Is circumcision really as bad as it's made out to be?
10 replies, posted
I recently made a thread to see how much people are actually circumcised, and it doesn't seem to be that much.
So, as the result of a medical condition, I'm faced with two options:
Live with an extremely tight and uncomfortable uncut penis; making sex uncomfortable and painful, but I can still fap ok.
Or
Get cut and live with a normal circumcised penis.
Now, I'm going off to university in september, and I wanna fuck bitches and all that good stuff, so I need to make the decision soon, so that If I actually do get cut, it will be healed up by the time I get to uni.
Does circumcision make a HUGE difference in pleasure like people make it out to be, or is it not as bad?
[IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=507030&dateline=1342036059[/IMG]
What makes you think bitches will just let you fuck them?
wasn't the result of the last thread that you loose sensitivity?
Is it more popular in the US? Doesn't seem to be very popular in the UK
It's done commonly in the US for hygiene reasons followed by religious ceremonies.
There is nothing wrong with getting circumcised, the loss of feeling is barely noticeable at all if at all. It's more manner of the individual and what is more comfortable and aesthetically pleasing to them.
If it will make you feel better about yourself and make things more comfortable in the long run, get the surgery done. Otherwise if you are fine with it is now, leave it.
There are studies that go both ways as far as 'statistically what is better to have' or 'what females prefer', but there are enough to support either side that you can consider it inconclusive.
I don't mean to sound dumb, but what hygiene reasons? Sorry, it's not really a common subject I take about
[QUOTE=Vassinator;36851623]I don't mean to sound dumb, but what hygiene reasons? Sorry, it's not really a common subject I take about[/QUOTE]
Well, there are studies that say it doesn't help and then there are studies that say the effect is unnoticeable.
But the idea is that, because circumcised penises do not require the moving of the foreskin to clean the entire penis, they are easier to clean. It assumes that those uncircumcised may not wash or pay enough attention to these areas covered by foreskin, opening themselves up for smegma and grime to fester there. Proper hygiene habits make this point moot, but it doesn't disprove the fact that circumcised have less work.
There are also some reports the circumcised penises give a higher resistance to some STIs, although because I am no medical professional I am not sure why this is. The studies are often disagreed upon in their validity, like most of this topic, so there is no way to be sure.
From what I can tell, it relates to hygienic reasons and the buildup of bacteria within uncircumcised penises and their partners, increasing the risk of contracting HIV. Basically it always comes back to hygienic reasons.
tbh I was circumsized as a baby,But I can still fap.
I'm not sure about you folks, but whenever I come into threads that do mention circumcision people like to say its "dick mutilation". I can't help but laugh when people do say that.
Denmark is doing serious consideration of banning circumcision, because cutting and snipping into kids doesn't really sound all great, now does it?
Why make a second thread? And no it's really not, the sensitivity lost isn't much, you last longer, and to some people it looks better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.