One of the reasons for infant circumcision was to prevent masturbation!

The words of the title are among the many fascinating facts revealed in the following, exhaustively researched video…



Eric raises the question as to whether circumcision of male babies is appropriate in US, where the practice is common.

Please give your views below. Be mindful of showing respect to everyone commenting. There is no excuse for insults.

 

IMO, it is no more or less hygienic than any other part of the body, when it is washed. There is a myth that men with a foreskin do not keep themselves clean. Do you also suggest that these same men do not clean their teeth for example?

IMO a penis with a scar is not "nicer looking" than a natural penis. A baby boy is 'perfect' when born and does not need to be surgically altered for aesthetics. In fact, only ⅓ of males worldwide are circumcised and the majority of those happen for religious reasons (mostly Muslims). So, there is no global movement to perform infant circumcision based on how it looks. Your opinion that a cut penis is "nicer looking" puts you in a massive minority.

 

I agree that circumcision has nothing to do with reducing the frequency of masturbation; that all penises will be clean if they are washed; and that natural faces, pubes and penises are more attractive.

Thank you for listening to the presentation, so you can make informed comment on this thread. I did not enjoy his odd, theatrical style of presentation either, but I concur, "overall, I think he’s correct."

I have highlighted this part of your comment in bold, because this is a great statement. Well said Sir!​

 

This is nonsense. I cannot even remember when I found smegma under my foreskin, but it was years and years ago. I assure you that I do not wash every few minutes. Someone has sold you a myth with this one, and you believed it, haha!

Yeah, that is why guys with no foreskin often opt for the "jackhammer technique" because they are not as sensitive.

This is factually untrue. In fact, the normal penis assumes a greater girth because the ridged band accumulates just behind the corona, providing greater stimulation. Furthermore, the foreskin prevents the females natural lubrication to be lost, so it avoids unnecessary and unpleasant pain for her during intercourse.

This is just a ridiculous assertion! I bet you cannot find one comment on this site that one of the strategies cut guys use is to dump their lubrication because "it becomes a lot harder for them to give in to temptation." I assume you realise that guys with surgically altered penises simply spit on them and use their own saliva as a lubricant instead.

 

Women's opinion...

Having experienced both I have to say I prefer the natural intact penis.

Before being with an uncut guy I thought it looked weird n heard all the schmegma stories. I didn't know how to "handle" this type of equipment either. But saying all that I was always curious.

Intact guys that are clean have clean penises! They don't smell or taste any different. Handling them is actually easier n more fun, I think. No lube required and no feeling like your hurting them by rubbing dry or sweat tacky penis skin. When giving a BJ there is more to play with too. Sex is less rough n more of a gliding motion that feels amazing. No jack rabbiting required Thank god! I truly believe the natural lubrication stays inside rather than being scooped out with the coronal ridge. Plus, once you get used to it, the intact penis is more appealing n hot! Oh ya...and completely natural n normal.

All that being said I would think masterbation is probably more common because of ease...but what do I know!?!

 

You are not sure which is worse between:

a) No smegma (why is that a ewww?)
b) Cut guys spitting on their dicks (not very hygienic ironically)

Surely b) is worse.

 

Thanks for making a comment based on the facts. Everything in your main paragraph is true about a natural/normal dick.

 

Why is something natural wrong? Unhealthy? And unclean?

This is completely B.S.

Natural is the best... And P and M can't be stopped by a simple medical alteration! That's skirting around the main issue!

 

I honestly do not know why you think that smegma is constantly present under the foreskin. If you wash regularly, it does not appear in the adult male. In females, smegma is found between the labia, the lips which protect the vagina, and around the clitoral hood, which is at the top of the labia minora. It is more common among women than men. Smegma can be prevented by washing the genitals with warm water at least once a day. This applies to both males and females.

Smegma in children is found particularly in young boys. This is because the penis undergoes a change where the foreskin detaches from the head of the penis. This change requires skin cells to be shed. These skin cells may form smegma. This change can occur at various ages; however, it tends to occur before the age of 5. The change may, however, occur earlier – even before birth or shortly after – or later – around the teenage years. That is what I was saying. I do not recall getting it after my teen years.

 

Yea I heard the same thing from my father years ago when he hit his mid-life crisis and tried to grow his foreskin back. I'm circumcised and that hasn't stopped me from masturbating lol. I honestly think that's a myth, seeing as how any guy cut or not can still wank it.

 

I am with you @ClaudeDuval. This isn't a personal attack on @EmmyB, but the ignorance and insults must be challenged.