Is there really still a "circumsized is better" culture?

[IntactMale]

In my opinion, everyone rightly has their own preference. However, it would be fairer to say that being circumcised is not worse than being uncircumcised.

I think that everyone is aware that one is not better or worse than the other outside of the opinion of individuals. What is at questions in whether or not there is a culture which assumes that circumcision is better, and in the United States, yes, that culture exists. I'm glad it doesn't seem to exist where you live.

I couldn't care less what kind of body modifications an adult wants to get for themselves. Get circumcised, get pierced, tattooed, implants, whatever. You can do that to yourself because you are a consenting and willing adult. An infant is not capable of consenting, they are unwilling, and routine practice of circumcising infants is the only real reason there is anyone that can be described as anti-circumcision. Obviously, there are exclusions for when it is medically necessary. Nobody cares if an infant with appendicitis has their appendix removed, but I think most people would be opposed to performing elective surgery on infants to remove their appendix before they have a problem

 

[IntactMale]

i think it has more to do with guys trying to justify being cut at birth as there isnt much they can do about it. so they in turn say "what do you talking about this is better" argument when in reality cutting off parts of your penis should never be acceptable.

I agree. It's some weird for of compensation. If you can't control what happened to you, and you can reverse it, you have to accept it. That's fine, but what is weird is how it goes beyond acceptance. Acceptance would mean being okay with what was taken and can be returned, doing it to your children is almost like an attempt to get revenge.

I've compared it to how someone who grows up in a violent household is more likely to grow up and become a violent person, especially in their home. There is another example of this behavior that I have to be careful about discussing or the moderators will come after me. But it involves children that have a horrible thing happen to them, and the tendency for those victims to grow up and do the same thing to other children.

Just like with circumcision, it doesn't mean that all circumcised people have that attitude or can't change it, just like a person who grows up in a violent and abusive household isn't guaranteed to be violent and abusive, of a person who is subject to the third example won't necessarily continue the trend.

 

[SirConcis]

Your argument is kind of flawed. If something isn't that big of a problem then you should stop fighting to change it because some people .

Not what I meant.
The USA has come a long way since the pro-circ heydays where doctors made it look like circ was necessary without stating it and thar foreskins endager lives and where baby and sex books making the foreskin look dangerous to have.

Since the start of the antri-circ movement, all the exagerated pro-circ arguments were pretty much debunked.

But, in debunking the pro-circ exagerations, the anti-circers started their own exagerations abouty foreskins, suchj as msegma being lubricant, never needing to retract foreskin (initially as argument to counter procirc exagerations that it was difficult for parentrs to care for uncut son)

With the attacks on foreskin pretty much over (and lowering circ rates in USA being an example), whenever the anti-circers continue to use exagerated pro-foreskin arguments, they discredit themselves.

There remain sufficient arguments on both sides to have proper debate. There is no need to have exagerated arguments by the anti-circers.

 

[IntactMale]

Not what I meant.
The USA has come a long way since the pro-circ heydays where doctors made it look like circ was necessary without stating it and thar foreskins endager lives and where baby and sex books making the foreskin look dangerous to have.

Since the start of the antri-circ movement, all the exagerated pro-circ arguments were pretty much debunked.

But, in debunking the pro-circ exagerations, the anti-circers started their own exagerations abouty foreskins, suchj as msegma being lubricant, never needing to retract foreskin (initially as argument to counter procirc exagerations that it was difficult for parentrs to care for uncut son)

With the attacks on foreskin pretty much over (and lowering circ rates in USA being an example), whenever the anti-circers continue to use exagerated pro-foreskin arguments, they discredit themselves.

There remain sufficient arguments on both sides to have proper debate. There is no need to have exagerated arguments by the anti-circers.

Okay, then I guess you're just wrong. Routine infant circumcision is still common in the USA. And the attacks on the uncircumcised persist. I've given evidence of that in this thread. I included examples from pop culture, include a transcription of a comedy bit that was only released within the last week which included a tirade about how uncircumcised penises are just awful. That comedy bit was from an Australian, who is primarily popular in the US, but was performed for an audience in the UK. That's international approval for a distastes of foreskin.

Believe it or not, I'm involved in a lot of these conversations. I have never see anyone seriously making an argument that smegma is natural lubrication, or that it isn't necessary to retract the foreskin. If you're going to keep saying that then cite a source, show someone making either of those arguments. Even if you can, it doesn't make a difference. Someone making a bad point doesn't mean that the core of their argument is wrong.

The attacks are not over. Maybe they are in CA, but I've given examples that show they are not, and even if you read back through this thread you will see people say things like "cut is always better." That is a declaration of superiority from a position of ignorance.

I'm not making any exaggerated arguments. I have said repeatedly, I don't care what an adult does. Get circumcised, get tattoos and piercings, get implants, get your legs and eyes removed. I don't care. Don't do it to someone who is unable to consent and is therefor unwilling. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Don't put words in my mouth again, and come back with an actual argument if you have one.

 

[SirConcis]

Attacks due to distate of foreskin are based on personal/cultural preferences (aka: cosmetic issues).
Those will continue.

I was refering to the pro-circ heydays attacks on foreskin based on exagerations of proghlems it causes (cancer, infections etc).

So yes, there remain cultural preferences either way, and you will still see people prefereing the circumcised penis looks. This will not go away. However, even those people who still prefer circumcised know that some now choose to leave son uncut and let him choose later, they know that leaving son uncut won't cause cancer etc.

BUT, when you guys exagerate the foreskin (such as smegma being luubricant, or telling people no need to wash because foreskin is self cleaning, no need to retract etc, this removes credibility from the pro-foreskin and those who have slight preference for cut will take less of a look at leaving son uncut because they don't really believe all the claims made by anti circers.

As the level of resistance to leavinfg foreskin on has dropped, the best way forward is for those opposed to circ to stick to facts and not exagerations. You won't win everyone. But those on the fence will take you more seriously.

 

[IntactMale]

Attacks due to distate of foreskin are based on personal/cultural preferences (aka: cosmetic issues).
Those will continue.

I was refering to the pro-circ heydays attacks on foreskin based on exagerations of proghlems it causes (cancer, infections etc).

So yes, there remain cultural preferences either way, and you will still see people prefereing the circumcised penis looks. This will not go away. However, even those people who still prefer circumcised know that some now choose to leave son uncut and let him choose later, they know that leaving son uncut won't cause cancer etc.

BUT, when you guys exagerate the foreskin (such as smegma being luubricant, or telling people no need to wash because foreskin is self cleaning, no need to retract etc, this removes credibility from the pro-foreskin and those who have slight preference for cut will take less of a look at leaving son uncut because they don't really believe all the claims made by anti circers.

As the level of resistance to leavinfg foreskin on has dropped, the best way forward is for those opposed to circ to stick to facts and not exagerations. You won't win everyone. But those on the fence will take you more seriously.

You are still wrong. There are still people making the argument that the foreskin results in higher rates of STIs and penile cancer. You might not experience it, but I encourage you to search the forum a bit more in depth.

No one is arguing an individuals preference in aesthetics. I haven't see a single argument for that, at least from the anti-circumcision camp. I do see those arguments from the pro-circumcisions camp. Please note I say anti and pro circumcisions with my tongue in my cheek. Again, I'm not anti circumcision, I'm against forcing circumcision on an unwilling vicitim, an infant.

I said this before, I am involved in these discussions frequently. I have NEVER heard anyone say that retraction isn't necessary or that smegma is natural lubricant. It's a stupid argument and I don't believe anyone is making it, or that any significant number of people are making it. I haven't never seen these arguments being made and you aren't citing them being made. One of the main arguments against circumcision is that we have running water and soap, so smegma is a thing of the past unless you are an unhygienic person.

Your last paragraph specifically accuses me of making these arguments, or you are warning me against making them which is ridiculous because I've never made those arguments. What exaggeration are you accusing me of making? What have I said that makes you not take me seriously?

 

[1141702]

You are still wrong. There are still people making the argument that the foreskin results in higher rates of STIs and penile cancer. You might not experience it, but I encourage you to search the forum a bit more in depth.

No one is arguing an individuals preference in aesthetics. I haven't see a single argument for that, at least from the anti-circumcision camp. I do see those arguments from the pro-circumcisions camp. Please note I say anti and pro circumcisions with my tongue in my cheek. Again, I'm not anti circumcision, I'm against forcing circumcision on an unwilling vicitim, an infant.

I said this before, I am involved in these discussions frequently. I have NEVER heard anyone say that retraction isn't necessary or that smegma is natural lubricant. It's a stupid argument and I don't believe anyone is making it, or that any significant number of people are making it. I haven't never seen these arguments being made and you aren't citing them being made. One of the main arguments against circumcision is that we have running water and soap, so smegma is a thing of the past unless you are an unhygienic person.

Your last paragraph specifically accuses me of making these arguments, or you are warning me against making them which is ridiculous because I've never made those arguments. What exaggeration are you accusing me of making? What have I said that makes you not take me seriously?

I wanted to add, that being involved in learning and restoration over the years, I have also, NEVER heard the arguments Concis keeps bringing up.

 

[deleted15807]

You are still wrong. There are still people making the argument that the foreskin results in higher rates of STIs and penile cancer. You might not experience it, but I encourage you to search the forum a bit more in depth.

You mean like the World Health Organization? Why don't you take your battle there?

 

[1141702]

You mean like the World Health Organization? Why don't you take your battle there?

I should show you the permission slip that was signed by my parents that said, it had no medical reason or benefit before I was circumcised, prematurely I might add.

 

[deleted15807]

I should show you the permission slip that was signed by my parents that said, it had no medical reason or benefit before I was circumcised, prematurely I might add.

Meh.

 

[1141702]

You mean like the World Health Organization? Why don't you take your battle there?

Meh.

 

[deleted15807]

Meh.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[IntactMale]

You mean like the World Health Organization? Why don't you take your battle there?

What country do you live in? I have running water and soap. I have as much of both as I could possibly ever need. My cock is so clean you could eat off of it, but I wouldn't let you.

The WHO article you cited is from a third world country where these things are not accessible. Still, I think the people would be fine if they practiced some hygiene. However, these are the same people, literally the same country, that killed a goat because they thought a man that raped a women was a warlock and turned himself into a goat to escape.

So, a bunch of idiots get infected because they are too dense to wash themselves and would rather spend their time hunting witches and warlocks. Good point.

 

[IntactMale]

You mean like the World Health Organization? Why don't you take your battle there?

Also, here's paragraph two, I don't think you read it:

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Either way, do you think infants are really at risk of contracting AIDs or HIV through sexual activity? Stop circumcising infants, there's no reason. Do you know the other influences circumcision introduces. Are circumcised men in this location less likely to have sex because it doesn't feel as good? Stop looking at one data point and extrapolating to suit your needs. Infants don't fuck.

Anyways, your post proves the point, there is still a "circumcision is better" culture, even if its fueled by idiocy.

 

[IntactMale]

Wash your hands is step 1 in having clean hands. Cut all the skin off your hands doesn't really enter into the picture, does it.

 

[stax 68]

..Anyways, your post proves the point, there is still a "circumcision is better" culture, even if its fueled by idiocy...

Totally...penises are pretty much mocked..feared..avoided..and foreskin is the most disrespected part of the penis.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Also, here's paragraph two, I don't think you read it:

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Either way, do you think infants are really at risk of contracting AIDs or HIV through sexual activity? Stop circumcising infants, there's no reason. Do you know the other influences circumcision introduces. Are circumcised men in this location less likely to have sex because it doesn't feel as good? Stop looking at one data point and extrapolating to suit your needs. Infants don't fuck.

Anyways, your post proves the point, there is still a "circumcision is better" culture, even if its fueled by idiocy.

Are you trying to have a discussion with sargon20?






Really??????

 

[deleted15807]

Shouldn't you be officiating Tiny's 10K challenge

Also, here's paragraph two, I don't think you read it:

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Either way, do you think infants are really at risk of contracting AIDs or HIV through sexual activity? Stop circumcising infants, there's no reason. Do you know the other influences circumcision introduces. Are circumcised men in this location less likely to have sex because it doesn't feel as good? Stop looking at one data point and extrapolating to suit your needs. Infants don't fuck.

Anyways, your post proves the point, there is still a "circumcision is better" culture, even if its fueled by idiocy.

A little bit of you goes a long way no?

What I know for sure "Intact male/Complete male" is nothing and no one will make you feel anymore whole than you are right now. And all the angst and tears over a body part would be better spent working on yourself.

The question is why you feel so threatened by the 'circumcision culture' you had to start a thread about it.

 

[IntactMale]

Shouldn't you be officiating Tiny's 10K challenge


A little bit of you goes a long way no?

What I know for sure "Intact male/Complete male" is nothing and no one will make you feel anymore whole than you are right now. And all the angst and tears over a body part would be better spent working on yourself.

The question is why you feel so threatened by the 'circumcision culture' you had to start a thread about it.

I wasn't aware that I started this thread. Another good point. Sargon is credited with creating the worlds first known empire. Nothing could say that you have an old method of thinking more than your name.

I don't feel threatened, I defeat the arguments of idiots like you every time they come around. I just did that, want to make a new argument and see how that goes for you?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Shouldn't you be officiating Tiny's 10K challenge

Shouldn't you be posting comments to someone you have on "ignore"?