Why was I circumcised. I'm not even a jew.

youre a yank

American national IQ is pretty low.

>>38315180
Jews also cut their slaves.

File: 1497218393773.jpg (59KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 720x960px

Gotta make money, and make actual jews feel less insecure about their mutilated dicks. If everyones a cutfag, they'll have better chances with the ladies now that they're used to it.

So you don't get phimosis nigga

>>38315474
99% of people dont get that anyways

>>38315180
because america is a dystopian third world shithole

>>38315180
50% of the Jewish population live in the U.S.
40% in Israel
10% in other.

You got it because of Jewish laws.

>>38315180
Because your parents are slaves to the jew cock. And maybe the worship Jewsus.

File: jesus-christ-munir-alawi.jpg (90KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 600x900px

>>38315843
>friendly reminder that although Jesus was Jewish, the ruling Jewish authorities who held the money and power thought he was a threat and had him crucified

>>38315180
So that woman ,can now you instead of calling your penis gross .

>>38315957
Would you suck his cock?

Cut dicks are aesthetic.

>>38316344
shirveled and mutilated penises are not aesthetic anywhere outside of yankcuckistan

>>38315474
>>38315482

A lot of the time phimosis is caused by ignorant caregivers who try to force back a boy's foreskin. The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis in babies and young children. They start out as one structure in the womb, and gradually separate after birth--but this can take years.

The foreskin of a baby/child requires no special cleaning, and no retraction.

Attempting to retract a boy's foreskin if the foreskin is still fused to the head of the penis can cause massive damage that can lead to constriction of the foreskin opening due to scar tissue formation, as well as infections due to the introduction of germs in the artificially-created space between the foreskin and glans.

Few adult men have phimosis. Even fewer would have phimosis if all caregivers knew proper infant foreskin care (which is little more than "just clean it like a finger"), which would avoid setting up boys to develop phimosis and other health issues later And the tiny minority that would still develop phimosis could be treated through less extreme means.

Circumcision is not a real medical procedure. It's a blood sacrifice ritual that was brought into western medicine at a time when western medicine was essentially pure quackery. It was used as a punishment for masturbation because it was believed masturbation caused insanity and other health problems, which is complete codswallop. Eventually myths, cultural inertia, emotional compulsions, and a lack of knowledge on proper foreskin care came together to make routine infant circumcision the rule rather than the exception in American culture.

So you won't play with your winky; it's a sin.

File: 432.jpg (220KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1024x1024px

>>38316213

Verily makes thee pensive.

File: 1467447937916.jpg (11KB, 400x467px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x467px

>tfw im a jew yet i didnt get my foreskin robbed at birth

lol americans are cucked

>>38316484
>robbing your son of blowjobs

Great parenting.

File: 456363.jpg (87KB, 640x890px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x890px

>>38316516

Boolsheet.

>>38315180
Then you're a filthy muslim

>>38316213
Fuck. Does this mean my parents care more about some girls feelings about how my dick looks than my personal enjoyment? Masturbation feels stale.

>>38316516
??? like wut ??? seriously nigga

>>38316583

It's too bad you can't stretch your ridged band. A lot of guys get a ton of pleasure from that alone.

>>38315180
The way I see it anon is like this?
I had a cousin who fell into this same "circumcision is torture" mentality and he didn;t get his kid circumsized. At the end of the day nothing ever happened to him.
Point is the entire subject is moot, low risk vs no risk and the only thing every presented is ironic jewery.
But alongside with the moot talking is the moot results. Considering you probably got circumsized when you were a baby, any differentation of experience sexually from the perspective of someone not circumsized would be negligable. Don't be one of these idiots who thinks you can't do a certain sexual task bc you are or aren't circumsized bc tbqh it realy doesn't matter either way. And considering youre on r9k, you don't want to give yourself more stuff to mourn over

>>38316893

>Don't be one of these idiots who thinks you can't do a certain sexual task bc you are or aren't circumsized bc tbqh it realy doesn't matter either way.

Watch this.

https://www.xtube.com/video-watch/Too-tight-circumcision-18957992

Now, watch this.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foreskin_gliding_action_in_masturbation.ogv

If you think there is no difference you're in denial. It's right there in front of you.

On top of the mechanical distortion caused by the circumcision, the first guy is missing the main sensory structure of his dick, which is the foreskin. The head of the penis isn't the most sensitive part by a longshot. The foreskin isn't just some "optional covering" for the part that has the feeling in it--it's the part that itself has most of the feeling.

File: aghaewh.jpg (154KB, 456x574px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 456x574px

Because no one cares when bad things happen to men.

On the other hand, I recall seeing a story where like 10 girls in Michigan recently got circumcised. People were acting like it was the holocaust all over again.

>>38316936
are you fucking retarded,
first off you didn't need to send me that gay shit faggot.
second off, I'm circumcised (which is obviously why I'm at the very least trying to make it acceptable) and can pull the foreskins up over my head, as a matter of fact when it's flaccid the skin engulfs my entire penis if I force it to, and when it's erect I can still get my stroke to naturally go over the head. So either I'm fat, or being circumsiced is the equivalent to having a chubby choad
But like seriously dude, I don't think that guy was even trying in the xtube video, that or he was on some pills to the point he got too erect.

As for your sensory argument, I guess I wasn't clear in my original post. More than likely the decision was made before you were even conscious, so any feeling you have in regards to your penis is relative to well, nothing else, so the point is moot. It's not like you can jump into someone else's body and experience sex consciously with and without being circumcised because at that poitn it'd be too late. And it's also not like we can measure something as relative as pleasure anyways. Thus, the feeling is not affected because it had no pre-cursor to affect. Unless your some sex god who is obsessed with trying to get as much "perceived pleasure" out of sex (which i assume your not since your on r9k) then I see no point in having this mystical "extra penis feelings" point wander around in your head

it sucks being a girl and only wanting to date men who are not circumsized.
uugh. life is hell.

>>38317509
I have a hooded bone you can examine desu

>>38317498

>first off you didn't need to send me that gay shit faggot.

Yeah, I do, because you don't know shit about this subject at all. You needed to see the difference between how a tightly circumcised penis and an intact one work.

You don't even know that there is no standard for "circumcision"--what I showed you was a tight cut. You have a loose cut, meaning you weren't mutilated as bad as some other guys. You're lucky in that sense. Not every other guy is. Some guys are cut so tight that their skin rips apart and bleeds when they get erect. Other guys just can't move the skin at all. And here you are trying to say that their penis works the same as an intact one--which you could only say if you were completely ignorant about this.

Do you even know why circumcision got popular in the US?

>As for your sensory argument, I guess I wasn't clear in my original post. More than likely the decision was made before you were even conscious

Babies are conscious.

>And it's also not like we can measure something as relative as pleasure anyways. Thus, the feeling is not affected because it had no pre-cursor to affect.

That argument would apply to cutting off your entire dick and just leaving a stump. "Well durrhur you never knew anything different so its fine!!"

Your argument is shit, and you don't know the first thing about this topic.

>>38317674
>he btfo'd him this hard
Damn, Anon, slaying faggots, left and right. Well, just the one. Nice

>>38315180
>Why was I circumcised. I'm not even a jew.

Jews

>>38317498
>More than likely the decision was made before you were even conscious,
This is an objectively incorrect thing to do. It is not your place to decide what to do with someone else's body. If someone who's cut wants to go back that's next to impossible for him to do wheres if someone wants to get cut they can make that choice for themselves. Forcing a decision (and a stupid one at that) onto someone elses body is fucked up, especially on a newborn child.

>so any feeling you have in regards to your penis is relative to well, nothing else, so the point is moot
You would objectively feel more in regards to stimulation if you weren't circumcised, so no the point is not "moot". Trying to dodge the issue by saying "y-y-you can't compare it to anything" does not make it correct. Limiting and possibly inhibiting someone else's sexual pleasure and experience is not your or anyone else's decision but their own.

What you're arguing for is something that cannot be undone and if you think it's at all ok to make a decision this big without a person's consent then you can honestly go fuck yourself you stupid jew. If some guy want's to get cut that's his prerogative but forcing circumcision on others is not.

>>38317787
next thing you know they won't even allow the baby a gender until they are able to pick it themslves, your logic is leading to a brim future

I did not make mention of limitation because there is no limitation because it's set by the body. I would argue that naturally, some people have a heightened sexual stimulation than others just naturally, so it's no like your depriving them of something. Thus, the constituents of sexual pleasure associated with your penis are on your own grounds and will always be limited by yourself. As long as you have a maximum and minimum spectrum of which sexual pleasure can be experienced then it's just as good as anyone else's and you probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise if not for studying it.

What I will not allow is for you to continue thinking that a separate entity in which you were involved in creating is not property. At the basis of your last point, and most of your post is that the parents don't have the right to make decisions like this for their kid, which is a viewpoint I don't particularly subscribe to. That, my friend, is where we fundamentally differentiate.

>>38317924

Some people are supertasters, other people are nontasters.

By your dumbass logic, if you were to permanently destroy a massive amount of tastebuds from your infant's tongue, you didn't deprive him of anything because some people naturally are capable of tasting more than others.

>>38317674
Since you like things in parts seperated with greentext I'll try

>trying to water down your argument with dwindling down circumcision to only extremely bad circumcised cuts

To that, I could do the same and only direct my advocation for less intense circumcised cuts, don't play koi with me nigga it's all or nothing on subjects like this. Either all circumcision is bad, or it's all good.

>pretty uncited use of a very valuable point about babies being conscious for a man who has links to a tight cut circumcision

I'll bite, do you remember your circumcision? i don't and i doubt you do either. "But that's not what consciousness is by definition, babies are technically conscious at this point in development." Dont' fuck with me, bottom line is I know your circumcision had no more an impact on you psychologically than if you weren't circumcised

>States I know nothing about the topic whilst simultaneously not responding
Even though i think your post is a shitpost, I still responded, you know why? Becuase you might actually be this fucking dumb. Next time respond because with an actual counter-argument. Also, you're dismissing my claim on the basis it holds tight in another scenario?

>>38315180
Basically a dude named Kellogs, the guy that also invented cereal wanted people to stop diddling themselves so he bullshitted that circumcision would make people stop diddling themselves
Cereal was supposed to help with that too, also graham crackers, but they didnt put sugar in them

>>38317954
If what you're implying is that he can still taste after the fact, the yes. I don't see how that's so wrong. I think what your misunderstanding is that none of this is with the motivation of depriving your child of something. Going back to circumcision, parents do that because they view it as healthy for the child.
If destroying the taste buds were to prevent some other more horrendous ailment then no you didn't deprive them of anything, if anything you gave them something to be all the more thankful for

>>38318046
New contester here, just pissed by your poor logic.
>do you remember four days after your 5th birthday party, what you ate for dinner that day?
>No?
>IT DIDNT HAPPEN,
>YOU WERENT CONSCIOUS, YOU WERENT ALIVE,
>IT HAD NO EFFECT ON YOU EVER, MIGHT AS WELL HAVE FED YOU DOGSHIT

>>38318046

>To that, I could do the same and only direct my advocation for less intense circumcised cuts

The doctor can't know for sure whether the cut he does is going to end up tight or loose. He can only estimate, because he doesn't know how much the kid's penis is going to grow during puberty. What could end up being an amount of tissue removed that would allow some skin movement in one boy could completely immobilize the penis of the next one. He can just make his best educated guess, which is why infancy is an insanely wrong time to do something that's stupid to do to begin with.

>I'll bite, do you remember your circumcision? i don't and i doubt you do either. "But that's not what consciousness is by definition, babies are technically conscious at this point in development." Dont' fuck with me, bottom line is I know your circumcision had no more an impact on you psychologically than if you weren't circumcised

Empirical evidence strongly shows that pain caused to infants has long term effects on their psychological makeup. Just because it can't be consciously recalled doesn't mean it isn't having an effect.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731

You don't remember how you learned to talk, and yet the fact that you did, and how you did (the language you learned first, the accent you learned first, etc.) had major effects on the structure of your brain and your psychological makeup.

>>38318101
I'm >>38318144
Another poor example of critical reasoning
>my parents thought that limbs are unhealthy because they uhhh uhhh uhh religion
>they chopped off all my limbs
>it's okay because I don't know what it's like to have limbs anyway XD
>it's okay because uhhh uhh uhhh they thought it'd be earthy, getting rid of that excess weight
Fucking summerfag 14y/o wants to prove his vastly superior intellect on the edgy 4chan forum, perhaps?

>>38318169
*healthy not earthy

>>38318144
I mean your not wrong, you just would have it that that doesn't make sense when it does. If I could never remember (and it was never triggered by mention) something, then it might've not happened at all. It's what your brain does to information it sees as useless, because at the end of the day it is, and has not affect on you whatsoever.
Take a look at the situation you've just presented, you've just given someone a scenario that presumably existed and they have no recollection of it. It could've very well been that it never happened, that they weren't conscious at the time of the aforementioned time (though not as paranormal as you might have it, perhaps they were in a coma), finally, considering you are the only one trying to convince the hypothetical person of this scenario, then you could've told them you fed them dog shit, but only then would it have an affect on them.

TL:DR you have the logic down, I think you just not as open-minded about it as much as you are skeptical about it.

>>38316458
Eh, taking care of the foreskin is such a hassle AND foreskins are disgusting to look at. I'd rather have my dick cut painlessly when I'm a few days old.

t.Muslim

>tfw uncircumsized but foreskin only retracts 3/4 when erect

>>38315482
Because they were circumcised.

>>38318365
dick cut painlessly.
Bunch of bullshit. Lifelong trauma for these children.
Also you will never experience sex as you could, most of the nerve endings are gimped after the procedure.
But hey you are desert people, you certainly dont want sand in there.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
http://www.circumcision.org/cht.htm

pls read these before you talk bullshit, theres a giant lobby behind it that keeps stuff like that somewhat hidden.

>>38318365

>Eh, taking care of the foreskin is such a hassle

It's not in the slightest bit.

>I'd rather have my dick cut painlessly when I'm a few days old.

It's not painless.

>>38318148

>it's a gamble you can't know for sure what the circumcision will come out to, you could be right or I could be right

The only you've accomplished here is further moving this argument in a more vague realm where it really doesn't matter if you get circumcise or not because the odds it turns out good or bad for you can be equivocated to some random disease like baby aids, all the way to lethal dwarfism

>EMPIRICAL evidence strongly shows that pain caused to infants has long term effects on their psychological makeup. Just because it can't be consciously recalled doesn't mean it isn't having an effect.

Read that link again buddy and please point out to me where your implication of long-term psychological effects is mentioned because the only thing that stood out to me was the test population.
Also, the HUGE difference between language and circumcision (you know the main reason you can't equivocate them) is that a language takes a long time to learn and integrates repetition. A circumcision happens all at once, which is part of the reason it affects are so minimal, the real analogy you should've used was mentioning what would happen if we read the entire dictionary to a baby, oh and the effects would be the same virtually nothing, just like circumcision.

File: 1498372282218.gif (228KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 450x253px

>>38316516
>implying my big black uncircumcised cock doesn't disappear in my white girlfriends throat nightly.

>>38318169
Again, I think you're focusing more on the emotional aspect of what you're saying more than the rational aspect.
Also, you're implying you'd, again, miss anything. Take a look at this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzsjEmjjHs I bet if he hadn't lost his limbs his life wouldn't have been as successful, so in some cases, decisions that you may be as bad might actually turn out to be good.
Bottomline, your too cynical on this subject when I didn't invite any emotion at all. You understand the reasoning, but for whatever reason your just not getting it. Again, the video I sent is basically your exact scenario and IDk but he looks pretty fine to me

>>38318513

Let's just get it straight here. What you are defending is having a baby strapped down, having a metal probe rammed into his dick, and then having a clamp crush down variable parts of the main sensory structure of his genitals.

This whole argument started because you claimed that a cut dick can do everything an intact one can't. I proved that that wasn't true, and you are the one who's been moving it all around in one direction and the next.

There are things you can't do with a cut dick that you can do with a whole one. Your cut wasn't complete so you still have some semblance of what it's like to be intact, whereas a guy who was cut more severely doesn't have that because he's missing more of his dick than you are. That was the point I was making and I proved that to you.

>The only you've accomplished here is further moving this argument in a more vague realm where it really doesn't matter if you get circumcise or not because the odds it turns out good or bad for you can be equivocated to some random disease like baby aids, all the way to lethal dwarfism

There's no reason to do it to a baby in the first place. You can leave his penis whole, just like you leave a girl's vulva whole, or leave any baby's fingers whole, eyes whole, nose whole, and so on.

There's nothing about the penis that makes it a good place to start hacking out skin and muscle and nerve endings.

>>38318626
>in some cases
What about the vast majority? Do you choose to ignore them just because one guy got somewhat successful?

>>38318626

And I bet if he could have all his limbs magically come back with no risks and no side effects, he'd go for it. Who knows?

This guy didn't lose his limbs though. He was born that way. It's not as if someone made the decision to hold him down and start hacking his limbs off.

Since we're sharing videos, here's one of a guy who was cut so tight his skin rips and bleeds when he tries to masturbate. He also resents the fact that a grown man saw fit to cut part of his penis off and suck the bleeding wound, even though he doesn't consciously remember that moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRsJXJop5I

>>38318169
Also here's a pro tip from someone whose been on here (r9k) for 2 years now and on 4chan for a total of 5 years. The only people that calls others summerfags are shitposters and actual summerfags. And by the looks of your use of the word edgy, notation of the 14 y/o age group, and androgynous use of "perhaps?" I'm gonna go with you being a summerfag

>>38317924
>next thing you know they won't even allow the baby a gender until they are able to pick it themslves, your logic is leading to a brim future
I never said anything about gender you stupid faggot and I disagree with that stupid tumblr shit, but nice slippery slope.

>I did not make mention of limitation because there is no limitation
There objectively is you dumb cunt because similar to what >>38317954 is trying to say taking away from that person's maximum potential sexual pleasure spectrum is indeed limiting it.

>you're not depriving them of something
Killing a good portion of the nerve endings is in fact depriving them of potential sensory pleasure, nice try though.

>What I will not allow is for you to continue thinking that a separate entity in which you were involved in creating is not property
You don't own a kid you fucking autist, children are not property but instead under the care and guardianship of the parents. I can legally do whatever I want with my property but my I can't legally do whatever I want with my kid because they have rights as an individual. Permanently and irreparably changing someone's body in a negative way falls under neither of those categories unless the child has a rare case of actually needing a circumcision for medical reasons (not actually that common by the way).

>At the basis of your last point, and most of your post is that the parents don't have the right to make decisions like this for their kid, which is a viewpoint I don't particularly subscribe to. That, my friend, is where we fundamentally differentiate.
So you skirt the issue by saying that you disagree with an individual's right to make decisions for their own body which is a not an argument. The point stands that an individual can decide with an informed opinion whether or not they want an irreparable medical procedure done to them and no one else has a right to make that decision for them.

>>38318633
Yeah, we all know what circumcision is dumbass. But this is debate class, not English class where today's lesson is on connotative words.

You can't just throw out a claim like that and not have supporting evidence, like really? "I proved that that wasn't true, and you are the one who's been moving it all around in one direction and the next."

The only thing you proved was that there are circumcisions where there are no effects because there is still enough skin around the penis to where it can move. if anything I'd chalk that down as one for my team.

You implying that I wanna leave those whole as well, I like equality and I'd honestly be down for some female circumcision. Also, in my argument, I never rally implied there needed to be a reason at all only that the parents had the control of whether or not it happened

I mean you could say that for any part of the body but I'm sure you're not against amputation, right?

>>38318652
Not ingore, but shrug off because if one person can make it possible, and it would appear to be a mental aspect, then I see no reason as to why not everyone could do it.

>>38318754
>I mean you could say that for any part of the body but I'm sure you're not against amputation, right?
You don't just amputate people's limbs willy nilly like with circumcision so that's where that argument falls apart.

>>38318673
So, what? Is not that you're concerned about circumcision now? Has always just been about the consent aspect of it. In that case, we've never been talking on the same page for a while now. What if a child was born circumcised, how would you react, would allow it, or try to re-attach more foreskin. I really wanna make sure you know what you're talking about.

Again, lots of people can't masturbate for various reasons, i know I can't sneeze too hard for fear of a bloody nose. Hell some people can't get cuts or they'll bleed to death. It's not even as though masturbation is a right anyways. Tbqh I think you're laying down too many disgruntled emotions in your arguments because you state, "He also resents the fact that a grown man saw fit to cut part of his penis off and suck the bleeding wound, even though he doesn't consciously remember that moment." As if that's some sort of the point. you literally said he wasn't conscious of it, that means somebody had to convince him it was wrong in the first making his point of view useless as it's just a well-planted bias.

>>38318713

It's not a slippery slope but nice subtle pseudo-intellectual slip-up, needless to say, the logic adds up, don't do something to a baby because they can't make that decision yet. As a matter of fact, it's even a slippery slope, it's just applying your logic to two different scenarios.

You treating it like it's a meter where we can measure your level of pleasure or sense. The maximum is only dictated by the response it triggers in the body (as it is relative) so if a guy can cum or whatever then he has his maximum, at least pragmatically speaking

read above statement

What are you reading a law book, I can tell by how mad you are that you think i'm trying to play by some code. i thought when I said something like "i respectfully disagree" that if was understood there are some fundamentally different ways of thinking in regards to how I see children and how the rest of the thread does. I see children as property for a certain length of time

read above post

>>38318815
what is Apotemnophilia?

me: 1
you: 0

File: jews.jpg (159KB, 657x664px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 657x664px

>>38315180
Because you live in a land run by Jews.

>>38318754

>The only thing you proved was that there are circumcisions where there are no effects because there is still enough skin around the penis to where it can move. if anything I'd chalk that down as one for my team.

No, there are still effects. Just not as severe.

You're still losing the ridged band, the frenulum still gets damaged or removed, and you're still losing valuable muscle tissue.

>>38318898

>What if a child was born circumcised

You mean born with an undeveloped foreskin. There's no such thing as being "born circumcised".

And in that case they would have a deformed glans, too. The glans can't form properly without the foreskin, so what happens if a child doesn't develop proper foreskin when he's in the womb is that he would get hypospadias. His urethra would be on the wrong part of his glans.

The best thing to do in most cases would be to just leave him alone because a lot of guys who had corrective surgery for hypospadias in infancy end up growing up with problems. In most cases they can pee well enough to function. It's obviously not ideal but people don't give their kids hypospadias on purpose.

>>38319231
Define valuable, because it's definitely not in the domains of functionality

>>38319120
Jews describe themselves as the chosen people, why would they want to indoctrinate you in the rituals. Would that be counter-intuitive?

File: 24l1v6c.jpg (59KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x361px

>>38315180
>born in the late 90s in a liberal area of california
>still got circumcised
:^)

>>38319255
No you retard it was a hypothetical situation, you can't justs dodge it because it's not real. I used to assess the domains of your reasons and values

Neither do people give their children tight cut circumcisions, but it stills happens. It would appear there is no clear option to opt in for, and the answer would also appear to be time sensative thus a parent should get involved and you should've chosen a better argument

>>38319291

>The dartos smooth muscle is specific to the male external genitalia and the vast majority of the penile dartos muscle is contained within the prepuce...From the prepuce, the delicate, attenuated penile dartos muscle surrounds the shaft of the penis and is continuous with the scrotal dartos muscle. The...muscle is temperature-dependent and allows for the volume changes required for erection [58]. The function of the dartos muscle has been...described by Jefferson, and its loss...explains the altered response of the circumcised penis to temperature changes. In the infant, the muscle fibres are intertwined and arranged in a mosaic-like pattern [59], causing the distal prepuce to pucker and close like a one-way valve [60]. When comparing the dartos muscle layer of the prepuce in males before and after puberty, the ratio of muscle fibres to elastic fibres decreases. This may explain why on gross inspection the distal prepuce is puckered in the infant and appears more relaxed in the adult. The increase in elastic fibres may be necessary for the uncomplicated eversion of the glans in the adult. While the aetiology of this transformation is unknown, steroid hormones may have an influence, as their topical application can accelerate the retractability of the prepuce in prepubescent boys [61]. Nerve bundles of the prepuce run alongside the dartos muscle.

...

>During circumcision, most of the penile dartos muscle is removed; all that remains is a few bundles of muscle at the circumcision scar. It has been observed that the flaccid penis in circumcised males tends to hang less vertically than in those with complete anatomy. The loss of dartos muscle support may explain the difference. Certainly, the loss of most of the penile dartos muscle makes the penis less able to make positional adjustments during erection and with temperature changes.

http://www.i2researchhub.org/wp-content/uploads/storage/TQ63QSHD/Cold%20and%20Taylor%20-%201999%20-%20The%20prepuce.pdf

File: 2.jpg (6KB, 231x244px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 231x244px

>Circumcised
>But was a very loose circumcision and for some reason my foreskin has grown back as I aged to the point where it half covers my head
>Dick is still really sensitive, doesn't require lube, isn't dried and chaffed, no tightness or pain or any other side effects that a lot of people have for being circumcised
>Only real thing is I still have a very faint circumcision scar
I guess I got lucky. I'll take the fucking scar over all the other horrible shit I hear; now I'll just make sure that if I ever have kids to never take that risk with my sons.

File: tightness.png (16KB, 499x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 499x300px

>>38319366

The closest thing that could actually exist to what you're positing is if he were born without a properly developed foreskin, in which case his urethra would be in the wrong place. The rest of the penis needs the foreskin to form properly in the womb. Without it, the whole thing would be off.

But if that happened, as long as he could urinate properly it would be best to leave him alone rather than risk further damaging his already wonky penis without his consent. If he wanted treatment it could be done as an adult. There are already guys who had hypospadias surgery as kids and it fucked them up more than just leaving them with a wonky dick would've.

>Neither do people give their children tight cut circumcisions

That's where you're wrong. Historically some doctors would attempt to do tight circumcisions on purpose to make masturbation as difficult as possible, and if they underestimated how much tissue to remove, then they would try to get their patient in again after puberty, to re-circumcise him for extra impediment.

>There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume [masturbation], not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained...The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch.

E. J. Spratling. Masturbation in the Adult. Medical Record 1895;24:442-443.

Even today someparents specifically try to get their sons cut tight because they think it looks better, even though it's functionally the worst. Pic related.

>>38319366
>>38319499

And to look at your hypothetical from another angle, if a baby were ALREADY circumcised (say he was adopted, that would make sense), then no, it wouldn't be right to try to do a skin graft or something to undo it while he was a baby, because that would be subjecting him to surgical risks for very dubious benefits. It also couldn't give him back a real foreskin; it would be an imitation.

>>38315474
I believe more babies die from circumcisions than those that need circumcisions.

>>38318484
I don't even remember when I was circumsized. I will probably never have to worry about getting sand down there because I'll never go outside naked but why risk it?
Sex is good enough with a cut penis, I don't really feel that I've missed out on anything.

>>38315180
Jewish is as Jewish does

>>38315474
I'm uncut and never got phimosis, my foreskin is functional. You guys are insane.

>>38318365
>Hassle
Do you use a toothbrush to clean your peepee or something, or are you just that grotty?

For some reason I can't find the circumcision scar anywhere on my dick I just want to restore myself

File: anteaterdicksBTFO.png (324KB, 1702x1440px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1702x1440px

>>38315180
Your parents didnt want you to have a disgusting anteater dick. Good on them.

File: happymerchant.gif (15KB, 200x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x225px

>>38315180
>I'm not even a jew
It's enough if your doctor is one.

>>38318365
>taking care of the foreskin is such a hassle

it's not

>foreskins are disgusting to look at

as opposed a crusty calloused bellend, no they aren't

>>38321592
>caring about the opinions of a roastie nigress

lmao

>>38318977
>It's not a slippery slope
It literally is you fucking retard

>next thing you know they won't even allow the baby a gender until they are able to pick it themslves, your logic is leading to a brim future
>an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous
Literal definition of slope and just because you try to misconstrue my logic as "don't do something to a baby because they can't make that decision yet." doesn't mean it's not fallacious moron. The actual logic is that you don't have the rights to augment an individuals body without their consent which is entirely separate from gender all together you fucking retard considering it falls under bodily integrity.

>You treating it like it's a meter where we can measure your level of pleasure or sense. The maximum is only dictated by the response it triggers in the body
You objectively would feel more if you had more nerve endings resulting in more sexual stimulation this is a fact. The maximum is dictated by the amount of stimulation you would be able to feel naturally with a foreskin, and forcibly changing that without consent is wrong on many levels.
see:
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/money/
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
for proof of sensitivity decrease

Now apply that to circumcision, you are objectively lowering someone's maximum artificially, the maximum is not defined by arbitrary standards like you are trying to paint it out to be.

>I see children as property for a certain length of time
Just because you see them as property does not mean they are, you are objectively wrong on this front and trying to base an argument on how you arbitrarily view children rather than how the rest of the civilized world literally sees them is retarded and it isn't worth my time to argue with your "what if children were property" autism.

>see above
Literally doesn't address my point and is also not an argument congratulations.

>>38315180
>ITT faggots brainwashed by jews or faggots brainwashed by jes posting pictures of whore brainwashed like jews who go ''eww natural skin at the end of the penis, yuck!''
I hate Americans.

>ITT: Foxes buttmad they'll never get the grapes.