A redditor in /r/NSFW_GIF sees an uncircumcised penis for the first time and is not happy about it (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
132 ups - 46 downs = 86 votes
123 comments submitted at 17:07:13 on Apr 27, 2014 by tooism
A redditor in /r/NSFW_GIF sees an uncircumcised penis for the first time and is not happy about it (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
132 ups - 46 downs = 86 votes
123 comments submitted at 17:07:13 on Apr 27, 2014 by tooism
It does make it less pleasurable, why else do you think circumcised men tend to last longer on average? Sure it is not quite the same but it does make a difference and neither young girls or boys have a say in it.
You don't see the difference between "less pleasurable" and "no pleasure?" Or "a small flap of skin is removed" versus "the clitoris is removed entirely and the vagina is partially sewn shut?"
I'm a circumcised guy. Sex feels great. I'm not gonna cry in my beer about something that happened to me that I don't remember, that doesn't affect my life in the slightest.
I don't get the people that get upset over being circumcised or not. It's not a big deal, sex is still fine, I have yet to have bad sex. Female genital mutilation on the other hand is a horrific crime and the men who compare the fact they don't have foreskin to that need to get their heads checked.
>need to get their heads checked.
I think they already did. If you know what I mean.
It's still fucking ridiculous to mutilate a baby boy's genitals essentially for aesthetic/cultural reasons. It's nowhere near as terrible as female genital mutilation but it's absurd that it's still acceptable to do that to baby boys in Western countries.
One Western country, mostly.
It's normalized and very common in at least three countries, the US, Canada, and Australia. But it's acceptable to do it in many other European countries.
US and Canada yeah, but in Australia whilst it's more common than other places, only about 10-20% are circumcised
Yep, not at all common in Australia, according to this it's about 13% for babies, 26% for men in their 20's.
I think it is illegal in Sweden and Germany also is trying to get rid of it.
If people have a problem with male circumcision I absolutely understand why, even though I might not have an issue with it personally. I just think the two types should never be compared in the same breath as they are worlds apart.
I might be biased as I was circumcised as an infant, remember nothing, and can and do enjoy sex just fine. Find me a woman who had her clit carved out when she was six and let's compare war stories.
I
They really shouldn't be compared, and female circumcision is definitely much more brutal than male circumcision. But that doesn't mean male circumcision is a non-issue. Just because they can't remember it doesn't make it painless, baby boys often pass out from the shock. You wouldn't punch a baby in the foot or try to inflict pain on it in general, yet it's completely acceptable to hack up their genitals with no anesthetic. Just seems backwards.
I do see a difference, I only wanted to point out why some people might think it is a good comparison to make. I could not care one way or another about the state of other mens cocks, at least not enough to argue about it with strangers.
>It does make it less pleasurable
[citation needed]
Because:
>Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.
What do you think of this Danish study, relevant quote >“We’re seeing a consistent picture. Even though most circumcised men – and their women – do not have problems with their sex lives, there is a significantly larger group of circumcised men and their female partners who experience frequent problems in achieving orgasm, compared to couples where the man is not circumcised.”
I'm kind of sceptical about all this (including female circumcision because of reading this), but it might be true and seems plausible at least. It would be interesting to see how different the rate of people having difficulty orgasming and/or painful sex is (I'm guessing it's probably not all that huge and definitely not as big as the guy in the OP's ultracock).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
The first one is a online self report
>The study aimed at a sample size of ≈1000 men. Given the intimate nature of the questions and the intended large sample size, the authors decided to create an online survey. Respondents were recruited by means of leaflets and advertising.
The second one looks like some random wiki site. Not exactly the best sources.
> The second one looks like some random wiki site. Not exactly the best sources.
Have you never heard of the UK NHS?
I don't care who they are, that site is not an acceptable source the way it's presented. You're going to need more than that for a biological claim that vast and generalizing.
You're right. A website's layout and design is absolutely the most critical measure of of it's validity as a source.
It's not a study. Simple as that. It looks like a weird WebMD, wouldn't accept that either.
> It's not a study. Pass comp 101 before making claims kid.
lol
EDIT: > It's not a study. Simple as that. It looks like a weird WebMD, wouldn't accept that either.
lol
Thought you were the other dude. Point and sentiment still stands if you seriously think that WebMD bullshit counts the same as legitimate scientific studies.
More Comments - Click Here
Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis [NSFW]
That is not a valid study.
Why not?
It's an out of context picture from a study. It's not a study. This is not how sourcing works...
I'm having a discussion on the internet, not writing an essay. The actual study in question is paywalled here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.2007.99.issue-4/issuetoc
...
You're talking about a biological claim. You need actual proof to make claims. A pay wall is not proof.
It is you who were making a biological claim in the first instance, citing a wikipedia link:
> Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.
Also, I don't need to prove anything. The onus of proof of benefit is on those who advocate infant circumcision.
No, that's wikipedia making the claim based off the sources provided (which check out.) If you wish to take issue with their citations then you need to go to the same or more lengths to disprove them and post your own theory/claim. Your stance seems to be lacking and I'm sorry, not gonna but what you're selling if you don't even understand citations and how burden of proof works.
More Comments - Click Here
It actually is. Just explain you can't see it and ask for a screenshot.