(October 6, 2016 at 11:11 pm)c172 Wrote: Atheists completely lose their shit with this. I mean, I understand the argument against it, but I look and feel better cut.

I look and feel better uncut.

The benefits of a foreskin outweigh the benefits of a circumcised penis immensely much that a circumcision shouldn't even be considered (imo) in a first world country unless you're a consenting adult and you want to for some reason. Every cut is different, the lucky ones are left with decent amounts of outer and inner foreskin, the others are left with a numb piece of flesh hanging from the body and some have their scrotum skin pulled up to the shaft, which sucks. 

Luckily foreskin restoration is a thing, allegedly you can restore your foreskin (no ridgid band nor frenulum) by stretching the skin gently, it induces mitosis and grows. It's supposedly very similiar to an uncut foreskin but still not as good. Downside is, it can take several years, but some sensitivity, a shining glans and such comes back before you're finished. You can be skeptical of it, but I find reddit foreskin restoration subreddit to be quite helpful and good. Foregen, one of the biggest companies trying to restore a whole foreskin stands behind the idea that foreskin=more sensitivity.

In general, I don't understand why such an old ritual/tradition still lives on.

My penis .. I think I'll keep it and love it just the way it is.  Well, what's left of it anyway after those hacks finished cutting it up shortly after my birth.  

 

(October 6, 2016 at 10:13 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Once again the show, Shameless, touches on the subject.  

It is the premiere of the new season and a boy asks his girlfriend why she never goes down on him even though he constantly goes down on her.

She has done it before, but she says, "Your penis looks weird.  You have all this extra skin and it freaks me out."

Some uncircumcised penises may not look appealing, relatively speaking. But one can say the same about some circumcised penises as well. Have you seen images of botched circumcised penises (with, for example, a small bridge of skin with space underneath it, or the region below the glans that looks like raw meat)?

(October 7, 2016 at 9:46 am)RozKek Wrote: The benefits of a foreskin outweigh the benefits of a circumcised penis immensely much that a circumcision shouldn't even be considered (imo) in a first world country unless you're a consenting adult and you want to for some reason. Every cut is different, the lucky ones are left with decent amounts of outer and inner foreskin, the others are left with a numb piece of flesh hanging from the body and some have their scrotum skin pulled up to the shaft, which sucks. 

Luckily foreskin restoration is a thing, allegedly you can restore your foreskin (no ridgid band nor frenulum) by stretching the skin gently, it induces mitosis and grows. It's supposedly very similiar to an uncut foreskin but still not as good. Downside is, it can take several years, but some sensitivity, a shining glans and such comes back before you're finished. You can be skeptical of it, but I find reddit foreskin restoration subreddit to be quite helpful and good. Foregen, one of the biggest companies trying to restore a whole foreskin stands behind the idea that foreskin=more sensitivity.

In general, I don't understand why such an old ritual/tradition still lives on.

What are the benefits to foreskin exactly? Research shows the sex isn't any better. Botched circumcisions are incredibly rare in industrialized first-world countries.

I suppose it could soften the blow if you ran into a wall with a boner while naked?

(October 7, 2016 at 10:28 am)Aegon Wrote: What are the benefits to foreskin exactly? Research shows the sex isn't any better. Botched circumcisions are incredibly rare in industrialized first-world countries.

It's ribbed, for her pleasure, and my aggrandizement.  Just for starters, lol. In truth, it;s good for my pleasure too, and saying "studies show the sex isn't any better" kind of fall flat on their face in any objective sense. My foreskin comprises the majority of my skin in that region, and is thus loaded with nerve endings itself. It shields the head of my penis from contact (like, say, from scratching against my clothes all day every day) , making contact pronounced. Pull back the foreskin, and a stiff breeze is a revelation of the divine. I have experiences in this regard for which the uncut have no correlate.

That, and the pleasure of knowing that my mother wasn't willing to have me mutilated immediately upon delivery for a nonexistent god, or because of a cultural tradition.....that's nice, too. I can certainly think of more than a few people in the world who would have appreciated this courtesy.......which was denied to them.

I don;t expect any of these things to be reasons that someone would go out and get themselves some foreskin, if they didn't have any, but I wonder whether or not any discussion of "benefits" is relevant to a discussion of whether or not it;s a good idea to slice off a piece of your body, or more accurately, to have someone else slice of a piece of someone else's body, at your behest. To me, as soon as we start discussing benefits, it would have to be -for- slicing it off, not for leaving it on....and probably not an issue of anything other than what the slicee wants to do, not their mother.

Looks better? Opinion.
Feels better? How would the cut know?
Cleanliness? Wash...your....dick.

(October 7, 2016 at 10:28 am)Aegon Wrote: Botched circumcisions are incredibly rare in industrialized first-world countries.

According to?

(October 7, 2016 at 10:28 am)Aegon Wrote: What are the benefits to foreskin exactly? Research shows the sex isn't any better. Botched circumcisions are incredibly rare in industrialized first-world countries.

Not sure which research you are thinking of, but I'm pretty sure the general scientific consensus is that sensitivity is reduced by circumcision. That makes sense considering the foreskin contains a load of nerves.

I have a feeling that trying to measure "sex being better" is going to be kinda subjective. Some circumsized guys will have great sex, some uncircumsized guys will have terrible sex, completely unrelated to their foreskins or lack thereof.

I myself would not circumcise my kids (if I ever have any). However, I also don't condemn those who do, and wouldn't push to make it illegal. My personal feelings on the matter are based on my dislike of making bodily decisions for infants/children based on cosmetic or cultural justifications - I don't even like when 2 year olds have pierced ears and earrings in their strollers. Would I prefer that everyone makes the decision for themselves once they reach adulthood? Absolutely. But I'm not going to demonize the parents who do have their kids circumcised.

I suppose it comes down to the risk/harm factors of circumcision. As has been stated, botched circumcisions are exceedingly rare. The health benefits reported vary between slight or barely there at all, while the negatives are a potential loss of some level of sensitivity. I dunno, maybe in the future if we're able to quantify this sensitivity loss, it will become a piece of evidence against circumcision, but I can't see it being the basis for making it illegal.