I'm stuck on how to.get around this. Girl isn't Jewish, "just" grossed.out at possible unsanitariness and surprise.Please don't suggest "communicate."
I'm stuck on how to.get around this. Girl isn't Jewish, "just" grossed.out at possible unsanitariness and surprise.Please don't suggest "communicate."
Please don't suggest "communicate."
1/. Find a new boyfriend..?
2/. Have her get educated enough to understand that a clean uncircumcised cock is no more unsanitary that a clean circumcised one.
3/. Have him get circumcised to please her. Then have him 'grossed out' because she hasn't had her clit hood removed. Is she a hypocrite..?
Where I live the girl would be freaking out seeing circumcised cock, probably. If anything, it would associate with Islam first hand, maybe, and thus terrorists. Yep, just as prejudiced. Since she has preconceptions it's not the first cock for her?
If "communicate" is not an option... she still has to become informed somehow. Read a book?
If anything, it would associate with Islam first hand, maybe, and thus terrorists.
Muslims, like jews, have mandatory circumcision.
Muslims, like jews, have mandatory circumcision.
That's the point. That it's somehow a tradition between Christians in the USA is a surprise without explanation (I have heard it somehow war related, but that sounds extremely contrived, nor I remember with war was blamed on it).
Dr Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) was a crazy anti-masturbation fanatic and his rhetoric and reach snowballed into making USA embrace child cutting. There's a great episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit on Circumcision if you want some more details.
On topic. If the girl freaks out because a guy's dick isn't cut? Dump her. Have the guy walk away and her come face to face with her ignorance. She just lost a great guy because she wanted less of him. This works well if she has a girlfriend she confides in who is enough of a friend to chew out the girl or to make her own (the confidant's) play at the otherwise great guy.
This works well if she has a girlfriend she confides in who is enough of a friend to chew out the girl
Whilst I enjoy it, I don't think cunnilingus is necessarily the best response to finding a guy to be uncircumcised.
Writing in third person from the girl's POV. She's had one lover, cut, he too asserrtive about oral, her only try at bj she freaks and refuses any more. When they break up (mutual), she finds great guy, they fuck at summer camp in dark, she doesn't see his cock until get together in cabin with light. He's afraid she'll dump him over this, as with his only other chance to get laid ended up. What should they both do to get over this?
That's what I laid out in my last post, isn't it? Or at least how I'd write it.
@joyr
I've always found cunnilingus to be generally a great go to move in nearly every situation I've been allowed to test it out.
I've always found cunnilingus to be generally a great go to move in nearly every situation I've been allowed to test it out.
Oh I agree..!! I agree..!!
But still not perhaps the most appropriate response. Whilst it can give great enjoyment to both parties, it's not exactly a solution in and of itself.
Besides, the OP did say, "Please don't suggest 'communicate'." And there is a great deal one can communicate with practised oral sex.
When they break up (mutual), she finds great guy, they fuck at summer camp in dark, she doesn't see his cock until get together in cabin with light.
That assumes she never TOUCHED it during their encounter, a warning flag all its own! Typically, you can pinch and hold the end of someone's uncircumcized cock, though like most turtlenecks, it retracts when necessary. Assuming the guy starts out semi-hard, and softens pretty quickly afterwards, it's difficult missing something that obviously unless she's a complete non-participant.
But, as redsilver pointed out, it's a minor crisis point, so it becomes a conflict and needs to be resolved, one way or another. If she's so picky, it's unlike it'll be resolved easily, so some sort of confrontation will likely be necessary. (Maybe an encounter with a clean-cut but filthy individual to remind her just how good she'd had it before? Or at least shared stories about friends facing such dilemmas.)
Dr Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) was a crazy anti-masturbation fanatic and his rhetoric and reach snowballed into making USA embrace child cutting.
No. While the first half of that is more or less accurate, Dr. Kellogg did not advocate routine circumcision of male infants.
https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/Kellogg
Yes ... but it's more complicated than circumcision opponents would have us believe. Kellogg never promoted routine circumcision of all boys, and he had no interest in performing the procedure on infants. He endorsed it solely for the purpose of inflicting genital pain on boys who were caught masturbating.
Let's take a look at a statement from Kellogg's 1877 medical advice book that intactivists have bookmarked:
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. [4]
No. While the first half of that is more or less accurate, Dr. Kellogg did not advocate routine circumcision of male infants.
True, that wasn't a claim I made but I understand how you made the inference. His works and rhetoric snowballed into a more extreme version of his own prescriptions.
Thank you for references.
As an "old fart" of the US 1940s era, I can personally attest that parents had been pretty much brain-washed to accept that circumcision was necessary to 1) promote personal hygiene and, 2) to remove any inducement [the foreskin] which might trigger masturbation.
This was such a common practice at the time it was virtually universal. In my experience among groups of peers in locker rooms, group showers, etc. it was rare to see a foreskin.
Pity. Infant boys have no voice in the matter.
Pity. Infant boys have no voice in the matter.
Infants don't have a lot to say regarding their treatment, either before or after their birth. And gender doesn't enter into that at all.
Regarding female circumcision, I'm mindful of a case in Michigan just recently where a doctor was arrested for performing clitorectomies and further genital mutilation for devout Muslim parents. I doubt anyone asked the girls on whom it was performed for their views either.
I'm mindful of a case in Michigan just recently where a doctor was arrested for performing clitorectomies and further genital mutilation for devout Muslim parents.
https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/
It should be noted that there are 4 (or 5 since type 1 has two sub types) different types of FGM.
Only type 1a is remotely equivalent to male circumcision and type 1a is not done anywhere for either religious or cultural reasons.
Only type 1a is remotely equivalent to male circumcision and type 1a is not done anywhere for either religious or cultural reasons.
A rose by any other name.....
The point I was trying to make is genital mutilation is .... genital mutilation. And that gender doesn't really matter. Just saying or typing the term gives me shivers.
The point I was trying to make is genital mutilation is .... genital mutilation. And that gender doesn't really matter.
But gender does matter here. I don't think it fair to equate male circumcision with FGM by calling them both mutilation when the end effect on health and sexual response/performance is drastically different.
While there may not be any valid health benefits to male circumcision, it doesn't do much in the way of harm either (baring the procedure being botched).
On the other hand FGM (excluding type 1a) permanently cripples a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure, and this is mostly intentional.
While there may not be any valid health benefits to male circumcision, it doesn't do much in the way of harm either (baring the procedure being botched).
If it was done with the informed consent of the subject then it becomes pretty much the same as cosmetic surgery.
Doing it to a child without consent makes it genital mutilation. Using vague claims of 'health benefits' or religion as justification is ridiculous.
Using vague claims of 'health benefits' or religion as justification is ridiculous.
I made no such claims.
My point was the orders of magnitude difference in the harm done makes any claim of equivalence between male circumcision and FGM absurd.
I made no such claims.
I didn't actually mean to infer you did.
However;
My point was the orders of magnitude difference in the harm done makes any claim of equivalence between male circumcision and FGM absurd.
Why the need to pigeon hole the mutilation by the sex of the victim or the extent of the mutilation?
Simply accepting it is mutilation, it is wrong and anyone inciting it or doing it should be brought to justice, should be sufficient.
Would you claim "orders of magnitude difference in the harm done" to a male rape victim as opposed to a female rape victim? Or is it enough to simple agree that rape is wrong.??
Attempting to classify degrees of harm is not only pointless because the effect on each victim is different, but worse it allows the offenders defence attorneys and other low-life scum the means to get the mutilator/rapist off lightly.
but worse it allows the offenders defence attorneys and other low-life scum the means to get the mutilator/rapist off lightly.
Bull shit. A just sentence is necessarily dependent on the degree of harm done.
Bull shit. A just sentence is necessarily dependent on the degree of harm done.
Point proved.
Doing it to a child without consent makes it genital mutilation.
Wish there was an emoji for Two Thumbs Up
Wish there was an emoji for Two Thumbs Up
Duel eggplant emojis? That's either a happy ending, or two very happily crossed swords!
Doing it to a child without consent makes it genital mutilation.
Is there a known case where a child sued his parents for bodily harm with permanent scarring? If not it's about time.
Is there a known case where a child sued his parents for bodily harm with permanent scarring? If not it's about time.
I don't have a cite, but I've heard of a case where doctors botch a circumcision so badly that the entire penis was destroyed. IIRC they tried to convince the parents to have sex reassignment surgery done on the infant and to raise him as a girl to cover it up.
The victim sued the doctors as an adult, I don't recall if he sued his parents as well.
I don't have a cite, but I've heard of a case where doctors botch a circumcision so badly that the entire penis was destroyed. IIRC they tried to convince the parents to have sex reassignment surgery done on the infant and to raise him as a girl to cover it up.
The victim sued the doctors as an adult, I don't recall if he sued his parents as well.
I can understand that. But I was wondering if there was a known case for just the circumcision itself, even if performed correctly without botching it up.
On the other hand FGM (excluding type 1a) permanently cripples a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure, and this is mostly intentional.
If you think it doesn't have the same effect on the male gender, think again. If you've not been personally circumcised, try wrapping a triple-thick condom over your dick-head and see how much sensory experience you've lost. It is mutilation and a life-time loss. The constant exposure of the skin to clothing and abrasion results in a desensitizing of the nerves... much like constantly rubbing your fingertips against coarse fabric until the skin becomes thickened, coarsened, and less sensitive.
Just because we've inflicted it upon infant boys until its become "standard practice" sure as hell don't make it nothing less than mutilation, on a par with female mutilation.
And that gender doesn't really matter. Just saying or typing the term gives me shivers.
Then stop typing with your exposed genitals! Do like the rest of us, and grasp them firmly while typing one-handed. ;D
Then stop typing with your exposed genitals! Do like the rest of us, and grasp them firmly while typing one-handed. ;D
Kinky.
This was such a common practice at the time it was virtually universal. In my experience among groups of peers in locker rooms, group showers, etc. it was rare to see a foreskin.
As far as I know, that continued well into the 70s & 80s, though by then, I'd moved to NYC, where we had a larger array of different cultures (and greater access to 'shared' bath houses). :)
Not to disturb the circumcision argument with facts, there are dozens more articles reporting the health protection benefits. Of course, like anti-vaccine arguments the non-evidence based anti-circumcision rants get more attention.
Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review
Brian J Morris,corresponding author 1 Stephen Moreton, 2 and John N Krieger 3
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
Associated Data
Supplementary Materials
Go to:
Abstract
Objective
To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC).
Methods
We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.
Results
Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high‐quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high‐quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk‐benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100‐200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low‐risk, high‐benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case‐law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost‐saving to health systems.
Conclusions
Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low‐quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.
Keywords: complications, public health policy, sexual function, sexually transmitted infection, urinary tract infection
"The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate."
Sir Francis Bacon, The New Organon, 1620.
Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low‐quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.
Mother Nature calls BS and backs it up with a million year trial involving the entire human population. The fact that males still have a foreskin suggests they provide an evolutionary advantage.
I also note you did not provide a link to the actual article.
The fact that males still have a foreskin suggests they provide an evolutionary advantage.
That's exactly what I thought too. If it would have any advantage at least some evolutionary changes towards a recessing foreskin would be noticeable.
Sorry, I thought I put in the link.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31496128/
A brief search will find dozens of articles reaching the same conclusions based upon evidence, not speculation.
Not to disturb the circumcision argument with facts, there are dozens more articles reporting the health protection benefits.
The origins of non-religious circumcision of healthy newborn males in the U.S. probably trace back to the 1870s, when Dr. Lewis A. Sayre, an influential New York surgeon, developed a theory that circumcision could cure multiple diseases by "quieting the nervous system."
Source
It is often pointed out that those men who support circumcision of male babies react with horror to the suggestion that their daughters labia be cut off...
Personally I fail to understand any sane person supporting, much less promoting the genital mutilation of babies of either sex.
"
The first author is a member of the Circumcision Academy of Australia, a not‐for‐profit, government registered, medical association that provides evidence‐based information on male circumcision to parents, practitioners and others, as well as contact details of doctors who perform the procedure. The second author is an editor for http://CircFacts.org. The third author provided advice and supported the legal help to University of Washington for the patenting of a circumcision device.
"
Hmmm, now I wonder why the study contradicts current medical opinion about male genital mutilation.
AJ
Hmmm, now I wonder why the study contradicts current medical opinion about male genital mutilation.
Maybe they confused a medical book with a gardening book and read that pruning the tips but leaving the bulbs in promotes growth...??
:)
Current medical opinion affirms the health benefits of the procedure:
American Academy of Pediatrics:
The Task Force made the following recommendations:
Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.
Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision that should be provided before conception and early in pregnancy, when parents are most likely to be weighing the option of circumcision of a male child.
Physicians counseling families about elective male circumcision should assist parents by explaining, in a nonbiased manner, the potential benefits and risks and by ensuring that they understand the elective nature of the procedure.
Parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.
Parents of newborn boys should be instructed in the care of the penis, regardless of whether the newborn has been circumcised or not.
Elective circumcision should be performed only if the infant's condition is stable and healthy.
Male circumcision should be performed by trained and competent practitioners, by using sterile techniques and effective pain management.
Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with newborn circumcision; thus, adequate analgesia should be provided whenever newborn circumcision is performed.
Nonpharmacologic techniques (eg, positioning, sucrose pacifiers) alone are insufficient to prevent procedural and postprocedural pain and are not recommended as the sole method of analgesia. They should be used only as analgesic adjuncts to improve infant comfort during circumcision.
If used, topical creams may cause a higher incidence of skin irritation in low birth weight infants, compared with infants of normal weight; penile nerve block techniques should therefore be chosen for this group of newborns.
Key professional organizations (AAP, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American College of Nurse Midwives, and other midlevel clinicians such as nurse practitioners) should work collaboratively to:
Develop standards of trainee proficiency in the performance of anesthetic and procedure techniques, including suturing;
Teach the procedure and analgesic techniques during postgraduate training programs;
Develop educational materials for clinicians to enhance their own competency in discussing the benefits and risks of circumcision with parents;
Offer educational materials to assist parents of male infants with the care of both circumcised and uncircumcised penises.
The preventive and public health benefits associated with newborn male circumcision warrant third-party reimbursement of the procedure.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this technical report.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756
That study shows that the benefits of male genital mutilation outweigh the dangers if you live in a third world country with poor hygiene, but if you live in a first world country with good hygiene the dangers outweigh the benefits.
I've found that most proponents of male genital mutilation have themselves been involuntarily circumcised and are subsequently in denial, because they can't believe their parents would make a sub-optimum decision about their healthcare.
AJ
That study shows that the benefits of male genital mutilation outweigh the dangers if you live in a third world country with poor hygiene, but if you live in a first world country with good hygiene the dangers outweigh the benefits.
Can you quote exactly what from the study makes you draw that conclusion?
I took a look at the paper myself. It was done principally by/for the American Academy of Pediatrics (the paper is on American Academy of Pediatrics letterhead). The recommendations made by the paper seem to me to be explicitly targeted at US physicians.
The hygiene data was drawn mostly from Africa and Asia, a technique of supporting male genital mutilation in the first world that has been discredited for something like a decade.
AJ
The hygiene data was drawn mostly from Africa and Asia
So you claim, but you cite nothing from the actual study to support it.
It's a meta-study, where the authors have chosen a number of other studies from which to take their data rather than doing any studying themselves.
If you look in the references section, you'll see hygiene/infection data comes from studies from the likes of Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, India etc.
AJ
I would have to question how many cocks a girl would have experienced at the age of 15 to realize that it is all that different.
But from a story point of view, simply have her first experience it fully erect, with the foreskin pulled back away from the head. Then only after he has an orgasm and relaxes does she really recognize he is different.
I find it funny that circumcision was started by religion and in doing so are defying their GOD by doing it since GOD (if you believe in one) may have had a reason for giving men a foreskin. Like the same reason we have hair around openings? After all doesn't it say the body is the temple and should not be marred?
the same reason we have hair
So barbershops are against god's will? The bodies God gave us grow hair. I remember having my tonsils out when I was a kid. More sacrilege?
I remember having my tonsils out when I was a kid. More sacrilege?
In the UK, the pendulum seems to have swung too far the other way. The basic premise of it usually being better to leave the tonsils in is probably sound, but doctors are forcing young children to suffer months of repeated infections because of their zealotry.
AJ
but doctors are forcing young children to suffer months of repeated infections because of their zealotry.
It would be one thing if they had antibiotics that could clear up a tonsillitis infection relatively quickly. If not, that's just cruel.
It would be one thing if they had antibiotics that could clear up a tonsillitis infection relatively quickly. If not, that's just cruel.
My understanding is that antibiotics don't work very well on tonsils.
AJ
So barbershops are against god's will? The bodies God gave us grow hair.
In some religious groups it is. Some groups of Jews and Muslims feel shaving is an affront to GOD.
I remember having my tonsils out when I was a kid. More sacrilege?
Some groups use their beliefs to refuse any medical treatment. Even while their child is dying they refuse to take them to a doctor.
Some think that the reason we have hair around our openings is to act as a strainer.
All I am saying is people use their beliefs to do crazy shit.