Norwegian ruling party votes to ban circumcision for men under 16 years old
69 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52208094]isnt the difference a few millimeters, maybe a centimeter at most?[/QUOTE]
Why do you think condom companies wants to make condoms even thinner even though they're already rather thin in the first place?
[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;52208147]Why do you think condom companies wants to make condoms even thinner even though they're already rather thin in the first place?[/QUOTE]
???
in both cut and uncut it's skin to skin, arguably cut men have it a bit better because there's no foreskin over parts of the dick
with condoms it's a bit of latex over your skin
vastly different???
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52207512]We need this in the US.[/QUOTE]
It'll be a long time before something like that happens in our pseudo theocracy where we have to fight for things like birth control and gay marriage because some 2000 year old book says otherwise.
As one who was circumcised at birth, I'd say it's probably the best option to have it be the choice of the individual to undergo the operation when they're of an adult age; However, I think it should be done before this with the consent of the parents if it's highly recommended for the individual if it could prevent major issues and ultimately save the individual. I should suffix this with the recommendation of it's something that's best to ask someone who is a professional in the matter like most "complicated" issues.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52208177]???
in both cut and uncut it's skin to skin, arguably cut men have it a bit better because there's no foreskin over parts of the dick
with condoms it's a bit of latex over your skin
vastly different???[/QUOTE]
What I meant is that the difference of a few millimeters can be large. Especially for an organ with that many nerve cells.
Not to mention, isn't the forskin where there's more nerve cells? So basically you're making sex less pleasurable for yourself if you're cut.
[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;52208147]Why do you think condom companies wants to make condoms even thinner even though they're already rather thin in the first place?[/QUOTE]
For marketing purposes. That's it. Hell, condoms are already thin enough that there's debate in the industry about whether condoms can be called "extra thin" at all when the difference is microns AND manufacturing tolerances can result in such condoms being the same thickness or thicker than standard ones.
[editline]10th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;52207814]I brought it up in the last thread too but don't cut and uncut dicks look identical when erect and actually relevant to sex? I'd really like a dick expert to chime in and explain the difference.[/QUOTE]
Not an expert but it depends. Some people have more or less foreskin than others.
[QUOTE=Cronos Dage;52207673]In Canada, circumcision is widely viewed as a cosmetic upgrade independent of religious culture—in general, the less foreskin,
the better. Many uncircumcised youth wish their parents had invested the $300 or so closer to birth for circumcision (and what
we affectionately call a "premium penis"). Most people would rather have it done earlier, whereas people who don't careabout
the visual are glad the money was saved for something else.
I've never left the continent and I don't research dicks but this is how it's been here for several decades.[/QUOTE]
That honestly sounds ridiculous. Cosmetic upgrade? Who is going to see that other than whatever girl you're with at the time or your parents when you're still a infant.
I didn't realize I was circumcised until my first sex ed class we had in middle/high school and that was when the only dongs they showed us were cases of STD's. I'm completely apathetic to the issue but cosmetic upgrade is bullshit, it makes the parents sound incredibly vain and no better than some religious nutjobs.
It makes no difference other than being cut requires less effort to clean it.
[QUOTE=download;52208054]Because generally speaking Muslim girls [I]are[/I] forced to wear it and are taught to be ashamed of their bodies by their families.[/QUOTE]
Eh not entirely true, it's more of a conservative relic that women should not flaunt themselves infront of others (especially men). Depending on the level of conservatism this can range between hijabs (head and neck) to burqas and niqabs (body, neck head and face).
Infact hijab is (out of muslim clothing) the most modern option, since it simply signifies their faith much like a jew wearing a kippa or a christian wearing a cross.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.