pas in the Jewish world.

It is not some conspiracy by the Joows. Because jews don't do hospital circumcisions.

I also can't say I know any Jewish doctors in Obstetrics. They're all in higher paying specialties like Radiology and Cardiology. Obstetrics is on the lower end of the pay scale, with many independent doctors getting out of OB work outright as unprofitable.

The US preference for circumcision appears to be the the result of public health efforts to reduce infant mortality rates and is part of the home-birth Midwife vs hospital-birth Obstetrician competition that started in the 19th century.

In the US overwhelmingly there is a preference for children being born in hospitals, which confuses the hell out of my European friends who lecture over and over, "You go to hospitals when you're sick. Pregnancy is not a sickness." They also can't believe the medical bills people get afterwards. "$40,000 for a hospital birth? You could have paid a midwife or doula much less and birthed at home."

OB wards in the US sell their services based on their well advertised liberal use of anesthesia to make birth "pain free", even going so far as to knocking the woman out and "doing all the work for her, she'll just wake up and it'll all be over". Circumcision in the US has also became a mark of being able to afford a hospital birth, while being uncircumcised in the US is associated with being rural poor and not having medical insurance or access to health care.

The reality is, it's a surgery like any other, and you're better going to an experienced specialist (Mohels can only be found in large urban cities with populations over a million) rather than having some kid out of med-school a month learning on your baby. I know many in the medical profession that have purposely timed their conception so no children are born in July or August when the new interns are fresh out of school and making lots of mistakes.

The problem with the whole intact movement is they're always demonizing the men who are already circumcised. Which is kinda useless since it's not something that can be undone. And their take on circumcision's side effects are both wrong and laughably idiotic.

As mentioned previously, they also tend to read high on the "keyboard warrior writing from his mom's basement" meter, with at least some proponent's claims about how "sex is better uncircumcised" and "uncircumcised men can't masturbate" coming off as obviously (and laughably) theoretical at best. There's definitely some uncomfortable penis envy going on in that circle jerk.

Medical Study after medical study have shown that by all measurable standards, mens' orgasms are just as full and complete whether or not they're circumcised. Despite the wacko fringe's demonizing, it simply makes no difference in your ability to enjoy sex. But then there's outliers like 1950s pop star Elvis Presley, whose famously in the US had a foreskin problem that made intercourse painful and reduced him to mostly using cushions to masturbate in heavy petting sessions instead of getting it on with the young lovelies.

Post: #130

I'm cut, but i won't get my children cut. It definitely lowers sensitivity. Sex does not feel as good as it used to be. I remember banging my girl friend in high school and having the most intense full body orgasms.

All throug college to it was great, Right around graduation the sensation dropped off big time. Now it's more of a meh type of conquest.

Biggest thing that angers me today. I had no choice in my circumcision.

Post: #131

Just curious how many guys who are circumsized would also have theirkids circumsized. I think its probably the majority or norm in USA however I hear that trend is changing. Part of me would say yes just so they are like everybody else but at the same time you hear about how many nerve endings are in the end of your dick when they circumsize you, has heard it argued it definatley takes away some sensitivity and sensation. Wondering if sex would be even more enjoyable not being circumsized.

Post: #132

There was some study that drew the opposite conclusions re: STDs, to the effect that the exposed tissue of the glans would be more receptive to syphilis, gonorrhea and a couple other things, and also that infected vaginal secretions, menstrual blood etc, could more easily get into the urethra.
( Apparently stray period blood will cause a UTI, even if the woman is clean)
Herpes wasn't mentioned from what I remember.

Regardless assuming your uncircumcised dick isn't scratched, cracked or bleeding, how could the rate of infection be lower in circumcised men?
And if it was an evolutionary risk or of no evolutionary benefit to have a foreskin, why would it survive?

Can't find the study in question, but this is relevant:
Psychology today, with referenced studies

Post: #133

(05-21-2013 01:45 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  

Quote:. I've heard it's cleaner to be circumcised because urine and all sorts of knob cheese gets built up behind the foreskin and most cats are too lazy to pull the skin back and clean it properly.

Dumbest post in this thread.

Those are the arguments for it. Some guys in secondary school were talking about getting it done..I think one of my classmates opted to get it done at 12 or something.

They were grilling this other geezer in class and he admitted that pulling back the foreskin to clean the knob cheese is cumbersome and painful.

As said..many cats aren't meticulous about their knob hygiene and may think all is well only because their lizards don't have enough gall to tell them it smells like a fungus factory down there when they go to administer hummers...

Post: #134

I got a circumcision 2 years ago, it sucked. I wish my parents had done it when I was a baby.

Post: #135

(05-23-2014 09:35 AM)Lucky Wrote:  I got a circumcision 2 years ago, it sucked. I wish my parents had done it when I was a baby.

Why did you get it done so late? Personal reasons or religious?

Post: #136

I read somewhere that circumcision used to be popular among 19th century Christians in the USA because they thought it made the penis less sensitive and boys would be less prone to masturbation.

Is there any evidence that circumcision actually makes a male less tempted to masturbate or makes masturbation less pleasurable ?

Post: #137

(12-04-2017 01:40 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  I read somewhere that circumcision used to be popular among 19th century Christians in the USA because they thought it made the penis less sensitive and boys would be less prone to masturbation.

Is there any evidence that circumcision actually makes a male less tempted to masturbate or makes masturbation less pleasurable ?

I heard the same thing. Probably there is nothing to it except misconception. In my opinion either you are fapping or not, no matter do you have foreskin or not, it's a psychological thing. Although I think people were already less prone to doing it in these days as they were not exposed to porn.

Post: #138

(12-04-2017 01:40 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  I read somewhere that circumcision used to be popular among 19th century Christians in the USA because they thought it made the penis less sensitive and boys would be less prone to masturbation.

Is there any evidence that circumcision actually makes a male less tempted to masturbate or makes masturbation less pleasurable ?

It's easier to fap with foreskin; you need need lotion, and your baby batter doesn't fly all over the place. Something tells me average people didn't have lotion and tissues on hand back then for quick spank sessions, so circumcision would have made it more laborious.

Post: #139

(12-04-2017 10:00 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:40 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  I read somewhere that circumcision used to be popular among 19th century Christians in the USA because they thought it made the penis less sensitive and boys would be less prone to masturbation.

Is there any evidence that circumcision actually makes a male less tempted to masturbate or makes masturbation less pleasurable ?

It's easier to fap with foreskin; you need need lotion, and your baby batter doesn't fly all over the place. Something tells me average people didn't have lotion and tissues on hand back then for quick spank sessions, so circumcision would have made it more laborious.

I don't know about you, but I don't need any lube to make the fappening magic happen.

Post: #140

Probably done for the military draft and stayed.

Post: #141

It's a bit personal, but for me, circumcision is a Jewish tradition in my family, I have an Ashkenazi/Polish *****father, and the tradition stuck through that bloodline, despite him and his descendants all being Christian.

Funny enough, he married a German and they had two daughters during the 20th century, so I guess you could call them "Ashkenazis" You may now put (((around my forum name)))

Post: #142

For all you guys bringing up foreskin being unhygienic and dick cheese, can you not pull your foreskin back? I pulled my foreskin back when I was around 14 or so. It freaked me out a bit because I didn't know what was happening but usually when I shower now I'll pull it back and wash. Its basically a non issue.

Post: #143

(12-04-2017 10:10 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:00 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:40 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  I read somewhere that circumcision used to be popular among 19th century Christians in the USA because they thought it made the penis less sensitive and boys would be less prone to masturbation.

Is there any evidence that circumcision actually makes a male less tempted to masturbate or makes masturbation less pleasurable ?

It's easier to fap with foreskin; you need need lotion, and your baby batter doesn't fly all over the place. Something tells me average people didn't have lotion and tissues on hand back then for quick spank sessions, so circumcision would have made it more laborious.

I don't know about you, but I don't need any lube to make the fappening magic happen.

All I know about circumcised fapping is what I've seen in movies. I have no personal experience with being cut.

Post: #144

(05-21-2013 08:21 AM)Moma Wrote:  Africans get circumcised too so it's not just a Jewish thing. I've heard it's cleaner to be circumcised because urine and all sorts of knob cheese gets built up behind the foreskin and most cats are too lazy to pull the skin back and clean it properly.

For real? It's mind-boggling that someone could not spare 0.5 seconds it takes to pull back a foreskin. That's all that it takes, no special rubbing or cleaning is necessary.

This is not to even mention that the foreskin automatically retracts when the penis is erect, so if you ever masturbate in the shower it has to be cleaned at least by accident

Post: #145

Tonsils, appendices, foreskins...God or evolution put all the parts on for a reason(s). Arbitrarily removing them (or any other body parts) without medical cause is likely a mistake

Post: #146

(12-05-2017 04:53 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  ...

This is not to even mention that the foreskin automatically retracts when the penis is erect...

That varies from person to person. Mine doesn't, I usually pull it back manually when I'm about to stick it anywhere in a girl - with or without condom.

But I definitely agree about the cleaning part. Pull back the foreskin when showering and that's all the cleaning needed. And also contrary to what I've heard is popular belief among Americans, every European I've known does in fact shower at least once a day.

I don't remember ever having a girl mention anything foreskin related whatsoever, but I've never banged an American or (as far as I know) a Jewish girl, so perhaps that's why.

Post: #147

(12-05-2017 06:54 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  Tonsils, appendices, foreskins...God or evolution put all the parts on for a reason(s). Arbitrarily removing them (or any other body parts) without medical cause is likely a mistake

What about their legs?

They don't need those.

Post: #148

The Apostle Paul on circumcision:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4)

Post: #149

Nothing wrong with circumcision. I was circumcised and am fine.

Post: #150

Americans are Jewified - that 2% has a lot of influence.