The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

Age and foreskin status ...

  • Under 30 and cut

    Votes: 24 16.9%
  • Under 30 and uncut

    Votes: 21 14.8%
  • 30-50 and cut

    Votes: 36 25.4%
  • 30-50 and uncut

    Votes: 16 11.3%
  • Over 50 and cut

    Votes: 31 21.8%
  • Over 50 and uncut

    Votes: 14 9.9%
  • I can't tell whether I'm cut or uncut

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    142
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

I for one am thankful my parents had it done to me before I could remember the pain.. I dont understand why someone would get so worked up about it unless they had a botched surgery and suffered from it...

I guess I agree with you in principle I just think there are so many more important things to worry about
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

If the health benefits were so drastically beneficial then other men in Europe and Asia would have their dicks rotting off.

Absurd false dichotomy.

No they wouldn't. But being uncut does necessitate that you take a little bit better care of it.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Absurd false dichotomy.
What? Of course the "rotting off'' part was an exaggeration, but European and Asian men that are uncut don't have to get cut later in life on a grand scale.
No they wouldn't. But being uncut does necessitate that you take a little bit better care of it.
10 seconds in the shower is all it takes. It's REALLY not that HARD. Pull the skin back, rinse, and THAT'S IT! It's not like after a day of hard work you go home and goop falls out.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

10 seconds in the shower is all it takes. It's REALLY not that HARD. Pull the skin back, rinse, and THAT'S IT! It's not like after a day of hard work you go home and goop falls out.

Yup. It's like advocating women have their breasts removed because they need regular doctor checkups and screening.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

10 seconds in the shower is all it takes. It's REALLY not that HARD. Pull the skin back, rinse, and THAT'S IT! It's not like after a day of hard work you go home and goop falls out.

If this was true, the word smegma would simply not exist in the modern lexicon.

-d-
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

I think making it a law is a slippery slope for other laws being passed that put too much control over parental rights in the hands of government and not the parents.

I had a circumcision done to me at birth...I don't remember it, and there's no way to access memory from that early on in your life, so the whole "IT'S CAUSING PAIN!" reason for banning it is stretching things a bit.

The social norm in America is circumcised genitals...anyone see the show "Nip/Tuck" where the son is cruelly mocked in the locker-room for having an uncut cock, to the point where he does a self-circumcision?

Now, I'm definitely not saying uncircumcised boys nationwide are reaching for scissors, but I'm just saying this might be a reason parents choose to have this done to their sons - they don't want them to appear physically different from most of their peers.

I definitely don't see any other benefit to having this done...I hope parents won't be looking at their son's genitals constantly once he's past the diaper stage, anyway.

If it's really an unnecessary procedure...why is medical insurance covering it (if it is...I have no idea)? If I ever had a kid (which, is laughable and will never happen) and having him circumcised was tacking on $1000 to the already insane hospital bill, and there is no good medical reason to have it done, I'd probably let it be. bripatrick Jr. will save so much money later in life by not having to have lotion when he jerks ... he'll be thanking me. ;)
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

If this was true, the word smegma would simply not exist in the modern lexicon.

-d-

LOL!

I'm not making sweeping generalizations by any means, but I've walked out on two guys because they were uncut and their junk SMELLED. Haven't had that problem with cut guys.

It just takes a bit more work to keep that area fresh and clean, and unfortunately some nasty guys are lazy and gross.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

LOL!

I'm not making sweeping generalizations by any means, but I've walked out on two guys because they were uncut and their junk SMELLED. Haven't had that problem with cut guys.

It just takes a bit more work to keep that area fresh and clean, and unfortunately some nasty guys are lazy and gross.

If a guy's dick smells, you can be sure that is not his only hygiene problem.
Have you smelled unwashed balls? Should we lop those off too since they would be two less things to keep clean? Do we even need to mention the butt??

You are right...some guys are just lazy and nasty.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

The social norm in America is circumcised genitals...anyone see the show "Nip/Tuck" where the son is cruelly mocked in the locker-room for having an uncut cock, to the point where he does a self-;)

Actually, newborns toad in the USA are 50% - 50% cut vs. Uncut. It's dying out already in America. Once insurance companies quit paying for it, it will become a lot less common to see circumcised boys. Given the US healthcare standards I'm surprised the insurance companies haven't already or soon will discontinue payment for it. To a US insurance company what's more important? More profit or penises?
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Great, so why is California going to spend all this money on putting up a ridiculous bill on the matter?

I agree...it's baffling why insurance would be covering this procedure if it's not for a medical purpose.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Great, so why is California going to spend all this money on putting up a ridiculous bill on the matter?

I agree...it's baffling why insurance would be covering this procedure if it's not for a medical purpose.

I'm not in favor of the law passing. I am in favor of any polcies offered by insurance companies not including circ reimbursement. Nor any federal monies go for it. After all, if the antiabortion nuts can demand and get this than the same should go for neonatal circus. *shrug*
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Once insurance companies quit paying for it, it will become a lot less common to see circumcised boys. Given the US healthcare standards I'm surprised the insurance companies haven't already or soon will discontinue payment for it. To a US insurance company what's more important? More profit or penises?

Given the general worldwide move to insane paranoia in terms of getting your bits out where - gasp!- they might be seen by another human, it's becoming more common to see people showering in their underwear than actually exposing themselves. Parents barely need to worry anymore that Junior might feel funny if he doesn't look like all the other boys.

-d-
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Mmm... the legality of this is definitely questionable. Freedom of religion for the parents... but then again, freedom FROM religion for the children... maybe a nice middle ground would just to make it harder to get circumcisions? Like people can't just decide on it in the hospital. They have to go through a bureaucracy, do work, in order to get it done. This way, jewish people and muslims who really, really want it can get it done, but the average lay person who just has the 'heh, why not' attitude probably won't follow through.
On to my "here is my completely logical argument as to why you should no circumcise your children" rant.
Well I've always felt like parents shouldn't have that decision over their children... I mean, I've read a lot of health reports about circumcision and foreskins.... foreskins lead to std's in africa... except people who got circumcised got advice from doctors, thereby knowing how to avoid infections. Uncut feels more? Except in the studies where it doesn't. Cut is cleaner? Except not really, in practice. If they are cut, they'll blend in with their peers? Except nobody showers after gym class anymore, I've never seen any of my friends naked- and you'll make your son an object of ridicule in other countries if they go there for work or college, where foreskins are the norm most of the time.

For every scientific article I've found for/against circumcision, I've found an equal and opposite article from the other side of the debate.

So I ignore the science. Maybe cut or uncut isn't objectively better than the other. But people still have subjective feelings about foreskins. Most people like whatever they have, but some people genuinely like foreskins, while some genuinely like being cut. Therefore, leave your child intact. You don't know what their opinion will be later in life. If they'd rather get cut, they'll get cut. If they're cut, and they'd rather be uncut, they're fucked for life. Admittedly, the percentage of people who genuinely like uncut is probably close to 5%; but still, if we cut all our kids without taking their wants into consideration, 5% of our population ends up unhappy about their penises for the rest of their lives. If we leave them intact, the people who want to get circumcised will get circumcised, and EVERYONE ends up happy.

I think the part where parents get confused is that their children are not them; their children may have differing opinions from them. Just because you like cut, doesn't mean they will. Don't force it on them. You may feel like it's a small issue, but for some people, it means a lot. Leave them intact; let it be their choice. If they get cut anyways, you should be happy with the fact that you are giving you children as many choices in life as possible so they can be happy.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

To me it's the same as piercing ears or other body parts....why not just wait until the person is old enough to make an informed decision either way?

Parents make mistakes many times each year. What makes everyone think they automatically have the judgment/mental capacity to impose something like this on an infant?
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

Anyone who argues for the rights of the newborn would be a hypocrite to argue against the rights of the fetus.

And anyone who equates the rights of a foetus to the rights of a child is living in cloud cuckoo land.
 
Re: Circumcision in San Francisco

It's not about quality of life. Circumcision allows for better prevention from infection and easier hygiene. Also it's been proven I believe to lower chances of std transmission.

If it's about quality of life than circumcision would be a good thing, no?

The argument is about the rights of the newborn. Anyone who argues for the rights of the newborn would be a hypocrite to argue against the rights of the fetus.

^^^this thought process is wrong, read my post. Diseases rates in europe (where uncut is the norm) are equivalent to those in the US, and African data is unreliable as people who were circumcised were also likely the only people to come in contact with actual medical advice.

Though I'm not gonna get into the whole abortion debate thing. I suppose it's what your definition of life is, where it starts, when is it important and when is it not, etc.... not gonna get involved in that and I personally don't care.
 
Back
Top