Are Californian guys typically uncut?

Not according to my experience and observations. The cut guys here in Cali definitely outnumber the uncut guys.

The Western parts of the US have more uncut guys as a rule. Even the white guys are uncut.

There’s a lot of Hispanics in California, so that may be way the number is higher.

What is uncut?

I slept with three white guys and all three were uncut, so I assume yes. California is uncut by default.

In the US, I'd argue the single biggest determinant of whether a guy is cut or uncut is age, followed by race, not geography.

I been with many uncut white guys in CA. It was hot. Just as nature intended.

Well then, I guess that settles it.

Their lives may have been saved

Are they Catholic?

Remind me to take CA off my list if I wanna get laid on vacation.

Smelly cheesy cocks. Yuck. Give me a cut guy.

Didn't realize there was still discrimination against uncut guys here. I know it was worse before, but it seems to have gotten a little better after more exposure.

The stupid questions that some bitches ask here never ceases to amaze me.

Career California police officer here. I'd guess at least 80% of the Caucasian cops on my department are cut. Most Hispanics, blacks and Asians aren't. I notice that the younger the officer, the less likely he is to be cut.

I love uncut dick. Love it, love it. I think they’re beautiful. They feel nice, the head is like velvet.

What is it with being white and circumcised? The minority white uncircumcised guys usually come from very lax or hippie-ish families or those who weren't born in a hospital.

R17, their family members don’t want them to get head.

straight men and gay men should be re tagged cunt and un cunt

White men in America who are uncut are stereotyped as "poor white trash."

[quote]White men in America who are uncut are stereotyped as "poor white trash."

That's because they usually are.

No, Californians are not uncut by default. But circumcision rates are much lower in those born into Latino and Asian families that have recently immigrated.

r15, how do you know about who is cut and uncut on t he force?

The correct term is “intact,” not uncut. A whole penis is not “un” anything. Intact is the way a penis is meant to be. And yes, in recent generations, California, and the West in general, is leading the nation as more male newborns are being left intact and not having their penises mutilated.

Californians are uncut, so what? Let them be as nature intended.

R7 - “ I been with many uncut white guys in CA. It was hot. Just as nature intended.”

What did you do with the cheese? Toss it in a salad? Spread it on a cracker? Eat it right from the container?

[quote][R15], how do you know about who is cut and uncut on t he force?

Through the magic of something called the locker room. Sometimes you can't help but notice.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH R26

cheese on a white uncut guy is almost impossible to find. trust me, i've tried

This whole smegma thing is way overstated and not even a thing especially after your teens. It's not an effort to wash your cock. It's no different than washing any other body part. It's mainly skin cells sloughing off when a guy is younger. After that, you would have to not shower for a quite a while to even notice anything. And yes, even cut guys have to wash their dicks. It's about hygiene regardless of your dick status. Don't think cut guys get a pass on being clean--you're not, just because you've been mutilated. Everyone needs to wash. Besides, foreskin feels fantastic.

[quote]What did you do with the cheese? Toss it in a salad? Spread it on a cracker? Eat it right from the container?

R26 should hang out with cleaner guys. I have never seen our come across any of the cheese you seem to encounter. I've been with many intact guys.

I've been with plenty of uncut guys at night who haven't showered since that morning and yeah it's a bit cheesy. I hate having to suggest a shower when we're about to get down, but sometimes it's necessary. I prefer cut, it's more hygenic. And calling it "mutilated" is just childish. It's just a flap of skin FFS.

R32. Cut is not more hygienic. You think every cut guy smells like fucking roses? Fuck off.

It has more to do with WHEN you were born, not where. Like breastfeeding-- women in the 1950s didn't breastfeed, that's when they started pushing formula. It was starting to come back into fashion in the 1960s and 1970s. My mom had four kids, I'm the youngest born in 1970 and I'm the first one she even attempted to breast-feed (though she had trouble and I ended up on formula anyway).

But being in-tact just wasn't "done" years ago, but it's becoming more common. My niece and her hubby elected not to have their son circumcised. He was born in 2016.

uncut is so much better

R34. More parents in the U.S. leaving their sons intact has been quite common for the past generation. Eventually there is going to be a tipping point when intact will be the majority. Hospitals asking if you want your baby cut should not even be question. Boys' penises should be left intact. Once hospitals stop asking, this barbaric mutilation will end. And insurance companies should stop paying for this totally unnecessary surgery.

I'm uncut. I live in California. But I prefer cut guys. They're cleaner. It's just a fact. That's from an uncut guy.

I'm lucky that so many guys are into uncut. I can't relate to it, but I benefit from it. However I only hook up with cut guys and turn down uncut men.

There is no way R37 is real. No I can't prove it, but I have been around enough and been with enough uncut men to know. And anyone uncut knows that the hygiene thing is complete myth.

Moreover, his comment is straight out of the anti-uncut-obsessed playbook.

On the off chance he is real and being honest, it likely stems from some weird insecurity about growing up in the US different from others.

Anyone who's ever slept with an uncut man or had sex as uncut man knows it is more pleasurable for both parties. It's simple laws of physics.

I've been with uncut guys who were stinky and cheesy. When I've been in Europe it's been a problem. Give me a cut guy any day.

R32 It is not more hygienic

If an uncut guy hasn’t showered for a day, you will smell him. 🤢

If a cut guy hasn't showered for a day, you will smell him.

I think it's safe to assume that the majority of GenXers are cut. Millennials are probably 60/40. I hear the circumcision numbers are rising again with this new Generation. I prefer cut. It's cleaner, healthier, and just looks more natural. Europeans are the only ones who understand how to do uncut. If an American is uncut, it's either their parents were hippies or too cheap to pay for it.

B/s R43.

[quote] It's cleaner, healthier, and just looks more natural.

Deluded and deranged.

Why are some gay men so obsessed with cut versus uncut cocks? Shallow and dumb.

The scars on cut cock are really upsetting sometimes. So painful; but the baby didn't notice, did he? Psychos.

R43 How can a cut cock look "natural" when what was natural has been snipped off?

Stanksleeves are verboten in my house. They are of the Devil.

[quote] Why are some gay men so obsessed with cut versus uncut cocks? Shallow and dumb.

R45 the cut guys resent the intact guys. It is only dumb and shallow if you don't care about your cock; most men care about their cock.

[quote] I hear the circumcision numbers are rising again with this new Generation.

Once immigrants settle in, they adopt American practices.

R48 with her verboten must be one of the few jews left in Germany and Austria.

Wrong, r49. The only activism you get are from the anti-circ minority trying to get others to join them. Smelly and unhinged.

[quote] Once immigrants settle in, they adopt American practices.

Cutting will become a Latin/immigrant issue. Those of us who are from here will not do it anymore, like Princess Di.

Cock is smelly if unwashed. Circ or intact: got to be washed, along with the body. Some of the smelliest boys I have encountered were cut, from the USA.

R45, there are a few weirdos who spend their time obsessing about this. Most cut guys don’t. Studies have shown there isn’t a perceptible difference in sexual sensation. You can be cut and still care about your penis.

I think circumcision is unnecessary, but the guys that spend their time angry about being cut and mourn the sex life they could have had are over the top. They have an obsession problem. The funniest are the guys who try to get it back with little weights.

R50 Not always. Sometimes it was forced on those boys by the hospital without consulting the parents.

Exhibit A of obsession at R56.

R43. Circumcised males in the U.S. are decreasing, not increasing It may take a while, but this barbarism will end sooner or later. The tipping point when the majority of newborns will be left intact has already been for more than a generation and continues to be on the rise. As a result, these males as adults will not be rushing out to have themselves sliced and will overwhelmingly not be cutting their sons, and thus the end will happen. The rest of the world already knows better not to mutilate.

R58 It's still being done all over the world but your theory on how it will end makes sense.

Asians, Mexicans and other Catholics are uncut and there’s a lot more of them out west.

So, yes.

What's the big fucking deal about being circumcised? These anti-circ nuts are as looney as anti-vaxxers.

White and black Americans continue to circumcise their kids by default. Latino and Asian kids born in the US are also more cut than not. A random survey of American porn, currently dominated by millennials and zoomers on the gay side, shows nothing has changed.

Hospitals in the U.S. shouldn't even ask parents if they want it done. It should be standard to leave the kid alone. That would end this cutting nonsense very quickly. Many state insurance companies s don't cover it any longer. Regular insurance companies should end their coverage (as many have) for this outrageous and unnecessary surgery especially on a newborn. If parents want it done, they should have to ask for it, pay for it and be shamed into not doing it, which would also end this barbarism immediately. A whole generation of men would grow up and come to realize that their foreskin feel fucking awesome...another convincing way to end cutting anyone's dick.

[quote]I prefer cut. It's cleaner, healthier, and just looks more natural.

That is rather stupid. Data above showed it's NOT healthier, and how can altering nature be more "natural"

Some of you are really stupid.

if you've ever had sex with an uncut guy (not just stared at it and went "ew" ) you'd know that having foreskin makes one way more sensitive.

I'm circumcised and my dick's always felt fucking awesome.

^ And pigs will fly r63. I’m 42 years old. I will NEVER have sex with anyone born today so I don’t care what they do with their penises. Why do you?

R66 is for r63.

[quote]What's the big fucking deal about being circumcised? These anti-circ nuts are as looney as anti-vaxxers.

R61. Leaving a male intact is about his own genital integrity. No one has the right to cut off perfectly healthy tissue without the owner's consent. There is no medical reason to do it on a newborn. If a male wants it done as an adult, that is up to him. But by the time the male is an adult, he would realize that his foreskin is an integral part of his penis and overwhelmingly wouldn't agree to have it cut off. If there is a medical reason to do it when the boy is under-aged, which is relatively rare, that decision can be made by the parents (and the boy if he's able), but a decision such as this can be made individually--not done as a routine procedure on newborns. This can be compared to operations as tonsils, appendix or even breasts, which are not routine operations simply because a person might need to have his tonsils removed later in life (another procedure which rightfully has fallen out of favor). There is no need for routine circumcision for either medical, cosmetic or religious reasons.

Being against circumcision is not comparable in the slightest to being against vaccines. Being against vaccines is public health issue that could cause an epidemic or spread disease. Leaving your son intact will cause nothing except more enjoyable sex for him and his partner. Advocating that males remain intact will not harm your community, children in your local school system or society as a whole. It's his body--it's his right to keep his foreskin.

[quote]Data above showed it's NOT healthier, and how can altering nature be more "natural"

Actually, W.H.O. data shows it is and that’s why they fund circumcision across Africa to reduce HIV infection. And it’s working.

[quote]I'm circumcised and my dick's always felt fucking awesome.

Ughhhh. Seriously. How stupid are some of you????

That is like someone who can only see in black and white, saying "well I can see fine? what's the big deal? Who needs color?"

You are literally and physically unable to understand what you are missing out on.

R68 you’re wasting your time and are not going to change anyone’s mind. Circumcision will continue to be practised and uncuts will remain a minority in America for at least the next 50 years. After which I suspect you will either be dead or your interest in other peoples penises will have waned. Get a hobby!

R69. The studies in Africa were deeply flawed and concerned those also wearing condoms, health education versus those who lacked these things, etc. Education and wearing condoms have also increased in Africa, which is why HIV had decreased in Africa in the years since. In addition and most importantly, the African studies were about HIV-positive WOMEN ONLY and their uncircumcised partners--but again, there were many factors and involved whether or not the men used condoms and then the studies were stopped prematurely so a proper result became difficult at best and impossible in many cases. The studies were not about HIV-negative women with intact men, which of course would not have any affect. As a follow-up, more controlled studies were done in the U.S. with male-to-male sex between intact men concerning HIV. The results were that being uncircumcised had no effect on contracting HIV for either partner. As an aside, most men in the U.S. who contracted HIV and died in the 1980s were circumcised--so not having a foreskin did not save them. HIV rates in the U.S. continued to skyrocket despite most men being cut here. Prevention of HIV is condoms and education--not circumcision.

Again the stupidity on here.

Americans are the most circumcised in teh world and have the highest rates of HIV and other STDs; Europeans are like 90% uncut and have lower rates.

It's basic math.

To the “I can’t live without foreskin” crowd, such as r30:

What you never seem to grasp is that you can wash away the appearance of that stuff, but the SMELL never goes away. Uncut men and their admirers have grown used to it, and insist there is no smell. You’re wrong.

[quote]No one has the right to cut off perfectly healthy tissue without the owner's consent.

It's a little flap of skin FFS. You make it sound like a finger is being cut off. After being with many uncircumcised guys, I prefer being circumcised.

I can't believe you guys are shaming California for having white uncut guys. Let's be real, you racists are not asking about Latinos or Asians.

Yes, white guys in California are uncut, unless they are of a certain age and come from out of state.

Yes, uncut cock is better.

These threads always bring out the worst of DL. Foreskins are sexy. I love sucking uncut dick. I live in a largely latino neighborhood and I've never run across one that is as you naysayers describe. You're imagining things. Intact dicks are delightful. I am cut.

[quote]It's a little flap of skin FFS. You make it sound like a finger is being cut off.

R75. ...with thousands of nerve endings that provide endless pleasure. And as long as it's not your little flap of skin, even if you're the parent, you have no right to cut it off. His Body. His Right. Not yours.

Look, it's not that complicated. I'm not here to discuss the health benefits of circumcision. I don't care to know if the baby can or cannot consent. I just don't care.

What I care about is smell. The reason I care is that I like to suck dick. Uncut dicks tends to smell more than cut ones. I'm uncut, I know what I'm talking about. Even if you wash it often, the fact that there's a foreskin will make it smell after a few hours. Smegma will build up under the foreskin in ways it wouldn't on a circumsized dick.

So R38, take your ideology and shove it up your ass. While you're at it, go fuck yourself with bag of uncut/natural/intact dicks. I bet you'll like it.

[quote]Again the stupidity on here. Americans are the most circumcised in the world and have the highest rates of HIV and other STDs; Europeans are like 90% uncut and have lower rates. It's basic math.

R73. Of course you're right. Thank you for sharing your logic and common sense!

[quote]It's a little flap of skin FFS. You make it sound like a finger is being cut off.

Exactly! And I get so tired of idiots talking about nerve endings that they don't know shit about. I have never met a man circumcised or not who complains about the pleasure their cock brings them. Some of you are being overly extra about... yes... a little flap of skin. If you don't like circumcision, then don't get circumcised . Easy Peasy Miss Louweezy.

There's a reason why HIV rates in the US are higher than in Europe, but it's politically insensitive and I'm not going there.

R81. You make no sense. For the most part, we're talking about infant circumcision, which is performing unnecessary surgery on an infant . It's not up to you or anyone else to decide to cut off healthy tissue from someone else's body without his (or her) consent. You said, "if you don't like circumcision, then don't get circumcised." That's a reaction to adult circumcision. If you want to get cut as an adult, have at it, but most guys would never choose it. Neither would infants--and they don't need to be cut. And the nerve endings in the foreskin and frenulum (the most sensitive part of the penis which is usually destroyed during circumcision) have been proven to exist even if you don't want to believe it.

How is it the uncut guys are so sure that there’s less sensations for cut guys? How can that even be compared by one person.

Again, your fetish for uncut doesn’t “prove” that cut guys are missing out and quit being so hysterical about it. Are you as concerned about other mutilations like female clit removal or even giving newborns pierced ears? I mean, they can’t consent, and that’s what it’s all about right? No, it’s because some people either (1) have an uncut cock preference or (2) some guys is convinced he would have better sex if he hadn’t been circumcised and now he’s bitter. It has nothing to do with concern about removing skin without a newborn’s permission. So give it a rest with that “concern”

For the record, I don’t personally believe in circumcision unless the foreskin won’t retract.

This thread stinks.

R84 I think it is mostly discussed because it is an consent issue. There are a lot of similarities between circumcision and fgm. Both happen because consent is taken away.

[quote]How is it the uncut guys are so sure that there’s less sensations for cut guys? How can that even be compared by one person.

It's not the uncut guys saying there's less sensation for cut. It's the CUT guys claiming they're "not missing anything" which simple logic will tell you, is impossible for them to know unless they were cut post-being sexually active.

The people saying uncut has more sensation are:

1) scientists who understand the concept of nerve endings in the foreskin and frenulum as well as the physics of copulation and what foreskin provides in terms of friction and lubrication and

2) people (cut or uncut) who have slept with both cut and uncut men and have experienced the difference in partners' reactions. since some of you anti-foreskin freaks appear to be a bit "limited" in comprehension, I'll try and reak it down for you. If you sleep with a bunch of guys, and use similar technique, let's say how you suck dick, especially how you suck on the head, and you do it with 10 guys, 5 uncut and 5 cut, and you notice a differential in their reaction and sensitivity to the same technique/pressure/style etc, you get real world evidence of the greater sensitivity that the foreskin provides. Obviously there will be some variance, but one can still observe a meaningful difference between the 2 groups.

3) Adult men who have been cut for NON MEDICAL reasons (this is important, because men who have medical issues with their foreskin e.g. phimosis are not part of a 'normal' sample group and never experienced the typical sensations of a normally functioning foreskin)...i.e. men who get cut for aesthetic reasons or because their wife/gf wants them to....... report a major loss in sensation.

I live in SF and most white guys are cut. Most Latinos and Asians are uncut.

Thank god California guys are uncut. Deplorables are in large cut. A deformed penis is not an attractive look.

[quote]How is it the uncut guys are so sure that there’s less sensations for cut guys?

It's called Science sweety.

Smelly cheesy smegma cocks. *Barf*

Yep it stinks.

Uncut is just disgusting. I'm talking from personal experience. Also, just stop with that "as nature intended" crap. It hasn't been good for British teeth.

Is cancer what nature intended? I'll wait.

[quote]Uncut is just disgusting. I'm talking from personal experience. Also, just stop with that "as nature intended" crap. It hasn't been good for British teeth.

GED or just dropout?

R36 Insurance does not pay for it.

I live in LA and latinos are extremely clean with their penises. Asians....less so, especially chinese.

You uncutters are always talking about cleaning your dicks, but you never really do it, that's why all the disgust with the uncut dongs. You never do it and you do not realize the stank you have. You wash it and in an hour it stinks again, it needs air.

I always avoid the “pillowcase.” It’s a personal preference. I’m not alone. This was the code word we would use to warn inebriated friends that they would soon encounter stanksleeve. I’ve met several uncut men over the years who were ashamed of their status. I’ve never met a circumcised man who was embarrassed about being cut. In the US, as some upthread have noted, it is frequently a class issue(for non-immigrants). Also as noted, ethnicity and geography often play a part. The obsessed loons are to be pitied.

[quote]It's a little flap of skin FFS

So are eyelids.

r99, you seem like kind of an idiot.

American women hate uncut dicks. I've heard plenty over the years.

r100 but eyelids are essential.

R101, I really don’t care what I seem like to obsessive retards like you, so fuck right off.

R74 You sound like a troll. I highly suspect your hole and your balls have a "SMELL"". You're simply used to it, and so are your "admirers". Let's remove your ballsack, taint, and asshole, just to be sure.

You may prefer to live in an unnatural world, where unnecessary surgeries on infants' genitalia is somehow normalised, but don't expect the rest of the healthy normal world to support your trollish rude remarks. I'll bet your ears and your teeth smell too, according your faulty logic. I think we ought to yank those as well whilst we're at it. You know, just to be sure. You wouldn't want your physical body to emit any smells a radical surgery could remedy. Toss of troll.

If you block the last two idiots on this thread, half the posts disappear. Talk about "obsessive retards." With that phrase alone you prove you're a goddam imbecile.

The entire west coast has a high population of latinos, who tend to be uncut—it's also got the biggest concentration of hippie types out of any other part of the country, who are more unlikely to circumcise their kids. I am from the west coast (Oregon) and my parents had the doctor do a partial circumcision on me, so I still have foreskin, but it doesn't fully enclose the head like a true uncircumcised dick. My dad is originally from California, and his parents did the same to him, so I think that was probably what influenced he and my mom's decision to have it done to me the same way. I didn't even realize what circumcision was until I was in junior high. I remember hearing other boys my age talk about having to use lotion to jack off, which I did not understand. The benefit of being uncircumcised (or partially circumcised, as in my case) is that you can easily jack off without any lubricant.

[quote]American women hate uncut dicks

And they're the ones who, ultimately, have the final say given they give birth to boys. So I don't understand why the anti-circ loons target this site.

R99 You and your "class" BS, can go where I told R74 to go. The few intact Americans I have met from California (three that I know of ) are all of English/WASP descent, and from very privileged families. Highly educated men (best boarding schools, and your "Ivies") They're all between mid to late forties. We all have anecdotal personal experiences, and mine do not comport nicely with your illusions.

All three of these men were not immigrants, and their fathers were intact as well. I know because as a Brit, I was surprised they hadn't been maimed, so I asked them. You have a very limited scope to your worldview, and I suspect you must be much older to hold such racist, and classist views on the subject matter. I'm guessing you're more than likely sixty-plus, or even over sixty-five years-old.

So, a Brit campaigning against American circumcision. You'd think r109 would have all the filthy, stank-sleeve dicks he wants from his country.

[R7] - “ I been with many uncut white guys in CA. It was hot. Just as nature intended.”

What did you do with the cheese? Toss it in a salad? Spread it on a cracker? Eat it right from the container?

[R7] - “ I been with many uncut white guys in CA. It was hot. Just as nature intended.”

What did you do with the cheese? Toss it in a salad? Spread it on a cracker? Eat it right from the container?

R74 Furthermore, after re-reading your remarks, I need to question your statement "Can't live without foreskin"....? You would probably live if we did a "Boxing Helena" number on your arse, but does that mean we should do it, or that there's any merit there, simply because it doesn't kill you? I don't get the logic of any of this.

Just as you ate so horrified by smells of humanity, some of us find this practise to be especially creepy, and almost cult-like. It's barbaric and violates rights to bodily integrity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a "fetish" or as another poster upthread tried equating it to being "anti-vax". It's on an entirely different level, yet you're too daft to comprehend it. You're the one with the fetish, if you prefer this to the point of supporting it be done to infants. Let the hygiene obsessed Americans allow their sons to decide whether their dicks smell bad enough to amputate parts of them. It's as simple as that. I don't care what adults do their OWN penises.

I live in the States, happen to be a Jew, and I'm vehemently an Intactivist. I don't support Jewish parents having a Mohel performing the Bris on their infant sons either. Thank G-d my parents were civilised enough to be "bad Jews" in the eyes of some. This is a vile and pernicious molestation. That being said, I wouldn't be so shallow as to reject a quality bloke because he's lost his foreskin. My current partner happens to be American and circumcised.

^ last paragraph for R110

Lol @ the obsessive retards here. Try Anafronil, girls. You could also fashion a faux tinfoil foreskin to match your pointy tinfoil hat. Sweet Jaysus.

You're converting no one, r113. Why persist?

@ R106 Yes, you poor thing, but I’m an imbecile who can spell “goddamn” correctly. Lol.

[quote]Is cancer what nature intended? I'll wait.

As cut men are more prone to develop prostate cancer, then yes, it is like nature intended.

What California does today, the rest of America does tomorrow. Intact is Mother Natures gift.

A message to mother’s, fathers and the medical profession: Leave the penis alone. It’s not your fucking penis. You don’t have a right to amputate anything. It’s not your foreskin. It belongs to the person to whom it’s attached. The foreskin is functioning, healthy and pleasurable. Put your scalpel down and fuck off. Besides, a male with a silky smooth foreskin doesn’t need a lifetime of shitty lube just to jack off and do the most natural thing that males have been doing since the dawn of time.

What perverse cruel mind came up with this abominable practice of circumcision!

R116 I PERSIST in order to defend myself, and my like-minded fellow posters here. It is essential in this debate to separate individuals' sexual preferences from the matter, or the practise. It is sexualising those infants as objects when you support this so. I also defend my culture, as in Britain, we don't take the matter lightly, nor should we. To be fair, you know absolutely nothing about me, or the number of people I have changed their minds on the subject. I have impacted several for the better. You are wrong. I have been active in this debate for over twenty-five years: at forums, at demonstrations, new baby/expectant parent trade shows, and in my temple.

To believe in a human right, such as bodily integrity, so staunchly that it causes one to try to educate, and change the minds of others isn't being an "obsessive retard" as R115 so ELOQUENTLY puts it. It simply means one is devoted to a cause, and is political, or an activist.

On the contrary, those who are singularly coming from a sexual point of view, and defending this on those grounds are fetishising and obsessing over circumcision. Culturally, Americans in general cling to this perversion even more so than modern Jews. We at least have Brit Shalom in lieu of Brit Millah, but what do you obstinate Americans have but outdated pseudoscience and a fetish for this ritual.

The circumcision trolls are tiresome. They are nervous their barbaric circumcisions will be a thing of the past. They should be.

In the future the American penis will be uncut.

Circumcision will eventually end up in the dust bin of history. Even if a specific religious group continues this archaic barbarism, it will be viewed as exactly what it is: barbaric, cruel, violent, abusive and unnecessary...for males and females. Cutting genitals must end.

Seems like you're pissing in the wind, r122. Circumcision remains the default in America. Of the boys born today in the country, upwards of 80% will end up being circumcised over the coming few days. Rates are much higher amongst the privileged, highly educated middle-class to upper-middle-classes, and white people not born at home. Circumcision rates are lowest amongst lower-income and recent income families. You're wasting your time.

R121 History tells us it was the Sumerians first, then Abraham at ninety-nine years-old believed G-d implored him to circumcise himself, and subsequently, Abraham telling the Jews it is a covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

The law of Moses required circumcision on the eight day, with few exceptions, however the children of Israel abandoned the law during Moses's time, and it is said Moses did not circumcise his own son. It is unclear whether Moses himself was actually circumcised. Different accounts are to be had from different sources. Other sources say Moses wife was then commanded to circumcise the child. This is the story of Zipporah at the Inn in the Torah.

All religions have their fairytales. That was entertaining r126 but not entertaining enough to mutilate another being's body part that g-d created.

R113, there are some Jewish families today that don't circumcise, that's true. But it's still very much the exception to the rule.

Brit Shalom has picked up some momentum with a few Jewish families, but Brit Milah (or a non-religious hospital circumcision) remains the rule for the large majority of Jews, particularly in the United States.

Even most Liberal & secular Jews usually have their boys circumcised. It's one of the few religious practices that most Jews hang onto even when almost all others have ceased to have meaning.

R125 Who are you to tell me I'm wasting my time? Unless you happen to be my rabbi, I couldn't care less what you think of how I spend my time or efforts. I have been very active in my congregation before I moved to the States. ( so were both my parents, and my father was an MD as well as a Doctorate of Psychiatry.) I continue on with the values they instilled in me to effect change. It is part of my faith to make this world better, and to participate in things and debate which may prove uncomfortable to some.

Not only have I convinced legions of friends and family members to opt for Brit Shalom, a naming ceremony, but I have received more than thirty letters from expectant fathers and mothers, whom I had met at health fairs... Simply at a booth to pass out literature, and have a conversation in a respectful manner. I approached no one ever at these events, but would simply allow them to take the information and have a conversation if they liked.

You do not deter my efforts in the least. Whenever these threads pop up, I am civil, and always coming from an altruistic place to safeguard the rights of infant boys, and to educate fellow Jews, that there are alternatives.

Shalom

R127 That they do. This is my belief as well,and one of my many points I like to express; thankfully in my congregation, we believe many things in the Torah are parables, and there is no being beholden to Halacha, or Jewish law. One is encouraged to take on as many different laws as they feel called to, but it is certainly not mandatory. Just as it is not mandatory to be a Jewish male in good standing to be circumcised in Reform or Reconstructionist Judaism.

Brit Shalom will probably become more common in future generations, I think that is true. Most Jews today, just like most Christians, are less attached to traditional religious rituals and so that will happen, but not overnight.

As I said above, most Jews consider male circumcision to be one of the few practices they maintain, even in secular or liberal Jewish families. The Seder and Brit Milah are probably the 2 most enduring Jewish practices because they represent Jewish identity.

R128 Thank you for your remarks, and it is interesting how things ARE different here in the US. In Britain, this isn't the case with Liberal and Progressive Judaism, which is now a part of Reform. Brit Shalom is quite popular in Israel as well. I do believe it depends on your rabbi (as usual) and your particular congregation. Several American Physicians in the Intactivist Movement happen to be practising Jews, and for that I'm very grateful for personally, and on a very deep level on account of my father's beliefs, and efforts.

R132, yes, there is a developing anti-circumcision movement in Israel, and there have been several news pieces on it. Circumcision is still the overwhelming choice for Israeli parents, but the movement has gained some followers.

Circumcision is less common among European/Scandinavian Jews, although even in Europe it remains common for Jews, particularly the UK (which has numbers almost as high as the U.S.). That's probably also why most UK Jewish celebrities popular on Datalounge (eg. Daniel Radcliffe, Julian Morris, Gregg Sulkin etc) are all circumcised.

I live on the East Coast., but I've noticed that even on the West Coast/California,/Hollywood, Brit Milah remains the preference for most Jews. Even lots of Hollywood celebs call in the Mohel (eg. Andy Cohen last year). However, I've heard there is a growing Brit Shalom movement in the Bay Area.

Yes R131, I do hope it does become more popular here. It has certainly gained traction on the west coast, and in assimilated neighbourhoods and congregations in NYC, and the "less Orthodox" in Brooklyn. New Jersey, and places like Monsey, other parts of Rockland Cty, or Borough Park, not so much! I find Chicago, the suburbs, and other midwestern Jewish communities it is [italic] tolerated [/italic] even by some older more conservative rabbis. Things certainly change though, as years ago, one rarely saw Reform blokes wearing Kippahs, but now that more traditional aspect of the faith is now widely embraced. I see more and more Conservative Jews eschewing all dietary laws as well. Who can say really what may come? Cheers

I was taught when I was little to pull back my foreskin after peeing and wash my penis, as well as in the shower and before bed. I have never had any problems. It’s just basic hygiene.

[quote]Not only have I convinced legions of friends and family members to opt for Brit Shalom

Like vegans and Jehovah's Witnesses, completely lacking in self-awareness. Probably thinks he's extremely well-liked and the life of every party.

Hey R136, I don't [/italic] think [/italic] I'm the life of the party, I bloody well know I am! I'm an excellent cook, bartender, always have grass on hand, speak three languages (not counting Hebrew and Yiddish); I happen to be generous to a fault, and have a condo in the Caribbean that I let my friends come to.... I have a small boat they can use to fish with, or go snorkelling and scuba diving. I don't need to let anyone go there for free. But I do! Yeah, I'm cool like that. i also volunteer at a food bank. I'm a mensch and a party-hearty epicurean and hedonist. I'm sorry you can't appreciate me, but I think I shall live.

If one takes an impartial glance at the character behind several of these pro-circ posts, they are anything but the "life of the party".... They insult men's natural anatomy, and shame them that they're dirty... in addition to other ad hominem attacks. Compare and contrast R68's civility, and rational thought process with the bloke nutting on about all he cares about is sex, not whether or not the baby can consent, (I doubt he cares whether or not the baby feels any pain either) I find these people more than faintly annoying, but rather very cold and almost inhuman.

Circumcision is one of the biggest con jobs pulled over gullible Americans.

R138 Indeed, as well as being pulled over young American physicians, and interns. Depending on the part of the country, and the hospital system, it is part of the cult-like natire of it all. Accept the dogma, do not question, do no research, and do not think for yourself! Just learn to convince the mums and dads that it is hygienic and the "right thing to do". Keep pestering and nudging the ambivalent ones.... It's not a thing to stress over it's NORMAL. It's quite simple really, we remove anywhere from 28% and 50% of the highly innervated tissues from the penises of 87% of all males born here. PERFECTLY NORMAL MY ARSE.

[quote]To be fair, you know absolutely nothing about me

I recognize you through your writing style as that alte kocker from England who's lived in or near Chicago for the last however many years, who loves, cherishes, and adores going pitbull on any number of issues. Today it's circumcision. I forget what it was a few years ago, but you were equally annoying then.

IDGAF about whether someone else is circumcised. In my adult life it was something I never thought much about. If someone had a foreskin, well, alright. It was only when I discovered the "Uncut Uber Alles" bullies when I joined DL in 2013 that it became a thing. Since I am circumcised, and since that was the norm for me growing up (non-Jewish in a somewhat Jewy environment in NJ), I jumped in to defend against you Uncunts when I saw fit.

I found you unpalatable over other issues. I just don't remember any longer what they were.

[quote]The studies in Africa were deeply flawed

Says who, r72? We're quoting the world's most respected sources like The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine while you peddle in cockamamie bullshit bro-science. The studies were so overwhelming that the UNAIDS, with the backing of the WHO, has set out to circumcise 90% of all African men aged 15-29.

[quote]Male circumcision reduces men's risk of acquiring HIV and some sexually transmitted infections from heterosexual exposure, and is essential for HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. Studies have also investigated associations between male circumcision and risk of acquisition of HIV and sexually transmitted infections in women.

This is why the practice will continue to spread worldwide. Not long ago, many models were predicting HIV would decimate Africa's population. Now it's decreasing faster than anyone ever imagined.

r24 I prefer to see it this way: There are penises and there are mutilated penises due to circumcision. No cut or uncut or intact. There is normal and there is mutilated.

R140 Whether you recognise my voice through my remarks here is a bit irrelevant really. So you hold a grudge over some former beef, and feel the need to oppose me regularly? Bully for you then. If you think you really know me somehow, you ought to say who you are and HOW you know me. This does seem a bit personal on your behalf, as I believe you have made allusions before to knowing who I am....

I still seriously doubt you truly know me, and what that involves in the real world outside the Datalounge forum. Knowing the sum of one's life work well enough to judge him so. Furthermore, you have no right to tell me I'm wasting my time. I've been at this quite passionately for over twenty-five years... You think your remarks are going to estimate the value of a cause I'm passionate about? My, the arrogance! Again, I've received thirty two letters to date from parents who decided against circumcision, and those were thank you notes. Whatever you misguided miscreant. You'll still believe in filleting little boys penises, now won't you? That sounds so wholesome doesn't it?

Accusing me of liking to go "Pitbull" is fairly ridiculous really, as I'm not really a controversial poster on this forum. I usually post about food, travel, drugs, cocktails, Rugby, teaching, old cars, and medical or scientific topics. I steer clear of American politics, and don't know what you're accusing me of specifically, nor do I bloody care at this point.

I don't find anything controversial about being for informed consent of parents, as very few Americans do not even understand the terms of the anatomy of an intact penis. I don't think it's akin to being a "pitbull" to advocate for young men to decide this of their own accord. What's in point of fact more analagous to going "Pitbull" is to defend infant circumcision, either ritual, or for a misguided and dubious health practise. You're the advocate of a barbaric, violent, harmful , and IRREVERSIBLE act, whilst I'm saying leave the infant's penis alone you twisted AK. YOU sir are the bloody Pitbull.

It's telling that the uncut guys have a complex about their foreskin, they react with unbridled distress at mention of it. Why not just ignore and carry on?

R144 It's a human rights issue dumbkopf. I think we've been over that part with an excessive number of posts in our attempts to explain it to you!

it's very obvious from their comments an reactions that the people so anti-uncut have lower intelligence; their comments are emotional, childish and not fact based, screaming about "cheese" etc. so much for gay men being more intelligent.

the WHO study was based on heterosexual males in sub saharan africa; even the person who quoted it included that. it's not clear how that relates more broadly, especially the gay male population in the us.

other data i've seen from medical sources suggest that the probability of getting hiv from a single encounter WITH SOMEONE already HIv positive is higher for an uncut vs. a cut top, but the difference is so small ...... i forget the #s but it was something like .05% for cut vs. 1.2 % for uncut. which technically is like 2X as likely but we're still talking about a tiny number either way.

This will go over most of you morons' heads, but a statistically significant difference is not necessarily a meaningful one.

[Quote] it is part of the cult-like natire of it all

It's just a very vocal minority with an agenda.

if you actually read that WHO article, it says that the data for protection against hiv is not particularly strong ("low consistency'). They don't show the actual statistics but they had three levels: high. medium and low consistency

[quote]Low-consistency evidence was found for seven outcomes because of discrepant values: bacterial vaginosis, gonorrhoea, HIV infection, high-risk HPV infection

Bill Gates supports and funds programs throughout Africa to circumcise teen and adult men. It is very questionable in its protocols, even using unskilled volunteers performing the procedures by way of a plastic clamping device. The end of the plastic clamp is meant to stay on the glans for some time afterward. There have been complications, and the majority of these were not even performed in legitimate medical centres. Even Tim Tebow has gone as a volunteer to help circumcise the Africans.

It's shameful that Tebow himself is intact, but couldn't resist being caught up with this nonsense. This is stranger than fiction really. Sick.

Tebow is NOT intact.

to add to R146 1st paragraph;

if the anti-uncut were simply stating a preference, e.g. "I prefer cut, thanks" that would be one thing.

But the childish comments about "cheese" and "stanksleeve," not understanding basic science/physiology (how the foreskin/frenulum work and the associated nerve endings) and basic math (e.g. countries that don't circumcise actually have lower STI/Hiv rates) indicate that their lack of rationality.

Why should they care so much about what happens to the worlds male infant population? if you don't like uncut don't have sex with it. but the spewing of stupidity on here with such a fervor reveals other "issues"

It's very similar to how "deplorables" who don't understand basic science or simple. facts.

R147 From my research, and affiliations, I'm convinced a large part of the agenda is financial in the US. This accounts for the pressure many mums receive. The hospital is a business after all.

It is like a cult in the practise of American medicine, because it does involve brain washing. It expects all members to comply with its party line. No room for dissent. I believe the majority of the American medical establishment supports infant circumcision.

R151 Very true. There is research attributing more erectile dysfunction to circumcision, and a higher number of vasodilators like Viagra being prescribed to American men who are circumcised compared to Europeans who remain intact. There are currently ongoing longitudinal studies attempting to link circumcision with a higher incidence of Peyronie's Disease as well.

It is well known in certain circles that much sexual dysfunction , including premature ejaculation, has been blamed on circumcision due to nerve damage. Not only nerves are severed, but so is the Dartos muscle, (formerly known as the peripenic muscle) and the Dartos fascia, which are contained in the foreskin.

According to the British Association of Urological Surgeons, based on research gained from the autopsy of twenty-two foreskins, "The Prepuce provides a large and highly important platform for several nerves, and nerve endings, and presents uniquely specialised sensory tissues, such as the Ridged Band, and the Preputial Mucosa. The Meissner's Corpuscles are the fine- touch nerve endings which are concentrated within the Ridged Band, where the inner foreskin, and outer foreskin layers meet.

Much more than a "tiny flap of skin" is removed. They simply repeat this as a mantra to put themselves in a trance. The Pro-Circs are fond of this phrase because it diminishes the extent of what is exactly removed.

The anti-circ troll is fucking NUTS.

R154 Trying to explain and label the anatomy of the foreskin isn't "nuts", those would be your testes mate! It's educational for people to know this anatomy has highly specialised functions in the penis. You were born with these parts for a reason. The information would not trigger you so very much, had you been properly educated.

[quote]The information would not trigger you so very much, had you been properly educated.

This sums it up.

Preference based on aesthetics, idiosyncrasy, etc. is one thing.

But it's the utter stupidity and ignorance expressed by the vocal "anti uncut" faction is what is so shocking.

[quote]The information would not trigger you so very much, had you been properly educated.

Good. Lord. A proper education re: a foreskin? It's a piece of skin. Removing it does not harm. Seriously, for someone to make it their life's work to be so obsessed with foreskin is truly strange. If only you'd channeled that into something useful.

[quote]The information would not trigger you so very much, had you been properly educated.

A BA and MA from Columbia and an MBA from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business isn't educated enough for you?

The circumcision rate in the West fell in 2006 and it has never recovered. Circumcision in the midwest remains high around 70%-ish percent. While it has fallen to the lower 30% in the West.

It's clear that the US will become a uncut nation in the next two decades. It's the future, deal with it.

an uncut*

[quote]other data i've seen from medical sources suggest that the probability of getting hiv from a single encounter WITH SOMEONE already HIv positive is higher for an uncut vs. a cut top, but the difference is so small ...... i forget the #s but it was [bold]something like .05% for cut vs. 1.2 % [/bold]

Bullshit! The studies showed a reduction of HIV transmission of up to 60%. The British study had to be discontinued because of the ethics of knowingly allowing so many people to get infected and die. The WHO now officially recommends circumcision as a vital method of reducing the spread of HIV in communities. Again, we've quoted the world's most respected medical journals while you keep pulling fake science at of your backside.

Biology of how circumcision reduces female-to-male STI/STD transmission. In plain English, the foreskin is a natural receptacle for all kinds of germs.

Article about one of the British studies:

Well, well. Look who shows up:

Research findings

[quote]The first research proof came in 2005, when a study in South Africa, supported by the French agence nationale de recherches sur le sida (ANRS) and known as the 'Orange Farm Intervention Trial', was stopped early in the face of evidence that the men who had been randomly assigned to be circumcised were getting 60% fewer HIV infections than the men assigned to the control group.

[quote]In December 2006, on the recommendation of their Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), two similar studies in Uganda and Kenya were halted early by the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) because the interim results showed a significant effect of male circumcision in preventing HIV acquisition in men.

[quote]The trial carried out in Kisumu, Kenya by researchers from the University of Nairobi, University of Illinois at Chicago, the University of Manitoba, and RTI International involving 2,784 men aged 18 to 24 showed a 53% reduction of HIV infections in circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men.

[quote]In Uganda, the trial, carried out in Rakai by researchers from Makerere University, the Uganda Virus Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University, and Columbia University New York, involved 4996 men aged 15 to 49 years old and showed that adult male circumcision reduced by 51% the risk of becoming infected with HIV.

[quote][bold]Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the institute ended both trials early and offered circumcision to all men involved in them.[/bold] The trials began in 2005 and were due to go until mid-2007.

Science is straight up telling you uncut cocks are filthy.

[quote] apparently you don’t understand simple math.

Going from a 0.9% rate to 0.36% rate is also a reduction of 60%. It doesn’t make it meaningful

[quote]It doesn’t make it meaningful

The numbers in Africa aren't meaningful? The same Africa that was at risk of having its active adult population gutted 20-30 years ago?

The Lancet study mentioned a sample of 3274 split it in half

Cut: 20/1637 = 1.2%

Uncut : 49/1637= 2.9%

That’s the 60% reduction.

Nevertheless 97-98% 0f both groups remained negative

Moreover the article points out that condoms and reducing sexual partners are really the way tonite ent HIV.

^^^ the way to prevent hiv.

And they worry that circumcision will give the Africans and others a false sense of security now

Also the WHO doesn’t exactly have a great track record for not being politically biased. Ask China and Taiwan

The overcompensation is sad. Like an animal chewing its leg off to get out of a trap.

The Circumcision trolls can't defend their point because they have none. They hate the West is uncut and try to demonize it because deep down they feel inadequate with their butchered penises. .

BPD alert (Duh).

R121 In the US is was planned for boys and girls but in the end it was only done to boys. It is a double standard because it shames men for their sexuality.

Female circumcision is in no way related to male circumcision, it is genuinely barbaric and mutilating.

Now cue the men to come in here and say it's exactly the same thing. **rolls eyes**

R141 HIV is prevented by condoms not by cutting off skin

R174 This victim of female circumcision says it can be worse for the boy

R152 I also think it is financial

[quote]Tebow is NOT intact.

I agree. Tebow is most likely cut. His parents are Christian fundies and he was born in the Philippines which has a high circ rate.

I bet the same people who say they don't like "cheese" like rimming.

The African studies regarding HIV were concerning if the WOMAN were HIV-positive, then the HIV-negative intact man was slightly--and only slightly--more susceptible to getting HIV from his female partner. If a man had sex with with an HIV-negative women and the man were HIV-negative, then of course he would not catch HIV. Also, sex between two men regardless of their cut/uncut status had no affect on either becoming HIV-positive. Again the transmission rate to the intact man was only slightly elevated if the woman were HIV-positive versus if the man were cut. But cut men were still susceptible to catching HIV. Sex between men was studied later, and the transmission rate was negligible and did not matter if the men were cut or intact. Bottom line: it's condoms and education that prevent HIV--not cutting a man's dick.

[quote]Bottom line: it's condoms and education that prevent HIV--not cutting a man's dick. exactly. And I already did the math for people upthread from the Lancet study and the "60%" reduction which really was sitll only going from 0.29 to 0.12. But simple math seems to elude the posters on here.

^^^^ exactly.

And I already did the math for people upthread from the Lancet study and the "60%" reduction which really was sitll only going from 0.29 to 0.012. But simple math seems to elude the posters on here.

sorry my keyboard messed up. it's 0.29 to 0.012

[Quote] the data for protection against hiv is not particularly strong

For it to be, HIV incidence would be much lower in the US than in Europe or other parts of the world.

^^^^ fuck this keyboard. it's 0.012 vs. 0.029. Sorry.

[quote]For it to be, HIV incidence would be much lower in the US than in Europe or other parts of the world.

Oh for fuck's sake there's a reason why HIV rates in the US are higher than in Europe and it has nothing to do with circumcision. It's a politically sensitive reason and that's a whole other topic.

Uh huh.

Yep. r186. Uh huh is right. Thanks for agreeing.

European, South American and Asian men are overwhelmingly intact and yet the U.S. cut rate is high ad with a much higher HIV and STD rate than the rest of the world. Circumcision prevents nothing, which is why doctors in Europe issued their findings completely disagreeing with the doctors in the U.S, who advocate cutting males. But the medical profession in the U.S. is changing. and intact men in the U.S will be the majority in a generation or even less. It's changing.

R185. It's not just Europe where HIV/STD rates are lower. It's everywhere outside of the U.S. Cutting males in the U.S. does nothing to benefit the men or to make disease rates more favorable. Simple hygiene, education and condoms when necessary are the answers to preventing disease, not cutting.

HIV rates in the US are higher than Europe and Asia because blacks and Latinos have a MUCH higher infection rate than whites and Asians in the US. Blacks especially.

People need to block the Circumcision troll. All the fake outrage won't change the fact that circumcision is a dying practice in California.

Yes, at 34% circumcision rate California has the largest uncut population. Yes, in a few years it will be a thing of the pass.

The only annoying thing about uncut guys is that you don't have full control over the dick because they're too sensitive so you can't suck or jerk it as fully / completely as you can with a cut guy.

^^^Maybe with some guys but not with all. Premature ejaculation is an issue with men regardless of the type of penis.

I mean you can't do a "full stroke" because you can't "accidentally" "pull their foreskin" or they'll whine.

I should be able to suck or jerk the full dick, not have to avoid the head.

R189. HIV and STD rates have always been higher in the U.S. compared to Europe, even when white gay men were the primary group getting HIV and when the Latino population was much lower than it is today. And those original gay white U.S. men were largely circumcised. In addition, as other groups that were infected with HIV, it was still largely gay men, and cut/uncut status does not play a role in acquiring HIV when it comes to sex with men as multiple studies have indicated. As HIV spread, it continued to be gay men of all races and ethnicity; however, as HIV lessened in gay men, it rose in those taking drugs and using dirty needles. The HIV rate spread because of drug use, and it had nothing to do with being "protected by circumcision because cut men are not protected. Europe always had lower rates than the U.S.

R194. You don't have to avoid the head. What you should or shouldn't be able to do sexually is kind of beside the point for the moment particularly when it comes to making a decision about mutilating a infant's genitals--or for that matter, a male of any age. However, you can jack off my dick quite easily. My foreskin slides easily up and down the shaft and and back and forth over the head no problem, and you can play with my cock head all you'd like. Suck on the skin--I love it. Suck on the head--I don't whine. Feels great. Do whatever you'd like except you cannot just slide the skin back and only play with the head as if I were cut and the foreskin didn't exist. No, I like my foreskin played with, sliding it back and forth. Play with all parts of my cock: shaft, foreskin and head. Do whatever you'd like; you just cannot cut it off. Never. Ever.

r195 we're not talking historically, we're talking today. HIV rates are much higher in the black and Latino US populations because of unprotected sex. Condoms are not used as frequently.

Trolls! The W.H.O. "strongly advocates" for circumcision as a preventative measure against the spread of HIV and other STIs. There's a reason. I don't care how some sick, uncut charlatan who throws anti-circ dinner parties in his apartment chooses to interpret or try to diminish the very overwhelming data from several studies. I'm going with the scientists on this one.

^^Check with every medical organization in Europe. They disagree.

^ The Lancet (British) study isn't European?

Also, I don't need a medical journal or the WHO to tell me uncut dicks stink. That I can tell by myself.

Um no. What R188 said is why I said uh huh to you r185.

I'm born in California (1974). I'm uncut. But, that's because my older brother is uncut. The story goes that his foreskin didn't fully grow in until a week or two after he was born, and my parents didn't have the heart to have him sliced. I came along and they didn't want us to be different. But, they were also European.

I didn't grow up in California, so I have no idea if I was part of the norm or outside of it. My understanding is that I was outside of it.

Ask me anything. I love to spill shit!

^Where did you grow up and how did others react to your being uncut? When and how did you lose your virginity and with whom? Who's the hottest guy you ever banged. Did you ever land a straight guy? They, especially, freak out at uncutness.

1) I grew up small town Washington state

2) I had gym in middle school but didn't take showers. I didn't have much gym in high school so I didn't have to worry about that.

3) Virginity lost at 23. I bottomed. The guy was named Matt Beasley. It was uneventful.

4) Hottest guy would have been Jeremiah. He was sweet and very handsome. We had a sex in a well-known theatre director's house (well known in theatrical circles). He was housesitting at the time.

5) No straight guys. I could barely land the gay ones lol.

6) The guys I have been with had no issues with my cock. It's a nice dick. And I keep it fresh and clean.

Let’s agree to disagree. Let the uncuts agree they stink, and the cuts disagree with those that say uncuts don’t.

My foreskin is silky smooth, clean and lovely. I'm civilized, not a mutilated barbarian.

Funny, because in the US uncut is considered uncivilized and poor, "backwoods." This only applies to whites.

True r208 whereas in the rest of the world cut is considered uncivilized and trashy. The US also still doesn't have metric but has the KKK. So what do you know.

[quote]in the rest of the world cut is considered uncivilized and trashy.

Not really. Europeans are pretty horny for cut American men.

R210 Some of us like redneck trash! We tire of these civilized stuff we're up to our necks with.

Redneck trash in the US are uncut, not cut.

R212 you're all redneck trash to us. And it's a good thing!

R212 I followed some tumblr blogs of 'redneck' men, and they were all circumcised. Is this just a stereotype? I'm more inclined to think white uncut American guys come from hippies and those who were born from home.

Yeah r214 they're all cut. You're right about hippie parents but now the ones who are well to do and consider themselves enlightened on the two coasts don't circumcise their boys. it is really sad, come to think of it. We will miss the turkey gibletneck dicks.

R214 who is also the OP here, I was not surprised this thread turned out how I thought it would be. This topic always seems to bring out the bitterness of a lot here, but at the same time I find it a little funny.

The OP holds frequent dinner parties to evangelize to his guests about what they should do with their unborn kids' penises. How is that not unhinged?

Cutting male or female genitals is uncivilized, unnecessary and barbaric.

And ugly.

R158 You are unable to follow parallels, and very much triggered by an anatomy lesson. You are typical of Americans who reply with non-sequiturs and red herrings. You didn't learn about the functions of the foreskin, or its parts in business school mate. Nice try though.

r220 we all know plenty about anatomy and we're hardly triggered. We just think you're a batshit nut who really needs to focus on something worthwhile in your life.

[quote] Are Californian guys typically uncut?

God, no. This has always been The Golden State (ie, aspirational.)

R221 Well, I say you're just as passionate about the topic, else you wouldn't be here. Furthermore I've been busy the last four days, and have not posted here or logged on since Sunday morning....

Why do you get to tell me I shouldn't get to opine on such matters? Simply because you disagree with my POV? I'm not an "anti-circ freak or nut" as you mindlessly keep reiterating. One again, and for the very last time: I'M AGAINST THE ROUTINE AND RITUAL CIRCUMCISION OF INFANTS. I believe it is both a trauma to the baby's brain (there is medical evidence if you are capable of medical research) and I'm not for others telling others like me that we have no right to speak out against such brutalities. I'm also against this as an appalling tradition of my faith, and I'm involved with that end of it.

What I'm for is education, informed consent on behalf parents, and for bodily integrity of infant males. You still cannot answer why thos must be visited on children hours after birth in hospital, as most Christian Americans do, or on an eight day- old newborn, as is the case with my people. If you believe in the benefits of circumcision conferred upon men, you still fail to answer why those benefits cannot be conferred LATER.

When we come honestly to a debate, we do not hurl ad hominems at our opponents, nor do we we tell them they have no right to speak. That is not how adults have scholarly or intellectual discussion. If you continue to go down this path, then I do declare you a tosser, fair and square.

Nations other than th US obviously have a different take on the matter; any American who continues to argue this one-sidedly is not being very fair to other cultures. I suppose this is yet another illustration of "American Exceptionalism" we continue to hear so very much about ad nauseum. I've given some British POV, now for two others...

From our Canadian neighbours we have the following: "The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has written the foreskin is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa (almost identical to the eyelid) that is rich in specialised sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. The Langerhans cells are immature dendritic cells that ate found in all ateas of the penile epithelium, but are most notably present in the inner surface of the foreskin."

And from the Netherlands: "The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) states that sexologists and expert sexual therapists view the foreskin as a "complex, EROTOGENIC structure that plays an important role in the mechanical functions of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse, and masturbation."

"In 2010 the association called non-therapeutic male circumcision a harmful and painful ritual that violates children's rights"

It's high time everyone ease into the twenty-first century already, and put this outdated perversion to rest... at least until a young man reaches the age of consent, and then he can decide the matter for himself.

R201 You only evidence your ignorance (as well as your crassness) by that statement, as the WHO supports circumcision, and claims there is little to no evidence the foreskin is important to sexual pleasure. You must enjoy contradicting yourself really. It's most obvious you ate not here for meaningful debate or anything remotely smart or scientific.

No, you're a fucking nut. Nobody should care this much about circumcision, or write endless diatribes about it. JFC, look at all the rambling posts in this thread. That's just unhinged and creepy. We're all glad we don't know you, or live next door to you.

From above:

[quote]The OP holds frequent dinner parties to evangelize to his guests about what they should do with their unborn kids' penises. How is that not unhinged?

I wonder if Alan Cumming has been contributing to this DL thread?

R227 You're just as prolific, shall we say on this thread. You're also nasty and hostile in your approach. That surely says something louder regarding your mental state than mine. You need to learn to respect that many people are passionate about issues you care so little about. It's not ironic the ones populating these threads doing the screaming "You're nuts, crazy, etc. " are the ones with the rudest remarks and tasteless insults.

When I meet someone IRL who takes an interest in something I'm completely ambivalent or ignorant about, I ordinarily ask them how they became so passionate about the issue. That's because I have an open mind, and choose to continue to grow as a person. None of the pro-circ, shut your mouth types here never ask such questions. They do not wish to evolve. They are highly threatened by anyone questioning the status quo, despite cultural changes, and new medical studies. Most as I said before are not coming here from an honest and sincere approach.

[quote]When I meet someone IRL who takes an interest in something I'm completely ambivalent or ignorant about, I ordinarily ask them how they became so passionate about the issue. That's because I have an open mind, and choose to continue to grow as a person.

That's all well and good but being so passionate and obsessed about circumcision is fucking crazy, dude.

R231 Why are you still here then? Honestly? When you ask people WHY they're passionate about an issue, you learn how their experience of life is different to yours, and more often than not goes a long way in understanding one's opponents. But you don't care to even politely inquire, now do you? You do not seek to understand, simply to call names. Have you ever thought many adults have interests and causes different to your own? You're quite egocentric if you fancy yourself the arbiter on every subject.

Give it another decade or so, and plastic surgeons will start fitting mutilated penises with 3D-printed prosthetic foreskins. Scientists have already successfully printed sheets of skin tissue to help wound healing; someone has even tried their hands on corneas with promising results. Why not foreskins?

R229 Good on Alan. I've always liked him.

Nothing more aesthetically beautiful than a well-sculpted slab of meat.

Nothing more aesthetically beautiful than a well-sculpted slab of meat.

[quote]Good on Alan. I've always liked him

He's British. Of course he's anti-circ. They no longer have no influence over us. The opposite is true.

American men are the sexiest, most desired on the planet. This German hot flight attendant that was trying to get me to fuck her not knowing I'm gay kept asking "Are you circumcised? Because most American men are". When I nodded it was all she could do to keep herself from raping me 😂. I never told her the truth about why I turned her down.

Brits are an insecure bunch. They haven't even outlawed circumcision in their own country, yet come to campaign in America because it would offend religious minorities back home. I'll use a bad example because I agreed with his position, but it really turns people off the way Piers Morgan did lecturing Americans about their guns. It's one thing to hear it from within, but an outsider will never get traction.

[quote]I believe it is both a trauma to the baby's brain (there is medical evidence if you are capable of medical research)

Yes. We are all suffering trauma from circumcisions we can't remember.

This explains why white dudes are such gun carrying nutcases. The lack of foreskin makes them crazy.