Comon reaction to foreskin in america.

---

Please blackman... What about the sole kid in school who DOES have his foreskin here in the US and then gets ribbed about it. Come on.

yeah? well then there childish too...Cheese and fucking rice, there are more important things...and i don't think americans, at least the ones i've met really tease guys to the extent that that guy said they do in british schools, and i think that's becuz of the fear of being thought of as a homosexual. Imagine, constantly talking about some dudes cock, sounds kind of weird to me.

Perhaps, but you don't know that. How about the the guy who overhears girls say "Oooo gross, disgusting" when the topic of forskins comes up? How is he going to feel. Same effect. But anyways, I agree, not all get teased, but i'm sure some do.

It wasn't like an anti-circumcision witch hunt, he just used to get teased about it because it was different from everyone else. Just like the fat kid, the kid with the lazy eye etc, got teased. The point is that neither circumcised/uncircumcised is objectively "normal" it just depends on your culture - i.e. in the U.S you might get teased for not being circumcised in the UK the opposite is true.

I'm pretty ticked off about the practice.You don't take a newborn and pierce its ears or tattoo it, right?Part of my cock is gone, and I had no say in it. It doesn't keep me up nights, but I'm not happy about it.All the bullshit explanations that have been handed out over the years can be illuminated thus:without a foreskin, it is not convinient to masturbate. with a foreskin, you can whack off all day with no lube (or so I hear). If you'd like to do some research you'll find it's the people who want to make you afraid of sex and masturbation who promoted all this garbage.all those moms out there who think because they don't like foreskins on cocks (or whatever baloney excuse they have decided on) that they'd better have their kid cut really piss me off.

I prefer uncut.
The main reason that it's still being done here is "like father, like son". If some guys had it done and they have a kid they are likely to have it done to their son. People should really educate themselves on the subject before putting their kid through it.
But I did know a guy who had a circumcism in his 20's because his skin kept ripping during sex. But that choice should be made when you're an adult, not forced upong you as a child.

I guess its just socialy unaceptable to have a uncut penis in america. its sad. hopefully things will change because it seems to me that most guys hate knowing that they had a part of their genitals removed without it even being their choice. i guess its no big deal to me tho because if a girl is going to be that shalow about being uncut "ewww grosss" bla bla instead of general curiosity... it wouldnt be a girl i would want to pleasure anyway.

lol it probably won't, and i hope it doesn't. And to the dude that's apparently mad because he lost some skin, man get over it? you didn't miss it until you found out it was only common in america to not have it, so why should you be pissed off about it now? you're living perfectly normal aren't you? You can still have enjoyable sex can't you?

Oh, I agree, I should get over it.However, let's make an absurd example- your pinky toes. Let's say it was part of our culture to remove them at birth. You're probably going to be able to walk just fine without them- they're practically useless function-wise anyway.You might just wonder what it's like to have those toes, and it might just peeve you that not only was the choice not given to you, but a lot of the people in the country you lived in thought it was just fine to deny you that choice.I guess it's more the fact that people still think it's cool to circumsize their kid that I don't agree with.Sure, people 'like' what they like. However, an uncircumsized penis, ugly or not, is our natural form. If I was so brash as to assert that women ought to modify themselves because their natural form was not appealing to me, I'd be found hanging from a tree somewhere- if only figuratively.And honestly, my dick is one of my favorite things, as I suspect it is for a lot of guys. I'm really big against rights being taken away from people. And here we have my dick + something being taken away. Much too much.;D

yes, i agree, that's an absurd example. Although i see what you were trying to convey, but honestly, is the foreskin THAT important? Enough to be mad about it being a violation of your rights when you were first brought into this world? ok, you're an activist against denying people their decisions and rights...but dude, it's skin. not that big of a deal.

You're lucky if it does work. Some aren't. Although rare, there are cases where complications that can lead to impotence, deformities, or even death.Why is removing any body part not a big deal? What possible reason can you give to prove that it's better to circumcise than to leave it alone?How do you feel about female circumcision? It is quite popular in many African and Muslim cultures, although there is a very negative reaction to it in the western world.

In reply to:

---

However, let's make an absurd example- your pinky toes.

---

That's not an absurd example at all. The only reason someone would consider it absurd is because circumcision is so ingrained in American culture that it is considered routine. If religion deemed it necessary to cut off our pinky toes at birth and this custom lasted for several hundred years, I'm sure today nobody would think it odd or wrong to have your toe cut off. And people would be saying "oh my god it's just your one little toe, it's not that big of a deal."

Fact of the matter is, circumcision is essentially having a piece of your penis cut off. Take a step back and think about that. That's just messed up.

it is absurd, because comparing your pinky toe to foreskin is just remarkably stupid. You don't need foreskin for any real purpose. Toes, you need to walk, as they help you keep balance. And i believe Sdp put it best, when he said you can't compare foreskin to any other part of the body...

It is absurd, but the comment of it being ingrained is so true. If the labia of females were surgically removed at birth and this practice was done to all(most) females for a century, it would become "normal". Right? I mean, in all practical terms, it is rather useless and is just a shriveled piece of skin, right?Now all males are used to this sans-labia look. Along come some females with labia and the guys go "Ooooo, Yuck".Get my drift?

The fact is: If we weren't meant to have foreskins, we'd be born without them.

blackmanoncampus, I can't see the point of your posts other than to be argumentative.

Some people wish they had all of their dick, and some people also wish that other people weren't promoting the concept that it's ok to keep removing parts of other people's bodies without their permission.

You're free to think circumcision is good, you're free to believe you'd have it done on yourself, but when your beliefs start to encroach on the physical structure of another human being who has no say in what's happening to them, you can be some people are going to be mightily pissed.

You hit the nail on the head. Well said!

my beliefs encroaching on others? what about ALL the people who say, getting circumsized is an extreme violation of the person's rights? And, all the people who say that guys who are cut, have mutilated and disfigured penis' is that not the same exact thing? "hey you're parents were wrong, you're wrong, and your cock is fucked up if you have it cut!" BIG FUCKING DEAL IF IT'S GONE. I don't miss it! why the hell should I? Circumcision is nothing more to me, then an easier way to do thangs. No: spraying piss everywhere, no pain trying to roll shit back (A - that doesn't apply to every uncut person); And in the end, when you're having sex, it looks uncut anyways, so until you can a DAMN good reason why cut is soooo terrible as opposed to uncut, don't say a damn thing about my posts, unless you have answered my question. Again, why is it sooo terrible?

In reply to:Female genital mutilation causes more damage than a routine male circumcision.Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The point I was trying to make is that in some cultures, female circumcision/genital mutilation is considered normal. We see it as barbaric, but when it comes to males and circumcision, most people aren't appalled by it. I find that odd.The whole reason I am against it is because you are changing someone's body without their consent. A baby isn't going to be able to say "no, I don't want to be circumcised". As far as I know, nobody's ever died from not being circumcised. I know if some cases, it may be necessary, but 99% of circumcisions are unnecessary. I say let it be, and if the person grows up and wants to be circumcised, so be it. It's his body. In that case, it isn't any differnt than if that person decided to get a piercing or tattoo.It may seem like just a little piece of skin, especially to women and to men that were circumcised so young they have no memory if it, but in an adult male, the foreskin is about 15 square inches of skin, nerves, and erogenous tissue. Most infant circumcisions are done without anethetic. If you ever witnessed one, you might find it disturbing.When I was in college, we watched a video of a circumcision when we were studying Judaism in Religion class, and while they didn't actually show the cutting, they focused on the faces of the baby and the parents and of the few hundred people in the class, I'd say more than half were a bit shocked.

but didn't someone say, that when it's done as a child, the nerves have a chance to grow back? whereas if you do it at a mature age, some feeling is lost.

I think that's just a theory.