Uncircumcised Plot Point…..really?
-
cold2005 — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 12:58 AM)
Being uncut, and Ive read this countless times on forums over the years, generally uncut has more sensation and feels more during masturbation/sex. Cut guys lose a lot of the sensation since their "heads" are constantly touching their underwear or pants, etc., during their whole lives, making it lose sensitivity. The downside is that then during wanking or sex, you feel less. So Im glad I am uncut. Also there are a lot of types of uncut guys, the worst possibility being when you cant pull your skin back. If thats the case, those are the guys you hear about where it 'smells' or is unclean, etc. Luckily, I can pull mine back very easily and during sex (fully hard) it pulls almost all the way back by itself from the expanding. So probably Im in a smaller percentage of uncut guys who got just the right amount of foreskin and flexibility. Also yes, if you wash it properly like it should be every day, there is no smell or anything. Never had a complaint from women, in fact been told its cleaner than some guys theyve met who were cut! And also been told the foreskin feels good while sex, kind of like a ribbed condom. So make of this what you will.
-
Kevin_PSO — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 08:54 AM)
Luckily, I can pull mine back very easily and during sex (fully hard) it pulls almost all the way back by itself from the expanding. So probably Im in a smaller percentage of uncut guys who got just the right amount of foreskin and flexibility.
You're in the majority, most uncut guys have flexible skin that can pull itself back with an erection including myself. The ones who have a foreskin that's so tight they can't pull it back are a minority who suffer from conditions like phimosis. Even then circumcision isn't the cure, since the problem can be solved with stretching exercises instead.
PSN ID: Kev_Cypunk
-
binkpanther — 9 years ago(July 27, 2016 04:41 AM)
You should probably read a book that's been written within fifty years about this subject. Actually even the smegma within the foreskin you think is so dirty, is there for a reason and serves a beneficial purpose. Obviously people wash it off nowadays, but in the past it provided lubrication and also it contains anti-bacterial enzymes.
Personally I think anyone who gets their baby boy circumcised is a monster and should get a public flogging in a town square. Now, I understand religious freedoms are important, and so religious people should be allowed to do it. But anyone doing it without a religious reason, I will shame and think very little off their parenting skills or logical reasoning, so they know just how stupid they are being or were. I will also silently hate everyone who hurts little babies and their own flesh and blood like that. By next century, circumcision will be made illegal, as it always should have been. -
Aqqk — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 09:40 AM)
you moron. The skin is there for a reason, to keep out infection and bacteria. Don't mess with nature boy, its evolved us for the last 200,000 years - I think it knows alot more than some morons who "think" it is better for no reason other than "ahh da feel goodz"
-
Shuggy — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 02:52 PM)
How can it be "more stimulating" for both partners when it cuts off some tens of thousands of specialised nerves in a part with a unique rolling action, that were designed for just that purpose/have evolved with just that function?
All that is visible must grow beyond itself
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/ahua/8761658 -
tedbloodbath — 9 years ago(August 09, 2016 03:31 AM)
I wouldn't get circumcised for a bag of oranges and I love oranges
Anyone who thinks being circumcised makes you cleaner is a total spack and it should be illegal because the child has no say in the matter just like clitoris removal -
edgehillcm — 9 years ago(August 13, 2016 03:07 PM)
You are completely WRONG. You don't know what you're missing:
Sex as nature intended it:
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/ -
edgehillcm — 9 years ago(August 13, 2016 03:08 PM)
You are completely WRONG! You don't know what you are missing:
Sex as nature intended it:
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/ -
sinceimetjc — 9 years ago(July 22, 2016 09:19 AM)
I'm not a dude, and as an American I've never even seen an uncut penis in real life. Which is unfortunate! But i think circumcision to children who have no choice in the matter of their own body is wrong! And too many Americans think uncut penises are disgusting, and they cut their babies because they don't want their babies to grow up to be "disgusting." That is why I find the joke to be in awful taste. It just feeds this myth that there's something wrong with a penis that is not circumcised. I'm glad you're comfortable enough with your penis to think this is funny! I would just like for this idea that a natural penis is gross to go away, so people would stop ignorantly cutting their babies!
"The hideousness of that foot will haunt my dreams forever." -
Shuggy — 9 years ago(July 28, 2016 02:03 AM)
They've now posted the whole scene, with such charming lines as
Amy: What if I get someone who is not circumcised?
Kiki: Run out of the room screaming. It's like finding a gun in the street. Just scream and get out of there!
Carla: No way, you guys. Uncut guys are great!!
Kiki: Really?
Carla: Oh they're just so nice to you because they know their dicks are gross.
You don't think that's insulting? -
Shuggy — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 05:40 PM)
It's not consideratte to consider that normal, healthy, functional anatomy is "gross".
Switch the sexes: if cutting female genitals were commonplace (never mind the severity, we're talking about the social aspect) would this dialogue be "considerate"?
Carl: No way, you guys. Uncut gals are great!!
Kiko: Really?
Carl: Oh they're just so nice to you because they know their flaps are gross. -
Shuggy — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 02:46 PM)
Look at the lines as written, switch the sexes, we're not talking about the horrible things they do in Africa (baby girls are cut minimally by doctors in Indoneisa in the name of Islam and it has nothing to do with "preventing women from expressing their sexuality", in fact it's the mothers to take them to the doctors).
As it happens, male genital cutting has always had an underlying purpose of curbing male sexuality. It was introduced to the US to thwart or punish masturbation.
Now, as I was saying, the script as performed body-shames men with whole genitals in a way that would
never
be acceptable if it were talking about women.
All that is visible must grow beyond itself
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/ahua/8761658 -
UnvoicedApollo1 — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 05:19 PM)
Whether or not that's true, there are actually some health benefits. That is not true with FGM.
As for body shaming, no it doesn't. Hahn talks about how great uncut men are & demonstrates the best way on how to handle them.
Now, if Bell said it was gross & hahn agreed, then yes it would be body shaming.