uncut cocks??

[ShellyZ]

Can a woman live a normal life without part of her vagina? I'm sure she can, especially if she doesn't know any different.

No she can't, because her vagina has to be sewn shut afterwards. It stays that way until she has sex for the first time, when the man's penis tears through the stitches and literally rips her vagina open. It's extremely painful and bleeds a lot.

The only reason I can see that the procedure poses health risks is because it's performed by amateurs without the proper training and medical equipment.

There is no proper training or medical equipment for this because it is not a safe medical procedure. That's why properly trained doctors won't do it. It's not surgery, it's mutilation. There are no benefits to it; the main reason that some cultures do it is to deter girls from having sex before marriage. Many girls die from it, either from blood loss or infection.

And the penis does not stay "clean" just because there's no foreskin any more than I'm "clean" right after coming back from the job. If I want to get sex, I better shower up. To suggest I'm wasting valuable time and water pulling back a foreskin is absurd.

I'm not suggesting that you're wasting time doing that. I'm suggesting that it's gross.

No woman should have the right to decide whether a baby boy should, or should not have a foreskin.

Actually, both parents decide. That's right guys, there are millions of fathers out there who decide to have their sons circumcised. And why shouldn't women decide? Mothers have parental rights over their kids, you know.

In some earlier post i saw the term "female circumcision". I`m sorry, are you mental? That`s inhuman. In no way is that a hyperbole.

You're right, it's horrible. That's why it's known as genital mutilation. A poster said it was hyperbole to compare it to male circumcision, which is perfectly safe and has benefits.

Also, washing the penis that has a foreskin, it`s so difficult, whenever i think i have to do it i feel like my hands`ll fall off(sarcasm). Now it`s 2 people saying, "it takes 3 seconds!"

I never said it was time-consuming or difficult to wash a penis (although it might be when you get old). Just that the uncut ones can get pretty nasty throughout the day. I'm glad it takes 3 seconds, but what you find under there is still gross. Keeping the foreskin is just like keeping a little pocket to hold the smegma buildup. If you like that little pocket full of grossness, more power to you. But seeing as how it doesn't help you in any way, you could certainly do without it. It doesn't give you any special powers, lol.

Guys who are cut don't miss the foreskin. You're acting like they're doomed to a miserable life because they've had something precious taken away from them. Millions of baby boys are circumcised all over the world all the time, and nothing bad happens to them. And yes, they're cleaner.

[Junket]

Guys who are cut don't miss the foreskin. You're acting like they're doomed to a miserable life because they've had something precious taken away from them. Millions of baby boys are circumcised all over the world all the time, and nothing bad happens to them. And yes, they're cleaner.

How would you know?

How would they know?

And there's different levels of female circumcision, unlike male genital mutilation. As I mentioned earlier, the only reason why any women die or get sick from the operation it because professional doctors don't offer the service. More baby boys would die or get sick from MGM were it not for modern medicine.

Oh, and if you dislike smegma so much, maybe you should consider female circumcision to remove the glands that give you smegma.

Hello Alice,

I've been wondering about the white stuff that is occasionally found in between my labia majora and labia minora... I do NOT have any STDs (I tested) and am assuming it's dried urine...

I want to get rid of this white stuff because it looks and smells bad as if I have STDs when I have oral sex. Is there any way to prevent getting this white stuff?

Thank you, a good guy seeker



Dear a good guy seeker,

The vagina normally secretes a clear or whitish substance to help cleanse itself and maintain a healthy environment. Changes in normal vaginal secretions (i.e., smell, texture, color, thickness, etc.) may indicate the presence of an infection. Some infections can be home treated; others need to be diagnosed and treated by a health care provider.

What you describe, however, sounds similar to the substance noticed by men with uncircumcised penises found under the foreskin: smegma. Smegma is a natural lubricating residue made up of shedded skin cells, skin oil secretions, and moisture, including sweat. Its cheesy like appearance can vary in color from almost white to a darker shade, depending on a person's skin tone. Smegma gathers in the nooks and crannies of the body's skin folds, including between the labia and around the clitoral hood. Because of male circumcision, it is more common among women than men.

You women are f*cking nasty.

[vashti]

Wouldn't that also make it difficult for them to wipe their ass properly as well?

Yes. It's a lot easier to clean the ass than it is to clean a retracted penis that still has foreskin. A sick old man's penis actually retracts inside the body a lot of the time, and the skin is not always intact because of the medications people take as they age, as it does when someone is chronically taking steroids (common with the elderly). The skin literally peels off the body due to a combination of thin skin, incontinence, and infection. Combine this with the fact that old men are embarrassed to see their penis this way, and are resistant to asking for help when they need it because they don't want anyone else to see them this way.

Seriously, you guys have no idea what I see on a regular basis! Also, I've seen phimosis that developed later in life on a male that didn't have it when he was young. The opening to his penis was so small, we couldn't insert a urinary catheter, so the poor guy had to have an opening made directly to the bladder through his abdomen.

I'm not saying that all this is reason enough to have a circumcision. I'm just saying that cleanliness IS an issue when you are old and sick.

And for the record, there ARE (a few) medically trained professionals who perform female circumcision. Also for the record, removing ONLY the clitoral hood is extremely rare, which is why I said that removing the penis is the equivalent (NOT a simple male circumcision).

[Pakistani]

I heard cut penises produce more beautiful kids, is it true?

[ShellyZ]

How would you know?

Because almost all the guys I've known or dated have been cut, and it has never been a problem for them. Most of them cringe if you mention the idea of an uncut penis. I think they're glad they're cut, lol.

How would they know?

I think they know how they feel. And really, what advantage does the foreskin give you? Is your life really so much better because of that foreskin? Do you really think men without a foreskin are suffering?

the only reason why any women die or get sick from the operation it because professional doctors don't offer the service.

No, it's because it's dangerous, no matter who does it. Even a professional doctor could not safely stab someone in the heart. Certain things are just dangerous, period.

Oh, and if you dislike smegma so much, maybe you should consider female circumcision to remove the glands that give you smegma.

Because then I would have to get my vagina sewn shut, and that would cause much pain and suffering throughout my life. And the procedure could not be done safely, and there would be absolutely no benefits to it. A natural vagina needs to be cleaned once a day. A natural penis needs to be cleaned 3-4 times a day. See the difference? Also, the penis does not need to be stitched up afterwards. It simply heals on its own, and then life goes on as normal for the boy.

[Junket]

Because almost all the guys I've known or dated have been cut, and it has never been a problem for them. Most of them cringe if you mention the idea of an uncut penis. I think they're glad they're cut, lol.



I think they know how they feel. And really, what advantage does the foreskin give you? Is your life really so much better because of that foreskin? Do you really think men without a foreskin are suffering?



No, it's because it's dangerous, no matter who does it. Even a professional doctor could not safely stab someone in the heart. Certain things are just dangerous, period.



Because then I would have to get my vagina sewn shut, and that would cause much pain and suffering throughout my life. And the procedure could not be done safely, and there would be absolutely no benefits to it. A natural vagina needs to be cleaned once a day. A natural penis needs to be cleaned 3-4 times a day. See the difference? Also, the penis does not need to be stitched up afterwards. It simply heals on its own, and then life goes on as normal for the boy.

No you wouldn't, you're a liar.

I think they know how they feel.

That makes absolutely no sense.

[doppelgaenger]

I never said it was time-consuming or difficult to wash a penis (although it might be when you get old). Just that the uncut ones can get pretty nasty throughout the day. I'm glad it takes 3 seconds, but what you find under there is still gross. Keeping the foreskin is just like keeping a little pocket to hold the smegma buildup. If you like that little pocket full of grossness, more power to you.

The vagina normally secretes a clear or whitish substance to help cleanse itself and maintain a healthy environment. Changes in normal vaginal secretions (i.e., smell, texture, color, thickness, etc.) may indicate the presence of an infection. Some infections can be home treated; others need to be diagnosed and treated by a health care provider.

What you describe, however, sounds similar to the substance noticed by men with uncircumcised penises found under the foreskin: smegma. Smegma is a natural lubricating residue made up of shedded skin cells, skin oil secretions, and moisture, including sweat. Its cheesy like appearance can vary in color from almost white to a darker shade, depending on a person's skin tone. Smegma gathers in the nooks and crannies of the body's skin folds, including between the labia and around the clitoral hood. Because of male circumcision, it is more common among women than men.

LOL. Touché. It's obvious that Shelly has never smelled her own snatch at the end of the day before...
I don't care if your vagina cleans itself. If you don't thoroughly scrub it like I scrub my dick and balls with sandalwood soap every day, it's still disgusting and dirty, and probably smells like a fish market. I wonder would you could fish out of those "pockets". Yuck.

The whole "the penis is a dirty and disgusting part of the male body" is an obvious double standard, and it's humiliating to have someone who doesn't even have a penis to tell us why we would miss our little flap of worthless, useless, functionless skin. It's a coincidence that as soon as you label something as useless or functionless, it automatically becomes acceptable to remove for "health benefits". Frasbee has been making a rhetorical argument here to show you parallels that might help you understand, but you bitches cover your ears and cry, "female genital mutilation!" every time, because you're not willing to listen. It's plain and simple; if parts of your pussy were removed that made your clit shrivel up into a dried mushroom (thus, insensitive), and you were told that your disgusting smegma pocket was transformed into its current condition for health benefits, you might feel a little emasculated, especially because the issue could have been corrected with a little scrub-a-dub-dub. And if it was in common practice, you might even be angry that men would find the appearanc of a natural vagina morbidly repulsive.

[doppelgaenger]

I'm not saying that all this is reason enough to have a circumcision. I'm just saying that cleanliness IS an issue when you are old and sick.

Yeah, but we are young and horny, and care about our appearance. I shave my balls!

[ShellyZ]

I don't care if your vagina cleans itself. If you don't thoroughly scrub it like I scrub my dick and balls with sandalwood soap every day, it's still disgusting and dirty, and probably smells like a fish market.

And who says I don't clean thoroughly? I hate to tell you this, but a vagina is different from a penis. A cut penis requires about as much cleaning as a natural vagina. An uncut penis requires more. I didn't make that up.

The whole "the penis is a dirty and disgusting part of the male body" is an obvious double standard, and it's humiliating to have someone who doesn't even have a penis to tell us why we would miss our little flap of worthless, useless, functionless skin.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but there are certain parts of the human body (male and female) that I think are gross. I was addressing the benefits of male circumcision, since they are real. You may be humiliated by it, but it's the truth, and I wasn't the one who discovered this truth. It was discovered way back in Biblical times. I've known many men who are cut, none of them has a problem with it. So yeah, I would think it was ridiculous if a cut guy cried that he missed his foreskin.

Frasbee has been making a rhetorical argument here to show you parallels that might help you understand, but you bitches cover your ears and cry, "female genital mutilation!" every time, because you're not willing to listen.

But that's the problem: There are no parallels between male and female circumcision. It's not the same at all, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Want me to mention them again? Female genital mutilation requires stitching. The vagina must be sewn up for life. It is then torn open with a penis when a girl has sex for the first time. The procedure is dangerous and often fatal. None of those things are true about male circumcision. There are no stitches. There are no body cavities that are sewn shut and then ripped open violently years later. It's safe and actually beneficial. If male circumcision was like female circumcision, no one would do it. The reason it's done is because it's safe and it does not have any negative effect on the boy's life. Such is not the case with female circumcision.

It's plain and simple; if parts of your pussy were removed that made your clit shrivel up into a dried mushroom (thus, insensitive), and you were told that your disgusting smegma pocket was transformed into its current condition for health benefits, you might feel a little emasculated, especially because the issue could have been corrected with a little scrub-a-dub-dub.

Are you saying a cut penis shrivels up into a dry, insensitive mushroom? If that's the case, then you need to see a doctor, because that's not normal. Circumcision should not change the feeling or sensitivity of the penis. If it did, no man in the world would allow his son to be circumcised. Obviously, circumcised men are doing just fine. Perhaps you should inform them that their penises are actually dysfunctional and prevent them from leading happy lives. If only they still had their foreskin, they would be happy and they would feel like real men. I guess they just don't know how miserable they should be; maybe you should go tell them.

BTW, women can't feel emasculated. Only men can.

And if it was in common practice, you might even be angry that men would find the appearanc of a natural vagina morbidly repulsive.

As if men don't judge women by their bodies. Besides, not all women find the appearance of a natural penis repulsive. That's a matter of personal preference. If they're used to it, they don't have a problem with it. In fact, a lot of men find the appearance of a natural penis repulsive because they're not used to it. It's not a matter of being sexist. It's a matter of "I've never seen that before, that's weird-looking." Men or women can have that reaction. I've actually heard a lot of guys say that about uncut actors they see in porn.

If you think vaginas look or smell gross, that's fine. You're entitled to that opinion. But the fact remains, female circumcision would not solve that problem. It would only create new ones. It would either kill the girl or make her live a life of pain and suffering. If you, as a man, are suffering because you've been circumcised, then you need therapy.

[doppelgaenger]

Shelly, you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

A cut penis requires about as much cleaning as a natural vagina. An uncut penis requires more. I didn't make that up.

That's not true, and you did make that up. Vaginas are way more work than penises, cut or uncut. But that's not my point. My point is that vaginas are really smelly at the end of the day, just like uncut dicks.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but there are certain parts of the human body (male and female) that I think are gross. I was addressing the benefits of male circumcision, since they are real. You may be humiliated by it, but it's the truth, and I wasn't the one who discovered this truth. It was discovered way back in Biblical times. I've known many men who are cut, none of them has a problem with it. So yeah, I would think it was ridiculous if a cut guy cried that he missed his foreskin.

If I laugh any harder, I'm going to piss blood. I am not personally offended by your posts. I think your level of intelligence on the issue is a joke. LOL, health benefits discovered "biblical times". You really do have no idea what you're talking about.

But that's the problem: There are no parallels between male and female circumcision. It's not the same at all, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Want me to mention them again? Female genital mutilation requires stitching. The vagina must be sewn up for life. It is then torn open with a penis when a girl has sex for the first time. The procedure is dangerous and often fatal. None of those things are true about male circumcision. There are no stitches. There are no body cavities that are sewn shut and then ripped open violently years later. It's safe and actually beneficial. If male circumcision was like female circumcision, no one would do it. The reason it's done is because it's safe and it does not have any negative effect on the boy's life. Such is not the case with female circumcision.

There are parallels indeed! You will continue to deny this because of your western bias. Here are your parallels:

both are cutting of genitals, of babies/children without consent, at parents behest
both are removing erogenous tissue
both are supposedly beneficial
both are justified by aesthetics, supposed "health benefits", religion, sexual effects, custom, and conformity
both are minimized by their supporters
both are performed by their adult victims
both are extremely painful and can cause harm
both have potential to cause severe damage
both can cause death
and yet, only one is legal in western countries.

In light of that, whether or not female circumcision requires stitches is insignificant, even though male circumcision may require stitches as well. Furthermore, what you're referring to as female circumcision is just an extreme case, not every case; certainly not the majority of cases. "In its most extreme form, infibulation, where the girl's vagina is sewn shut, the procedure ensures virginity." ([url=http://www.enotes.com/medicine-encyclopedia/female-genital-mutilation]Female Genital Mutilation: Encyclopedia of Medicine[/url]) Oh, and Shelly, guess what? Infibulation is also performed on males. And to clarify, male circumcision is not performed because it's "safe" and "doesn't do harm" (ha! whatever). That doesn't even make sense; that's only justification for it.

Are you saying a cut penis shrivels up into a dry, insensitive mushroom? If that's the case, then you need to see a doctor, because that's not normal. Circumcision should not change the feeling or sensitivity of the penis. If it did, no man in the world would allow his son to be circumcised. Obviously, circumcised men are doing just fine. Perhaps you should inform them that their penises are actually dysfunctional and prevent them from leading happy lives. If only they still had their foreskin, they would be happy and they would feel like real men. I guess they just don't know how miserable they should be; maybe you should go tell them.

Here's a little nugget for you: removing erogenous tissue from the genitals affects the feeling/sensitivity of the penis/vagina... especially when this tissue is prepuce of the most sensitive area (as opposed to a useless flap of skin, like you call it). Without the prepuce to protect that area, the glans/clit are exposed, and become permanently dry. It's disputed whether this affects sensitivity. IMO, it does. So not only are nerve endings from prepuce lost, but the glans/clit may be affected as well. Post surgery, there is nothing a doctor can do to fix this.

It's not my place to tell someone that their penis is dysfunctional. That is for every person to decide for himself, and for him to accept. I am not victimizing myself here, and you're ridiculing me as if I were! Stop telling me to seek therapy and focus on the argument if you want to have an adult conversation.

BTW, women can't feel emasculated. Only men can.

Arguing semantics with a person who does not also have a MA in linguistics is a pure waste of my time. Try for neutered, mutilated, or debilitated.

As if men don't judge women by their bodies. Besides, not all women find the appearance of a natural penis repulsive. That's a matter of personal preference. If they're used to it, they don't have a problem with it. In fact, a lot of men find the appearance of a natural penis repulsive because they're not used to it. It's not a matter of being sexist. It's a matter of "I've never seen that before, that's weird-looking." Men or women can have that reaction. I've actually heard a lot of guys say that about uncut actors they see in porn.

Men judging women by their bodies is irrelevant to this topic, and besides women judge men by their bodies, too, so your argument is no good. You're saying here that circumcision/genital mutilation is justified for aesthetic reasons. You're missing my point: the fact is that no matter what the justification, anywhere that circumcision is widely practiced, the women are usually repulsed/shocked by the appearance of the natural penis, and where circumcision is not common practice, women are shocked/repulsed by the appearance of a circumcised penis... so, my point is that circumcision is never justified by aesthetic reasons; aesthetics is subjective.

If you think vaginas look or smell gross, that's fine. You're entitled to that opinion. But the fact remains, female circumcision would not solve that problem. It would only create new ones. It would either kill the girl or make her live a life of pain and suffering. If you, as a man, are suffering because you've been circumcised, then you need therapy.

Unwashed vaginas look and smell gross: my opinion, and also the general consensus; nobody wants to make love to a dirty person. Personal hygiene is not a justified reason for circumcision. Fact; circumcision does not eliminate or reduce hygiene requirements and maintenance. Fact. Any questions?

[ShellyZ]

Well, isn't this timely?

[url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-intelligence/201106/criminalizing-circumcision-self-hatred-public-policy]Criminalizing Circumcision: Self-Hatred As Public Policy | Psychology Today[/url]

As for your parallels, most of them are not true:

both are cutting of genitals, of babies/children without consent, at parents behest - True
both are removing erogenous tissue - True
both are supposedly beneficial - False
both are justified by aesthetics, supposed "health benefits", religion, sexual effects, custom, and conformity - True
both are minimized by their supporters - False
both are performed by their adult victims - Huh?
both are extremely painful and can cause harm - False
both have potential to cause severe damage - False
both can cause death - False

[doppelgaenger]

Ha, you argue circumcision is good and proper.
I supply factual information proving you wrong.
You ignore, and argue that circumcised males who are dissatisfied with circumcision need therapy.
I win.

both are supposedly beneficial - False

[URL="http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html"]Benefits of Female Circumcision[/URL]

both are minimized by their supporters - False

Yes, this is true. You support circumcision, apparently, and you have minimized it in your posts. Should I point this out?
Read this book:
For minimization of female circumcision, read: Female "circumcision" in Africa: culture, controversy, and change, Bettina Shell-Duncan, Ylva Hernlund

both are performed by their adult victims - Huh?
Both male/female circ is performed on victims by victims. Valid point worth considering when you debate that a person would never cause their child harm, regarding circ.

both are extremely painful and can cause harm - False

This is so ridiculous, I demand you explain why you think this is false.

both have potential to cause severe damage - False

Assuming you think that male circumcision does not cause severe damage.
[url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html]Circumcision Complications[/url]
[url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html]Botch Gallery 1 - skin bridges[/url]
[url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched2st.html]Botch Gallery 2 - skin tags[/url]
[url=http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm]How to Identify Circumcision Damage in the Adult Male[/url]

both can cause death - False

[url=http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/]Circumcision | Infant circumcision causes 100 deaths each year in US | ICGI - Genital Integrity & Intactivism[/url]
[url=http://www.circumcision.org/mortality.htm]Circumcision and Male Infant Mortality[/url]
[url]http://www.circinfosite.com/45.html[/url]

[the_robot]

Okay, I don't want to get into arguments, but I've been reading this thread all along and I feel like I have to speak up.

First of all, that bullcrap about cut penises being cleaner is nonsense, it takes 1 second while I'm having a shower to keep it clean for a daily basis. Seriously, I don't get that stegma thing ShellyZ is talking about or any nasty stuff, it doesn't take much to keep it clean. If I were to do something it would take a little over that second to wash it just in case, so.. no biggie there. As for vashti's point, it does make sense, but I'm not going to worry about what may happen with my body 70 years from now, if the time comes I will allow them to circumcise me, but I prefer to be dead before I'm too old to wash myself.

And second, I asked a friend of mine who got circumcised a couple of years ago, being 19-20 and not a virgin, and he told me he did lose some sensitivity there, so... it does affect to certain point, at least for this guy.

[Junket]

Well, isn't this timely?

[url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-intelligence/201106/criminalizing-circumcision-self-hatred-public-policy]Criminalizing Circumcision: Self-Hatred As Public Policy | Psychology Today[/url]

As for your parallels, most of them are not true:

both are cutting of genitals, of babies/children without consent, at parents behest - True
both are removing erogenous tissue - True
both are supposedly beneficial - False
both are justified by aesthetics, supposed "health benefits", religion, sexual effects, custom, and conformity - True
both are minimized by their supporters - False
both are performed by their adult victims - Huh?
both are extremely painful and can cause harm - False
both have potential to cause severe damage - False
both can cause death - False

Did she just say that cutting off genital tissue is not extremely painful and cannot cause harm, damage, or even have the remote potential of leading to death?

[Incognito]

Why is this such an issue? Some people have circumcisions some don't. Period. Do all guys that have circumcisions have subpar sensitivity? No. Do all uncircumcised guys have foreskins full of gunk? No. Neither of you are totally right and neither of you are totally wrong, no matter what linked evidence you may present.