a reply to: Justoneman
I disagree. I'm not circumcised and never had any issues with the love making, pleasure, ability to last or disease. (Have a wash ya'll)
I'm of the mind if we weren't meant to have it we wouldn't be born with it.
It is kind of funny though that as most men who are circumcised have been so since infants how would they know if it enhances their pleasure or
What have they got to compare it with? Pretty sure few of them have had sex before it being babies and all, and as for those who were circumcised as
adults, well like anything sexual, different strokes for different folks. Some might be more number and go longer, but most male sexual pleasure comes
from ejaculation which is dependent on things like the quantity of fluid and the force at which it releases.
Like female mutilation is for the man, male mutilation is for the female. It extends her pleasure, not his.
Either way it is a unnatural thing, just as female body modification is.
If one is bad, then all must be. Babies cannot consent regardless of gender. They do not understand what is happening to them and the repercussions of
It's only normal to them as they have grown up with it. Known no different.
Most circumcision I know of is for religious reasons. Most of the remainder is cultural, I know a lot of Americans for example who are not Jewish, but
are circumcised because of reasons like "My daddy, and his daddy etc. were circumcised" or because "Mommy thought a natural penis looked weird because
she's only seen skinned ones".
Those kinds of things.
The times I have heard of circumcision because of disease are extremely rare.
Here in Australia having a foreskin is more the norm than not. So yeah culture plays a lot as with most things. Nature sure as hell has no part in
So yes it is mostly cosmetic. As is much of female circumcision. The reasons to explain why it should be done are just excuses to justify it.
So for women the problem is it destroying their ability to experience sexual pleasure?
I could make the same arguments of why it is okay to do so as for males.
It'll enhance their pleasure as they won't orgasm as fast and get too sensitive.
Less folds nooks and crannies surely means better hygiene as less places for germs and bacteria to breed.
(And well women are more prone to such things than males from what I know.)
As it seems to usually involve completely destroying a females ability to get sexual pleasure though, would it be okay if we removed all the labias,
but left their clitoris and 'g-spot' intact?
That way they can be slightly deadened but still capable of climaxing?
Would that be okay?
If that is not okay then why is it okay to do so to a male?
Kind of weird how in this world of equality for all, we're still less caring when it comes to males being mutilated and abused.
That those who are horrified at baby girls getting sliced and diced are a-ok with and will even justify baby boys going under the knife.
It's hypocrisy. How about we just stop abusing kids of both genders on all levels?
How about if my beliefs are kids should have their pinkies removed, because my god says all people should be four fingered like The Simpsons?
Is that okay? I mean having no little fingers won't harm their sex lives......
Seriously where do we draw a damn line?
It really comes down to such thinking as a man molesting girls is bad, but young men should be happy when a middle aged lady rapes them......
Who the hell has any right to mutilate anyone for any reason regardless of the logic?
For me personally anyone who circumcises male children is just as #ing evil as anyone who circumcises female ones.
edit on 14-2-2019 by
AtomicKangaroo because: typos and words. more in their, there, they're no doubt.