(05-04-2017 04:11 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 02:29 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 02:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Exactly.

Good for you.

Just curious. You have had issues with pain while having sex?

No, I cant say that I have

I guess It was just a myth but I heard that your foreskin would eventually rip during sex kind of like a cherry but for men.

Damn man.

He's actually not wrong. There's a condition where it can be "attached" to the head (phomosis?). It takes surgery to correct.

No. Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is too tight and the skin cannot be fully retracted. You see it mostly in diabetic men. It is not normal and these are usually the few times a man truly needs a circ.

At birth the foreskin is adhered to the glans or "head" and slowly separates over the first few years of life.

There's another condition called balanitis xerotica obliterans where the foreskin does kind of fuse to the glans, but it's rare.

(05-04-2017 01:23 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:54 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Never really heard of a man who regretted being circumcised.

It got to be in the >1% range.

I have heard a few atheists try to use this issue to accuse the bible of teaching of genital mutilation in the OT. Seems to be a growing theme for some.

I've had a few adults regret it. If you're circed as a child then you don't know any difference.

that makes 'sense'....that wasn't your original posit....

(05-04-2017 11:56 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:46 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:21 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  When my son was born, my wife asked if I thought he should be circumcised. Without any hesitation, I said "absolutely." We don't live in the Ukraine. My parents did it for me, and I honestly thought everyone did.

I feel bad for kids whose parents don't do it for them... they have to live a lifetime of women asking "what's wrong with it?" and being the brunt of locker room bullying.

Yep. Also an uncircumcised one looks like a pain in the arse to deal with tbh.

As someone who is not circumcised, I can honestly tell you that I havent had any of those problems. I showered in the locker room just like any other football player and the same in the Marines. No one ever came up to me and asked me what was wrong with my dick.

Yeah, at first girls are actually more interested than disgusted, probably because they have never been with someone who was never circumcised, but after you lay down the wood, my dick not being circumcised was the least of their worries.

Same here man. Never got bullied for it in the locker rooms or anything. I do remember being a little self conscious about not being circumcised when I realized I was the odd man out, but that feeling went away after a while. One girl did say it looked weird when we first got naked together, but it didn't stop her from having sex with me. And frankly, don't all dicks look weird anyway?

And as for the hygiene issue, I've never had a problem. All it takes is a few seconds time in the shower and you're good to go.

In retrospect, I'm glad my parents chose not to circumcise me and I think I'd make the same decision if and when I have kids. I get that the baby won't remember the procedure, but it still seems like a whole heck of a lot of pain to inflict on a baby right after they're born.

ya nailed it....

the only guys that look at other guys dicks are gay or gay.....

I can only laugh at this thread....

#comedygold

(05-04-2017 04:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  the only guys that look at other guys dicks are gay or gay.....

(05-04-2017 04:17 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:11 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 04:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 02:29 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  No, I cant say that I have

I guess It was just a myth but I heard that your foreskin would eventually rip during sex kind of like a cherry but for men.

Damn man.

He's actually not wrong. There's a condition where it can be "attached" to the head (phomosis?). It takes surgery to correct.

No. Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is too tight and the skin cannot be fully retracted. You see it mostly in diabetic men. It is not normal and these are usually the few times a man truly needs a circ.

At birth the foreskin is adhered to the glans or "head" and slowly separates over the first few years of life.

There's another condition called balanitis xerotica obliterans where the foreskin does kind of fuse to the glans, but it's rare.

it's amazing 'man' survived the last 100k yrs when it gets driven down to that level....

(05-04-2017 04:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:56 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:46 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:35 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:21 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  When my son was born, my wife asked if I thought he should be circumcised. Without any hesitation, I said "absolutely." We don't live in the Ukraine. My parents did it for me, and I honestly thought everyone did.

I feel bad for kids whose parents don't do it for them... they have to live a lifetime of women asking "what's wrong with it?" and being the brunt of locker room bullying.

Yep. Also an uncircumcised one looks like a pain in the arse to deal with tbh.

As someone who is not circumcised, I can honestly tell you that I havent had any of those problems. I showered in the locker room just like any other football player and the same in the Marines. No one ever came up to me and asked me what was wrong with my dick.

Yeah, at first girls are actually more interested than disgusted, probably because they have never been with someone who was never circumcised, but after you lay down the wood, my dick not being circumcised was the least of their worries.

Same here man. Never got bullied for it in the locker rooms or anything. I do remember being a little self conscious about not being circumcised when I realized I was the odd man out, but that feeling went away after a while. One girl did say it looked weird when we first got naked together, but it didn't stop her from having sex with me. And frankly, don't all dicks look weird anyway?

And as for the hygiene issue, I've never had a problem. All it takes is a few seconds time in the shower and you're good to go.

In retrospect, I'm glad my parents chose not to circumcise me and I think I'd make the same decision if and when I have kids. I get that the baby won't remember the procedure, but it still seems like a whole heck of a lot of pain to inflict on a baby right after they're born.

ya nailed it....

the only guys that look at other guys dicks are gay or gay.....

I can only laugh at this thread....

#comedygold

(05-04-2017 02:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  There is no religious significance in circumcision for bible believing Christians.

Its more of a cultural thing in America.

Are you kidding?

I guess you have never read the Bible.

Have you?

Peter pushed circumcision among the gentiles in the early church, Paul rebuked him, peter relented. Which is funny because Paul, among all the apostles, was perhaps the biggest stickler for the letter of the law before being saved.

New Testament Christians are no longer under the Old Testament Ceremonial or Dietary Law, and circumcision is no longer required. Acts 15; Galatians 2:1–3; 5:1–11; 6:11–16; 1 Corinthians 7:17–20; Colossians 2:8–12; and Philippians 3:1–3.

For the same reason I can eat bacon I don't have to be cut.

So then circumcision is in the Bible?

Thanks for proving my point.

So is shell fish.. Yet it's not religiously significant to Christians....

(05-04-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  There is no religious significance in circumcision for bible believing Christians.

Its more of a cultural thing in America.

Are you kidding?

I guess you have never read the Bible.

Christians Fit, Christians. It's obvious YOU have never read the Bible.

(05-04-2017 06:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  There is no religious significance in circumcision for bible believing Christians.

Its more of a cultural thing in America.

Are you kidding?

I guess you have never read the Bible.

Christians Fit, Christians. It's obvious YOU have never read the Bible.

Nope, he certainly has not. And if he has, it's time to question his ability to comprehend literature.

(05-04-2017 09:41 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  There is no religious significance in circumcision for bible believing Christians.

Its more of a cultural thing in America.

It used to be that everyone was.

(05-04-2017 07:06 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 06:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  There is no religious significance in circumcision for bible believing Christians.

Its more of a cultural thing in America.

Are you kidding?

I guess you have never read the Bible.

Christians Fit, Christians. It's obvious YOU have never read the Bible.

Nope, he certainly has not. And if he has, it's time to question his ability to comprehend literature.

that time passed for me long ago.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same thing. FGM would be like removing the entire head of the *****.

(05-04-2017 08:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same thing. FGM would be like removing the entire head of the *****.

Did anyone suggest that they near the same thing?

(05-04-2017 09:41 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same thing. FGM would be like removing the entire head of the *****.

Did anyone suggest that they near the same thing?

Actually you did. Here is the first sentence of your OP.


Starting off, it is clear that circumcision is not as near severe or life threatening as FGM, but isn't circumcision also mutilation?

See now?

Hence, my response to your fallacy of a simile.

Circumcision is more similar to clipping a toenail.

FGM is more similar to chopping someone's dick halfway off.

(05-04-2017 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same thing. FGM would be like removing the entire head of the *****.

Did anyone suggest that they near the same thing?

Actually you did. Here is the first sentence of your OP.


Starting off, it is clear that circumcision is not as near severe or life threatening as FGM, but isn't circumcision also mutilation?

See now?

And, as to the answer to this question was my response.

Circumcision is more similar to clipping a toenail.

FMG is more similar to chopping someone's dick halfway off.

Did you miss the section of that sentence where I said it is clear that it is not as near severe of life threatening? Asking if it is also mutilation, is asking if it's mutilation, it is not comparing it to FGM in terms of severity, it is comparing it to FGM as also being mutilation as per definition or not. You wanna accuse me of any other bullsh*t? You wanna twist anymore sentences?

(05-04-2017 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same thing. FGM would be like removing the entire head of the *****.

Did anyone suggest that they near the same thing?

Actually you did. Here is the first sentence of your OP.


Starting off, it is clear that circumcision is not as near severe or life threatening as FGM, but isn't circumcision also mutilation?

See now?

Hence, my response to your fallacy of a simile.

Circumcision is more similar to clipping a toenail.

FGM is more similar to chopping someone's dick halfway off.

LMAO

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-04-2017 09:57 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same thing. FGM would be like removing the entire head of the *****.

Did anyone suggest that they near the same thing?

Actually you did. Here is the first sentence of your OP.


Starting off, it is clear that circumcision is not as near severe or life threatening as FGM, but isn't circumcision also mutilation?

See now?

And, as to the answer to this question was my response.

Circumcision is more similar to clipping a toenail.

FMG is more similar to chopping someone's dick halfway off.

Did you miss the section of that sentence where I said it is clear that it is not as near severe of life threatening? Asking if it is also mutilation, is asking if it's mutilation, it is not comparing it to FGM in terms of severity, it is comparing it to FGM as also being mutilation as per definition or not. You wanna accuse me of any other bullsh*t? You wanna twist anymore sentences?

I didnt miss anything, including those sentences where you contradicted yourself.

To help clear up any confusion, I offered my analysis of why FGM is not even remotely close to circumcision. Why that causes you butthurt is beyond me, but I really dont care.

What I do care about is for people to understand what FGM actually is, and to ensure that certain people dont get away with trying to confuse and conflate it with circumcision. They are not remotely similar. Like I said, circumcision is more like clipping a toe nail, and FGM is like chopping someones dick off.

Clear now?

(05-04-2017 10:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:57 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 09:41 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 08:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Circumcision and FGM are nowhere near the same thing. FGM would be like removing the entire head of the *****.

Did anyone suggest that they near the same thing?

Actually you did. Here is the first sentence of your OP.


Starting off, it is clear that circumcision is not as near severe or life threatening as FGM, but isn't circumcision also mutilation?

See now?

And, as to the answer to this question was my response.

Circumcision is more similar to clipping a toenail.

FMG is more similar to chopping someone's dick halfway off.

Did you miss the section of that sentence where I said it is clear that it is not as near severe of life threatening? Asking if it is also mutilation, is asking if it's mutilation, it is not comparing it to FGM in terms of severity, it is comparing it to FGM as also being mutilation as per definition or not. You wanna accuse me of any other bullsh*t? You wanna twist anymore sentences?

I didnt miss anything, including those sentences where you contradicted yourself.

To help clear up any confusion, I offered my analysis of why FGM is not even remotely close to circumcision. Why that causes you butthurt is beyond me, but I really dont care.

What I do care about is for people to understand what FGM actually is, and to ensure that certain people dont get away with trying to confuse and conflate it with circumcision. They are not remotely similar. Like I said, circumcision is more like clipping a toe nail, and FGM is like chopping someones dick off.

Clear now?

No one was trying to conflate anything, no one was suggesting that FGM is as much of a non issue that circumcision is considered to be, the sentences don't contradict one another. Two things can both be wrong or of the same definition without being anywhere near one another in terms of severity or similarity. What causes me to be "butthurt" is the fact that you are trying to suggest that I compared the two as equal, you are trying to conflate what I said into something that wasn't there.

Was slavery in the Americas okay because it wasn't as severe or similar to slavery in the Middle East? Or is that conflating slavery in the Americas to slavery in the Middle East and contradictory of my belief that slavery is wrong regardless of severity? I mean here the men got to keep their dicks, the women's genitals weren't mutilated, slaves here were worth more sexually functioning, most were kept healthy as to produce more. Obviously using this as an example of something being wrong, and the same thing by definition, despite the differences.

Anyways, my take on circumcision is that if you don't live in an area where it is medically necessary then it should be left up to the male when he becomes an adult if he so pleases due to religious or cultural ties. It shouldn't be done just so your child looks like you or so it makes it easier for you as a parent to not have to clean something extra.

Won't share videos directly into post as I'm sure it wouldn't be appreciated but will give links.

One against it https://youtu.be/F2pMoFKSrL0

One for it https://youtu.be/g8-sl1M59WY