• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

Circumcision ban

lubetube,

Thank you. And yes, I am quite familiar with that heart wrenching story. Furthermore, as a hospital worker for all these years, I have seen my share of botched procedures. I never meant to intimate that it does not hapeen, au contraire!

People with kidney failure have had the wrong kidney removed! Should we ban renal transplants! I am sure that those with kidney failure would not think so. It was never my point to say that things don't go terribly wrong in a hospital. That would be the ultimate lie! BUt people should not make sweeping statements about things that they know absolutely little about.

Lubetube, ever heard of Murphy's law? It says that ," if anything can go wrong, it will."
Such is the case in hopitals. For all the rules and regulations and demands by government agencies (JCAHO), any individual can enter a hospital, at any given time, with or without money, for the simplest of procedures, and have the absolute worse scenario occur to them. Some folks call it kismet, or karma, or fate. Others just realize that we are imperfect beings doing imperfect tasks in an imperfect world. And that my dear, is called LIFE.

I honor your right to say your mind, and I thank you for your criticism.
 
Jlipps,

You rock with your facts. Thanks for sharing. My comment about trauma from circumcision was meant broadly. I have the same understanding as you in that there is very little trauma involved doing circumcisions as an infant which is why they are usually done so early. I was mainly referring to those that have experienced pain or trauma in general. A friend of mine is a hypnotherapist and she does trauma release work and she said that many patients who under go surgery have associated trauma that is hidden in their subconscious. Also, there is incredible science behind Louise Hay's book, “The Mental and Emotional Cause of Physical and Emotional Pain.” There is also, significant evidence to suggest that if these issues remain unresolved that they can develop into serious illnesses like cancer and such. Which some say is BS and others say it is right on. I guess what I am saying is real or perceived the power of belief can cure as well as kill. So, that is where my trauma comment was coming from.
 
A few questions to ponder over circumcision traditions...

Dear Zyl84,

Zyl, I too enjoy my cut dick. Yet, I too have always wondered "what if"?

What if I had been allowed the luxury of enjoying it exactly as God created it?

What if my personal rights had not been pre-empted shortly after my birth by my otherwise well-meaning parents?

What if we had a religious tradition that granted the parents of every male child upon request to have his glans removed after birth, would you support it too? The glans are classified as “mucus membrane tissue” and unlike the shaft are an easy pathway for sexually transmitted diseases. If your tradition was to prevent as much exposure to diseases as possible, why couldn't you formulate a religious tradition for the removal of the glans and advance the same rights extended to parents who want their infant male circumcised one step further? They could still do just about everything everyone else could do, other that enjoy most forms of having sex. Speaking hypothetically, couldn't you allow that if this tradition were in place, it had outlived its useful purpose with the advent of condoms and should be stopped, just like female circumcision as cruel and barbaric? When it comes to being admitted to heaven, is an "Express Lane" offered for those circumcised males! What part of God's moral code deals directly with having a foreskin removed anyway? Are cut guys like me any more moral than uncut guys? If not, why make it a religious tradition and Holyday just like we Catholics celebrate the "Circumcision of Christ" like some baptism but only offered to males? Has there been no progress in the last 2000 years?

I deeply resent the liberty taken by any parent, as if their infant is some "pot roast" purchased at the grocery store and, therefore, allowing the "purchaser" the right to do anything they please. What we are talking about is something obviously having permanent and lasting effects with the child's penis at the child's expense (not the parents). Personally, I find that unbelievably selfish and disrespectful to the infant that something so permanent and totally unnecessary would thrust upon them without the child's ability to consent.

I do not honestly feel this would abridge any parental rights parents, because to do so has already exceeded their parental rights anyway. What is being talked about does not belong to either parent. Rather, it is their child's penis and how it is configured is not the parent's right to do with anyway they want, unless this was the result of some medical necessity. To do so otherwise, is profoundly abusive to their newborn child.

I want in my heart of hearts to respect all religious beliefs. Yet, to go against this mandatory assumption goes directly against my cultural upbringing of respecting all other's right to believe as they choose. Any consideration of traditions evoke statements or thoughts that I might lack civility, political correctness, or human sensitivity. Yet, what is at stake is my personal opinion. Realistically speaking, I acknowledge the rights of certain religious beliefs must be honored but, in that case, then where do you draw the line? Why not allow for the tradition of stoning of women when their virtue comes into doubt or they are so disrespectful as to file for a divorce? Why not allow for the tradition of honor killings? Why not sanction the tradition of Sharia Law stateside, as it too has a long tradition in the Islamic faith and culture? Since I personally am half-French, why not recognize nationwide the Napoleonic Code for people like me? All of these have long-standing traditions, but even so, that does not mean we must as a society slavishly adhere to those religious or legal traditions. My point is that all traditions start with a purpose in mind. At what point when this purpose is no longer applicable, must we persist in following them blindly? If there is a God, then surely he should expect us to use our mental facilities to the fullest and choose which ones to follow and which ones to deem no longer serving its intended purpose. I am not hateful of others views or traditions, but I only want us to reevaluate the strict adherence to traditions when they no longer serve a good purpose.

Coming from the south with many Southerners viewing all "Southern traditions" as somehow sacred, such as "slavery" and "the separation of the races", I cannot tell you how many proud Southerners I have come across in my 62 years who tell me how essential their "traditions" (meaning racial segregation and maybe even slavery) are for them to be honored. :001_rolleyes::001_rolleyes: I SAY HOGWASH! I SAY "I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, ploop"!:lol: Being Roman Catholic with all of its myriad of religious traditions and some based on the Jewish faith, I SAY HOGWASH to much of it too! I do not feel the least bit conflicted or hypocritical. It has no relevance in my life in 2011. Much of it is simply HOGWASH too! Especially the part about "homosexuality being sinful" since that was never mentioned in the earliest centuries of the Christian faith, or was there a momentary homosexual moratorium back then. I say HOGWASH to that too! This is a blanket moralistic statement and they do not know what relationship I have with my God. I alone must account for my own behavior while here on the earth, not them!

My prior statement though disapproving of circumcisions in general, does nonetheless condone a typical Jewish practice of using a "Moyle" to perform male circumcisions. The last time I checked, Moyles are Jewish, yet I believe they should be trusted more than typical physicians perform this procedure on any infant male, if asked. As stated earlier, they have a much greater amount of preparation for performing this specific procedure beyond the typical "untrained surgeon" that uses a crude mechanical clamping device as the surgeon's guide to assist with the procedure. On the other hand, Moyles take great care to leave enough intact so that the penis is less limited than the dreaded clamping device provides and other goofy techniques employed at the whelms of medical staff leaving an unsightly and often irregular scar for the circumcised male to enjoy. A conversation piece they call it.

The penis should have sufficient skin left following circumcision to freely slide up and down. This is so very obvious when viewing an uncircumcised male masturbating and how different their technique is from cut guys. Uncut guys have so much more to play with while protecting the skin below. Zyl, as we both share in our cut status, the circumcision process removes much of the elasticity in the skin of the shaft overall prevalent in most uncut guys. I feel we have all evolved from the beginnings of mankind, and before the creation of any existing religion, Nature has provided us with the best body possible through the process of evolving over thousands and thousands of years. As people can live without their appendix, when removed out of medical necessity. But, would we want a religion to now dictate all appendixes should be removed at birth of all newborns when it is less painful, we assume to avoid future complications from appendicitis. [B}Medical necessity should be the basic requirement to perform any surgery[/B]. With so small a proportion of the country being Jewish or Muslim, why is it practically all males in the US adhere to something outside their religious tradition. Almost universal circumcisions largely started in the 1930’s in the US.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73

Back then it was the obstetricians and gynecologists, not religious leaders, who were most in favor of circumcision. Is it that we are the only country or culture in the world that is concerned about personal cleanliness, to make this procedure a cultural norm. I think not!

As you can see, Zyl, I feel strongly in support of this notion of "banning circumcising infant boys" and it seems reasonable enough, with an exception for religious beliefs. Although, not the best answer in my personal opinion. I am amazed at the sense of entitlement that parents feel so free to deny their own child any voice in something so very personal running the slight risk of forfeiting their child's penis as a consequence. Since the sources I read state accidents do in fact exist, I do not want any part of this butchery and stupidity and I feel I can say this with justification! Imagine if this child was your very own. How could you as a parent ever explain adequately that an essential part of their anatomy and sexual identity was simply sliced off and thrown away much like routine waste? But even beyond this, the missing body part makes your child forever appear freakish to any other boy or girl they might ever come in contact with for the rest of their life. All done in the mindless pursuit of some unnecessary medical procedure. What could any parent possibly say to justify it, regardless of religion? "That it was meant to be???" And, for those mistakenly circumcised by a physician, as has happened in the past, is there any "law suit compensation" ever going to justify the insult to their body? I sincerely hope you will give it your consideration for the sake of other potentially innocent male victims, to support this ban on "medically unnecessary" circumcisions.

I sincerely hope you do not consider my personal opinions indication of my having religious or cultural intolerance of differing views or meant to be offensive? My whole point is that we all should review our automatic preferences from time to time making sure they are still relevant in our world and make our self aware of the possible risks and ramifications. I prefer taking the less risky path.


Stimpy
 
Historically the cutting off of a child's foreskin was done in North Africa and the Middle East thousands of years ago to save water. The Semitic desert tribes were made up of intelligent and clean people, and the ancestors of today's Arabs and Jews developed this little trick with a knife to keep the need for bathing to a minimum. Water was so scarce that the practice became obligatory, the obligation tradition and the tradition entered the way these people constructed their religions. I may be mistaken, but I think they even had God or Jaweh or Allah, or maybe a prophet, say that it had to be done or else you'd go to hell or whatever.

In Western Europe where people have had pretty much universal facilities for bathing for many years now, and where the huge majority of males, including quite a few tradition-flouting Arabs and Jews, are uncut, our discussion here would provoke disbelief.

Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift, is full of satirical portraits of societies that argue over absurdities. I think circumcision is worthy of a serious discussion, but who is right and who is wrong has too much to do with context (socioeconomic and climactic conditions, water scarcity, et cetera) for us to have got very far toward anything universal here. I think the best defense for the procedure is when the dick's too big for its casing, making the foreskin too tight to draw back easily. Otherwise to risk something going wrong (sausage fingers trying to perform Swiss watchmaker micro-surgery on an itty bitty peepee connected to a writhing unanaesthetized newborn) seems like a fairly irresponsible thing for a parent to do. Finally, the idea that someone living in an industrialized country would be circumcised in this day and age so that he wouldn't have to take a shower every morning is arguably a bit strange. Just saying...
 
San Francisco has a group of people with petitions asking that it go on the next ballot to ban circumcison from anyone under 18 yrs old.
Besides the religious obligations of Jews and Muslims guys of 18 and older who want it would have severe pain if they had it and got an erection after it was done.
How do you guys feel about it?

I have read all the posts in this thread & I am not going to get into the debate about circumcision, but I do have to make a comment.
Every poster has missed the real point here & it is not about circumcision.
The real issue in this instance is the fact that a small group of people want to dictate what other people should or shouldn't do or what they should or shouldn't think.
To me that is interferring with my private life by others that have no idea what my life is.
I don't know about you but I make my own decisions about what is best for myself & my family.
 
Just enough "tongue in cheek" so as not to appear "obscene"!

Historically the cutting off of a child's foreskin was done in North Africa and the Middle East thousands of years ago to save water. The Semitic desert tribes were made up of intelligent and clean people, and the ancestors of today's Arabs and Jews developed this little trick with a knife to keep the need for bathing to a minimum. Water was so scarce that the practice became obligatory, the obligation tradition and the tradition entered the way these people constructed their religions. I may be mistaken, but I think they even had God or Jaweh or Allah, or maybe a prophet, say that it had to be done or else you'd go to hell or whatever.

In Western Europe where people have had pretty much universal facilities for bathing for many years now, and where the huge majority of males, including quite a few tradition-flouting Arabs and Jews, are uncut, our discussion here would provoke disbelief.

Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift, is full of satirical portraits of societies that argue over absurdities. I think circumcision is worthy of a serious discussion, but who is right and who is wrong has too much to do with context (socioeconomic and climactic conditions, water scarcity, et cetera) for us to have got very far toward anything universal here. I think the best defense for the procedure is when the dick's too big for its casing, making the foreskin too tight to draw back easily. Otherwise to risk something going wrong (sausage fingers trying to perform Swiss watchmaker micro-surgery on an itty bitty peepee connected to a writhing unanaesthetized newborn) seems like a fairly irresponsible thing for a parent to do. Finally, the idea that someone living in an industrialized country would be circumcised in this day and age so that he wouldn't have to take a shower every morning is arguably a bit strange. Just saying...

Dear Slim,

Thanks for your succinct way of expressing yourself on this touchy topic located in the nether regions. I was indeed surprised regarding your statement about uncut Arabs and Jews as I would have naturally assumed it was mandatory for both groups world wide. Good to know!

I particularly liked the comment..."Otherwise to risk something going wrong (sausage fingers trying to perform Swiss watchmaker micro-surgery on an itty bitty peepee connected to a writhing unanaesthetized newborn) seems like a fairly irresponsible thing for a parent to do." Maybe those attempting to pass this ban would do their cause well by borrowing such an evocative statement as a slogan to get the ban's point across. Sounds like a parent's worse nightmare to me. I bet if both parents were required to view the procedure in its entirety, perhaps there wouldn't need to be a ban after all, as that would hopefully do the trick!

Sincerely,


Stimpy
 
Stimps,

It's deffo mandatory, it's just that one Jewish guy and one French/Arab guy whom I know, whose parents are all pretty non-secular, opted to cock a snook at the mandates and go for "intact", as it's sometimes known. These two hotties are brazenly smug about having the full complement of epidermal accessories.

As far as watching the procedure, I think that when it goes well it's pretty minor in a newborn, almost bloodless. One of my helpers on the restoration sites is a really cute Moroccan guy, who'll be 22 next week. He told me the other day about being circumcised at the age of 8. He knew what was going to happen and he ran like hell all through Nador with his dad and uncles on his heels, and was carried back kicking and cursing all the way home for the ceremony. He said he didn't like it because it really hurt when they did it and was sore for a couple of weeks, but mainly because he felt insulted and betrayed by the people he looked to for care and affection.
 
Stimps,

It's deffo mandatory, it's just that one Jewish guy and one French/Arab guy whom I know, whose parents are all pretty non-secular, opted to cock a snook at the mandates and go for "intact", as it's sometimes known. These two hotties are brazenly smug about having the full complement of epidermal accessories.

As far as watching the procedure, I think that when it goes well it's pretty minor in a newborn, almost bloodless. One of my helpers on the restoration sites is a really cute Moroccan guy, who'll be 22 next week. He told me the other day about being circumcised at the age of 8. He knew what was going to happen and he ran like hell all through Nador with his dad and uncles on his heels, and was carried back kicking and cursing all the way home for the ceremony. He said he didn't like it because it really hurt when they did it and was sore for a couple of weeks, but mainly because he felt insulted and betrayed by the people he looked to for care and affection.

Dear Slim,

I could see how anybody aware of that was about to happen would feel betrayed and especially when chased down by your own father and uncles. Obviously, I have never witnessed one but it still seems so very hard to explain other than to say in a robotic and monotone way..."we have always have done it this way". All of this calls to mind a well known quote from Oscar Wilde..."Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative".

The link I posted earlier was a history of Circumcision and it had many interesting details both here and abroad as to the frequence beginning around WWI through the 1990's. Also, it pointed out that WWI soldiers were routinely circumcised by the Army, somewhat like getting their first GI haircut, poor babies. So all these horny guys were in their late teens to early 20's at their sexual peak and I doubt that this was mentioned before they signed the dotted line upon reporting for duty. Before WWII the US and England population had about the same rate of circumcises males, about 40%. But after the war, England and the US took opposite positions and they basically abandoned the practice while we in the US marketed it as if it was a great health advancement, that only the most advanced cultures benefited from. Also, it mentioned how circumcision was used against Black Males in the south, even if they were only suspected for rape. Doesn't it make you proud, Hell No!


Thanks for the update,


Stimpy
 
Last edited:
Slim another reason it was done was because masturbation was frowned upon as was fornication. Not that it did not happen to some degree but it was forbidden.

In the past, Christian leaders have mainly used two Bible passages to condemn masturbation:

One passage, in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), describes the death of Onan. It was a widespread belief that Onan was killed by God because he masturbated. This event was the source of the term "Onanism" -- once used as a synonym for masturbation. But further analysis indicates that he was murdered for the "crime" of using a primitive method of birth control to avoid conceiving a child. The Christian churches have now generally accepted the latter interpretation of this passage. The term Onanism is now rarely used.

Genesis 38:6-9 -- The sin of Onan:
This passage describes how Tamar's first husband Er was killed by God because he was wicked. Under ancient Jewish tradition, Er's brother Onan was required to marry and engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar. Widows were not asked whether they wanted to remarry. In many cases, the woman would have experienced the sexual activity as a form of rape -- something required by tribal tradition which they had to endure. Similarly, nobody consulted the widow's brother-in-law about his wishes in the matter.

Their first son would be attributed to Er. Because any offspring would not be considered his child, Onan decided to use a common and relatively ineffective contraceptive technique to prevent conception. He employed "coitus interruptus". That is, he disengaged from Tamar just before he ejaculated, and "spilled his semen on the ground." (NIV) God was displeased at this action and killed Onan also -- presumably because he refused to follow Jewish tradition.

This passage was used until recent decades by some Christian groups who maintained that Onan's sin was actually masturbation. The term "Onanism" was coined as a synonym of masturbation. This interpretation is no longer in common use.

Leviticus 15:16-18: Go and wash:
Such items as blood, skin blemishes, semen, and menstrual discharge are considered to have negative magical properties by the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament). Touching a dead body was also considered to be very polluting. Many injunctions concerning these items were among the 613 commands which comprise the Mosaic Code. A man automatically became ritually unclean any time that he had an ejaculation of semen. Even after washing his body, he and his clothing remained unclean for a period of time. Some acts that caused ritual uncleanliness even required a temple ritual to reverse.

The following three verses are three injunctions from the Mosaic Code. The language of the King James Version sounds rather quaint today, almost four centuries after it was originally translated.

Verses 16 and 17 refer to a man's ejaculation without a sexual partner. This is often referred to ejaculation resulting from masturbation while the man is alone. The verses read: "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even(ing)."

Slim you are very right about the water conservation as well as the unclean ramifications biblically speaking.

Something to consider also is if the foreskin is not stretched during puberty it may loose its elasticity and create issues that seriously inhibit sexual performance and satisfaction. Sexual diseases were also transmitted widely in those days. So, things like herpes and warts were much easier to see with the foreskin removed. So, I think there were many reasons that this was a common practice.:wink:
 
raysvg,

you have hit upon the single most relevent issue in this discourse and, you are most certainly correct! I am most grateful for and humbled by your poignant observation.

thank you
 
I have read all the posts in this thread & I am not going to get into the debate about circumcision, but I do have to make a comment.
Every poster has missed the real point here & it is not about circumcision.
The real issue in this instance is the fact that a small group of people want to dictate what other people should or shouldn't do or what they should or shouldn't think.
To me that is interferring with my private life by others that have no idea what my life is.
I don't know about you but I make my own decisions about what is best for myself & my family.

I see we are on the page here raysvq. I think I eluded to this in one of my earlier posts. I think you said here much clearer than I did. No one interfering with peoples rights like this.
 
This makes me as crazy as talk about reversing Roe v. Wade. No one has a right to tell me what to do with my body but me and my doctor.

I find it interesting that NOT circumcising is the uncommon choice. In the hospital, we had to sign paperwork to NOT have our children circumcised, and were repeatedly asked to confirm the choice, and had to worry that someone would make a mistake. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Sign nothing for no circumcision, sign on the dotted line to do it.

I wonder how many of you who are cut wish you had your foreskin....
 
To legislate the retention of the skin on your dick is muy rad, not like the initiatives to ban the much more invasive female circumcision in Africa (and for which there is a much more telling case to be made).

Just so Ray knows, post number 4 on the thread doesn't agree with legislating dick skin, although the wording is pretty unclear.

Like LL, my father had to insist that his darling boy's willy not be put to the knife. Fankoo daddums.:001_tt1::001_tt1::001_tt1::001_tt1:
 
This makes me as crazy as talk about reversing Roe v. Wade. No one has a right to tell me what to do with my body but me and my doctor.

I find it interesting that NOT circumcising is the uncommon choice. In the hospital, we had to sign paperwork to NOT have our children circumcised, and were repeatedly asked to confirm the choice, and had to worry that someone would make a mistake. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Sign nothing for no circumcision, sign on the dotted line to do it.

I wonder how many of you who are cut wish you had your foreskin....

Here in PA my friend's son Caleb had two different girlfriends give birth to one of his sons a few months apart. He told me that the hospital insisted on both parents’ signatures to do the circumcision on his boys. He said that since he was identified as the father both of their signatures were required. He also told me that they made it seem like it was in the child's best interest to have the circumcision in the educational presentation. He did tell me that he was required to sign either way to have the circumcision or not. Just like you said Lovelumps, he was asked to sign on at least two different occasions. This makes me wonder if this was an issue in the past.:001_unsure:
 
Personally Ihink all the signing and re-signing is a good idea. After all, it's not something that can be undone if there is a miscommunication.

I have heard of one case where a cut man wanted his foreskin reconstructed. He consulted a urologist who suggested he try taping the skin on his shaft over the head to stretch it. This didn't work. Then he tried (I'm serious, lol) securing fishing weights. I never did read if that idea worked.

But I believe such people are rare. If you're circumcised soon after birth you have no sense of missing something. Your sense is that your penis looks normal and uncut penises look weird, to say the least.

If a young cut boy meets the wrong uncut guy, and gets a handful of goo to go along with the Limburger effect to the nostrils, it could take years before he goes continental again. lol
 
Last edited:
"Vive la différence"

Personally Ihink all the signing and re-signing is a good idea. After all, it's not something that can be undone if there is a miscommunication.

I have heard of one case where a cut man wanted his foreskin reconstructed. He consulted a urologist who suggested he try taping the skin on his shaft over the head to stretch it. This didn't work. Then he tried (I'm serious, lol) securing fishing weights. I never did read if that idea worked.

But I believe such people are rare. If you're circumcised soon after birth you have no sense of missing something. Your sense is that your penis looks normal and uncut penises look weird, to say the least.
If a young cut boy meets the wrong uncut guy, and gets a handful of goo to go along with the Limburger effect to the nostrils, it could take years before he goes continental again. lol

Dear Lubetube,

The first guy I encountered orally (living stateside, mind you) was uncut in the early 1970's and very rare back then. In fact the trend today is fewer and fewer infants are getting circumcised in the US. Back then, it was a learning situation for me being cut, and I liked what I saw. I liked it so much that I began at age 25 to really resent being circumcised at birth and the fact that his glans were SO VERY SENSITIVE, IN SHARP CONTRAST TO MINE, BECAUSE HE HAD REMAINED UNCUT. That is when I began feeling cheated, but never having a foreskin in your sexual experiences, you have no way for evaluating its value other than observation and/or direct contact with an uncircumcised guy's glans. (Keep in mind that puritanical influences in the US encouraged people to be sold the notion that circumcised males were less likely to become chronic masturbators, a big concern at the time. WRONG!!! However, the absence of ever having a foreskin does not preclude me or anyone else from missing it or being displeased that it was removed without the child's permission. All you have to think is..."What if"?

Of course the realization of viewing a foreskin from someone having never seen one before is going to look strange at first BECAUSE THEY HAD BECOME "CONDITIONED" TO "ONLY SEEING CUT COCKS", AND NOT BECAUSE ONE IS NECESSARILY BETTER LOOKING THAN THE OTHER, VISUALLY SPEAKING. For Americans, seeing a foreskin for the first time and getting comfortable with viewing an intact cock is by necessity going to require developing an "acquired taste", because of our "conditioning". For most of the rest of the "non-Jewish" and "non-Muslim" world, that is not the case. Most Europeans think seeing someone cut is "odd" and not pleasing to their eye either, just like you think the reverse is true. Don't you get it, we have been "conditioned" like Pavlov's dog (essentially brain-washed) into thinking something "unnatural" is "natural" from a visual point of view. Not that the fact of our circumcision is a secret, but rather our wishes were totally left out of the equation.

I am happy for anybody that is happy with their cut cock, after all we are both stuck with ours regardless and any attempts at restoring foreskins are hardly worth the effort and far from satisfactory even with the tiniest bit of success. On the other hand, I welcome saying..."Vive la différence" and I am happy to identify with the rest of the world on this issue, even though I do not have the assumed luxury of having the "natural" hardware associated with it. I say it makes for a less boring world of penises with and without the convertible top in place.

I am so talked out on this subject that I might just seek "sex reassignment surgery" instead as somehow freeing me of this burden and undoubtedly less tedious!:scared::confused1::crying::blush:

Stimpy
 
Stimpy,

You should realize that the subject of penis on a gay website is bound to get a 3 page thread, at least. As connoisseurs of cock, we gays can talk a blue streak. LOL

BTW, I overcame my foreskin-phobia a few years ago when I met this gorgeous French boy. He was immaculate. I sorta enjoyed "pumping the shotgun." lol
 
Top