Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Yeah, but the thing is that jackhammering remains an option for uncircumcised men, doesn't it?  More options generally > fewer options.

(Plus, I mean... condoms aren't exactly going to be providing much sliding action, are they?)

[Bauglir]

Regarding condoms, yeah, they probably won't. It'd be kind of self-defeating if they did. Bit of a problem, that. Though, on the other hand, I'd imagine a consequence of that is that if a man wears a condom, it matters less whether he's circumcised or not. I'm really not qualified to make claims one way or the other, though, on several levels.

[Agdune]

No they do not. I mean, assuming that there's plenty of lubrication (either natural or artificial) that isn't a problem so much but without? It's a bit like that feeling of chewing on a balloon, but with more friction. The tiny bit of lubricant that comes with most condoms is so miniscule it evaporates if you so much as touch the condom or expose it to air.

Rough sex is not much fun if the recipient isn't able to generate their own lube for whatever reason (medical reasons, an orifice which doesn't normally produce lubrication, etc) and didn't think to carry a tube of quality lube with them wherever they go. Actually, I suppose you could make that statement about just about any form of sex that doesn't involve lubrication. It ain't enjoyable for anyone involved.

...But yeah. Totally irrelevant tangent.

[Bauglir]

Spoiler: Why Am I Typing This (click to show/hide)

Clarification: You want lubrication on the exterior of the condom. You don't want it on the interior, lest the little bastard slip off or any of the littler, potential, bastards slip out. Since it's fixed in place and quite thin you get the sensation of sex without the sensation of rough friction, but that is also probably going to fix your foreskin in place relative to your glans and suchlike - but this last thing I just said is complete supposition based on my impressions of the physics involved. I have no empirical evidence of any kind.

I'll say that, more on topic, I'm not sure in which direction circumcision counts as sexism, but I'll happily agree that there is a double standard of some kind that there ought not be. There's just so much tied up with it as a tradition, particularly in cultures that identify it with legitimate membership of that culture, that it is arguably treated as a badge of honor that could arguably be considered denied to women. I don't know how valid that is - it seems like a sort of clusterfuck in all directions, at least from my current perspective.

[Neonivek]

Neonivek, I'm pretty sure that tattooing a child would be considered child abuse and illegal. Funny because a tattoo can be removed and circumcision cannot be undone.

I am actually surprised. Especially since Tatoos for 12 year olds for example are an increasing fad. THOUGH it comes from a resurgence of the "Slutty is sexy" fad that comes and goes.

[moocowmoo]

I don't want to leave the discussion without offering some hope and positivity to circumcised males who may have read here and are thinking FUCK. If you google "foreskin restoration", there are many resources available. It is not technically full restoration, the specialized tissues and structures that were amputated cannot grow back, but you can grow enough skin to cover the glans, which will restore much of the sensitivity there. The extra skin also mimics the function of the foreskin enough that gentler sex is possible and masturbation easier (some circumcised men cannot even masturbate without artificial lubrication).

The process takes a long time though, progress is measured in millimeters over months and years. But it does work. Men have gone from not having enough skin to accommodate an erection, to full coverage of the glans when flaccid. So search if you're interested, and if you have further questions feel free to ask me here or in PM. Also for people who agree that circumcision is wrong, I encourage you to speak to others about it, especially those considering doing it to their sons. The boy can always be circumcised later on in life, but once it is done it can never be undone. He has the right to make that decision for himself.

[RedKing]

*RedKing checks on thread progress since page 1*

*reads page 12*

 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[moocowmoo]

*RedKing checks on thread progress since page 1*

*reads page 12*

 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You're reading about a human rights violation being perpetrated in several first world countries, exclusively against males, affecting tens of millions of men. It goes largely unopposed except for a vocal minority. A similar, but more severe version is done to females in some third world countries and the practice is universally condemned and declaimed here at home, and rightly so.

[RedKing]

Or so you say.

I'm "snipped". My son is "snipped". I'm pretty sure nobody needs to be hauled into the Hague over it.

[Bauglir]

You're reading about a human rights violation being perpetrated in several first world countries, exclusively against males, affecting tens of millions of men. It goes largely unopposed except for a vocal minority. A similar, but more severe version is done to females in some third world countries and the practice is universally condemned and declaimed here at home, and rightly so.

See, I'm not sure whether this language is hyperbolic or if it's just my own biases (if it matters, I've not been circumcised), but most men who've been circumcised don't seem to have a great deal of trouble with it. It's a lousy defense of the morality of the actual act, but it seems relevant to the degree of language that ought to be used. It calls to mind the image of a piece of legislation to have shoplifters imprisoned for a few years, on the grounds of being "tough on crime", and justified because "they're criminals who deserve to be punished". Hopefully that explanation of why I'm uneasy with some of the descriptions makes sense.

[GlyphGryph]

But aren't there are a lot of women who are perfectly fine with their own genital mutilation as well, and even support it? I mean, "most people don't care about it" isn't super relevant if we're judging morality from agreed upon principles brought to their logical conclusion. Most people have historically been okay with a lot of things we ended up deciding were wrong after the fact.

[RedKing]

I' can just counter the hyperbole by talking about how I'm free of the fleshy shackles of the foreskinocracy. 

[Bauglir]

But aren't there are a lot of women who are perfectly fine with their own genital mutilation as well, and even support it? I mean, "most people don't care about it" isn't super relevant if we're judging morality from agreed upon principles brought to their logical conclusion. Most people have historically been okay with a lot of things we ended up deciding were wrong after the fact.

Yeah, I know. I did say it's a shitty defense of the act, itself. What I'm trying to say is that the language being used to describe what may well be a bad thing implies that it's ruining lives to a degree that it probably isn't. I get that there's a lot of problems, between people who aren't really able to tell whether it's better or worse, not to mention social shame from speaking up about it, but even so, phrases like "human rights violation" call to mind images of enslavement, mass murder, and the like. Which is a degree apart, even if they are technically accurate umbrella terms.

[moocowmoo]

Or so you say.

I'm "snipped". My son is "snipped". I'm pretty sure nobody needs to be hauled into the Hague over it.

I'm not interested in punishment for what has already been done, only for protecting the right of those it will be done to in the future who cannot speak for themselves. It is more than just a "snip". Please read up on what the procedure entails, and perhaps watch a video of it being done. What's done is done, but if you have another son in the future, please know that this is a drastic procedure, not a trivial snip, and he should be allowed to choose whether he wants to do this to his body or not.

[moocowmoo]

Yeah, I know. I did say it's a shitty defense of the act, itself. What I'm trying to say is that the language being used to describe what may well be a bad thing implies that it's ruining lives to a degree that it probably isn't. I get that there's a lot of problems, between people who aren't really able to tell whether it's better or worse, not to mention social shame from speaking up about it, but even so, phrases like "human rights violation" call to mind images of enslavement, mass murder, and the like. Which is a degree apart, even if they are technically accurate umbrella terms.

People keep repeatedly saying this. "Your language is accurate but it's too much". I can't use mutilation because FGM is worse, I can't use human rights violation because mass murder is worse. So I guess I'm supposed to just say it's just circumcision, just a little snip. Strapping a baby down in restraints and taking a knife to his genitals while he is fully conscious and screaming in pain is not severe enough to warrant strong language apparently.