Moderator: Silent One
TomTom wrote:For those who are arguing against what the Colonel is trying to get across are truly missing the big picture.
TomTom wrote:Opening a post about women's preference for circumcised penises is an affront to men. Why? because the issue is based on the fact that male genital mutilation is condoned by our society, unlike female genital mutilation.
TomTom wrote:So this thread promulgates the notion that it is OK for men to be mutilated. The whole idea should be considered offensive in the first place and should not be treated so lightly.
TomTom wrote:Imagine coming this site and finding a thread like - Is screwing 13 year old pussy better than 18 year old pussy? Then reading lots of men say how much better 13 year old pussy is...get the idea? The notion is based upon an offensive idea.
TomTom wrote:Even worse are these comments like uncircumcised dicks are unattractive, they are smelly, they are disease prone etc. These types of comments can only serve to make men feel inadequate about themselves and want to go under the knife just to please women. These comments make men believe women would not want them unless they were circumcised. This is the same sick sexist mindset that make women feel the need to have breast implants.
TomTom wrote:If this situation was reversed and it was women who were routinely circumcised as children then it would be a big deal. Feminists would herald this as the ultimate symbol of male sexism and it would have been outlawed decades ago. But since men do not have a worthy masculist movement to cry foul then boys continue to be hacked away at and women continue to promote this as a good idea when all that is needed to rectify the "issues" is just proper hygiene.
TomTom wrote:Here are some words from a Jewish lady who gets it. Shame others here don't.
TomTom wrote:"Regular readers know that, despite my Jewiness, I think circumcision is a risky, unnecessary, primitive and mutilating practice. It serves absolutely NO purpose though some camps have tried determinedly for a century now to prove that it has some health advantages. What they've basically done is look for light under rocks - and when they see a glimmer reflecting off some mica, they cry, "Eureka, that's why people 5000 years ago came up with this idea - because they knew something about male health that modern science cannot grasp!"
I don't think so.
TomTom wrote:So it was with great interest and delight that during one of my occasional readings through the Jewish Forward, I discovered there's a tiny but, hopefully, growing number of Jews who feel the same way I do.
TomTom wrote:Maintaining old rituals that clearly serve little or NO purpose in modern life is ignoring the notion of progress and rejecting the path we humans are on, towards better and clearer understanding of how the human body works. To my mind, the only difference between circumcising men and performing clitorectomies on women (the procedure that draws such outrage in the allegedly enlightened West) is that men retain adequate functionality to reproduce.
TomTom wrote:But at what cost? Decreased sensitivity; risk of damage and infection; risk of scarring and even deformity. The single greatest advantage of circumcision is reducing smegma under the foreskin and thus reducing the likelihood of infections or transmission of STDs. But modern hygiene eliminates the NEED to remove the foreskin. All a man needs to do is bathe regularly and remember to soap himself all over. That's it. "

Cali Lady wrote:Have never seen(in person) a man who wasn't. Seems the normal thing to me.

Bouncy wrote:
No. You're missing the big picture. This thread is about personal preference from a woman (women's) point of view. What do they think of circumcised guys? Not what are the medical dangers, what are the legalities, what are the moral issues, what are the religious issues, or any of those other "big picture" points. This was a thread asking women to post their thoughts on circumcised penises.
I am borrowing the term used for female circumcision so I am using the correct terminology. And the examples you list are all cosmetic procedures. Surgically operating on the genitals is a completely different matter and risks ruining the life of that person.As for your description of mutilation, the same can be said for a hair cut, or a piercing, or getting braces on ones teeth and not allowing them to grow as nature intended. You call it mutilation, I call it modification.
Yes a question about an immoral procedure that 99% of men had no choice over. The poll simply normalizes the idea and ignores the whole morality issue underpinning it.TomTom wrote:It does no such thing. It asks a question.
It is illegal precisely because it is deemed immoral - it is the immorality of it that I am describing and comparing.TomTom wrote:
Correction. That notion is based on an illegal act. Sex with a minor. Huge difference. Find a more suitable analogy.
Great attitude. Lets have a free for all. Lets not be concerned about exposing young, impressionable people desperate to be attractive to the opposite sex to unnecessary behavior. Lets turn our backs on these issues. Anorexia? – who cares about that – its not anyone’s fault or concern women starve themselves to death because they want to be super thin. And lets go all the way and make breast implants available to young girls who feel inadequate that they are still flat chested.
If a man wants to feel inadequate because it's pointed out that other men fail in the personal hygiene department, that's up to him.
So women are more discriminated against so they have the right to ignore discrimination against men. Lets brag about discrimination, who is the bigger victim. After all two wrongs make a right? Men get plenty of sexual discrimination from women, men don’t have a masculist movement to raise people’s awareness of it.
Reverse sexual discrimination. Not nice is it? Lets not go down the road as to whom has suffered more at the hands of sexual discrimination.
I am not using her religion to prove her opinion is higher than anyone’s else, that is just your paranoia. Obviously Jews have a religious requirement to circumcise boys thus their indoctrination into the idea is more fundamental than most others. So if a Jewish lady can see the light, why can’t others.Is there some reason it's important that she's Jewish? Does that somehow put her opinion higher above a Catholic woman, an atheist woman? No, it doesn't. You're just using her religion to underscore your point. Shame you don't get that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even, and especially, when it differs from yours.
Hello! because it is an unnecessary and immoral act to subject boys to. And in our society we have a tendency to make immoral things illegal. I cannot help you if you cannot see this simple point.
So she's decided that circumcision is unnecessary and given her reasons for it. What of it?
It's preference and choice. We all have it. At least we should.
The Colonel wrote:Cali Lady wrote:Have never seen(in person) a man who wasn't. Seems the normal thing to me.
The general rule is: Normal = Natural. However, it should be the man who decides what is normal for him and what isn't - whatever that may be.
I have no problem with men/teens getting cut - provided it is their choice, with clear and unbiased information, and without any coercion.
Female "preference" amounts to coercion, whether it is deliberate or not.
TomTom wrote:Bouncy wrote:
No. You're missing the big picture. This thread is about personal preference from a woman (women's) point of view. What do they think of circumcised guys? Not what are the medical dangers, what are the legalities, what are the moral issues, what are the religious issues, or any of those other "big picture" points. This was a thread asking women to post their thoughts on circumcised penises.
But if the question is based upon the immoral act of butchering boy's penises - and 99% of circumcised men had it done to them without consent - then basing any question of preference on this issue is an affront. If we lived in a society where circumcised men all had the choice of having the procedure then you would be correct. We don’t live in this society so your reasoning is immoral, you just cannot see it because society has not reached the point of acknowledging the immorality of doing this to boys. But that does not excuse you as an individual from ducking the issue when confronted with it.
Lets have a poll - is screwing a woman who has been raped before more fun that one who has not been raped. What a fun poll that would be and don't bother being annoyed or irritated about it because those who are in favor are only stating their preference.....
I am borrowing the term used for female circumcision so I am using the correct terminology. And the examples you list are all cosmetic procedures. Surgically operating on the genitals is a completely different matter and risks ruining the life of that person.As for your description of mutilation, the same can be said for a hair cut, or a piercing, or getting braces on ones teeth and not allowing them to grow as nature intended. You call it mutilation, I call it modification.Yes a question about an immoral procedure that 99% of men had no choice over. The poll simply normalizes the idea and ignores the whole morality issue underpinning it.TomTom wrote:It does no such thing. It asks a question.It is illegal precisely because it is deemed immoral - it is the immorality of it that I am describing and comparing.TomTom wrote:
Correction. That notion is based on an illegal act. Sex with a minor. Huge difference. Find a more suitable analogy.
Tell you what - take your daughter to the hospital and ask a doctor to have her circumcised. Not only will your request be declined but you can expect social services to pay you a visit to see if you are abusing your children.
The fact is you would never dream of circumcising your daughters. Why is that?Great attitude. Lets have a free for all. Lets not be concerned about exposing young, impressionable people desperate to be attractive to the opposite sex to unnecessary behavior. Lets turn our backs on these issues. Anorexia? – who cares about that – its not anyone’s fault or concern women starve themselves to death because they want to be super thin. And lets go all the way and make breast implants available to young girls who feel inadequate that they are still flat chested.
If a man wants to feel inadequate because it's pointed out that other men fail in the personal hygiene department, that's up to him.So women are more discriminated against so they have the right to ignore discrimination against men. Lets brag about discrimination, who is the bigger victim. After all two wrongs make a right? Men get plenty of sexual discrimination from women, men don’t have a masculist movement to raise people’s awareness of it.
Reverse sexual discrimination. Not nice is it? Lets not go down the road as to whom has suffered more at the hands of sexual discrimination.
Now an intelligent and empathic response from you would be – as a woman I know all about discrimination and would not want the wrongs that I have experienced because of my gender to be projected onto others. I understand that male circumcision as currently practiced is indefensible and until society reaches a point of equality , the promotion of this issue should be avoided.I am not using her religion to prove her opinion is higher than anyone’s else, that is just your paranoia. Obviously Jews have a religious requirement to circumcise boys thus their indoctrination into the idea is more fundamental than most others. So if a Jewish lady can see the light, why can’t others.Is there some reason it's important that she's Jewish? Does that somehow put her opinion higher above a Catholic woman, an atheist woman? No, it doesn't. You're just using her religion to underscore your point. Shame you don't get that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even, and especially, when it differs from yours.Hello! because it is an unnecessary and immoral act to subject boys to. And in our society we have a tendency to make immoral things illegal. I cannot help you if you cannot see this simple point.
So she's decided that circumcision is unnecessary and given her reasons for it. What of it?
It's preference and choice. We all have it. At least we should.
Except 99% of men never had the choice – that is the whole point. And that is why your support of circumcision, even though unintentional, is wrong because it sends the wrong message and reinforces the normalcy of the procedure and its desirability.
Lets look at another analogy – arranged marriages. Here is a tradition that exists in many cultures which you seem happy to oblige. You are of course completely OK with young girls being married off to men without any say in the matter. You would feel no need to interject and state that this is not an acceptable practice. So if internet sites started discussing how desirable this is and we should bring this tradition back into our society, you would not care. And maybe if it gets discussed long enough and the idea becomes normalized then this can become lawful again. That is where you line of reasoning, or lack thereof, ends up.
You dance around using words like preference and choice when you know well enough that this issue is not about preference or choice but about primitive and unnecessary sexual discrimination. But since its about men, who cares right?
Here is something to think about. How many times have you asked the circumcised men you are having sex with when he got the snip? I guess the answer is never. Why?
1. you don’t care
2. you already know the answer – it was done to him when he was a baby/boy
3. why would you ask? this is normal, no need to think about it

Return to Sex (Better Sex) Issues
Users browsing this forum: ravi.shankar and 0 guests