That's a stupid analogy but not untypical. Braces can be removed at any time, it's a little harder sewing a foreskin back on. Apart from any medical reason, why should parents be allowed to chop bits off their kids because they can?

Having gone through it at the age of 18 for medical reasons, I would have much preferred for it to have been done at birth but am also glad of the option. Having a before and after opinion, I think it is better - easier to clean and looks better.

Going on from what Mintball said, I was astonished to learn the other day that, apparently, something like 60% of US men are circumcised!

So far as I understood the report, apart from those who do this for weird religious reasons, the majority reason seems to simply be that in the school showers, the kids who have not been circumcised will be the subject of bullying and derision at the hands of the snipped majority.

It's not like female circumcision, no. That removes pretty much any possibility of sexual enjoyment and male circumcision just doesn't. I firmly believe it is greatly reduced though.

All I have is anecdata. If my foreskin is back and I am wearing clothes then often I just can't walk until it's all sorted out, it's just way too sensitive. Circumcised men don't seem to have this issue. I conclude that a circumcised penis is not as sensitive as an uncircumcised penis.

What I have learnt from discussing this with American friends is that I should contribute a brief description of my penis and then walk away before it breaks out into a fight.

Very few parents would actively do things that were detrimental to their children - they have to make these types of life changing decisions for their kids on a regular basis . Is there any evidence that circumcision has any detrimental physical or mental impact? I do not follow a religion but I can see how some aspects of religion can have a positive impact - the 10 commandments being the basis of any civilised society. So if a parent thinks instilling some religious structure to their kids will benefit them who are we to suggest we know better? It boarders on the arrogant - nothing new from you.

Your penis can fight? Is it hard?

Did you actually read the link? No didn't think so.

What is being outlawed is the barbaric, ritualised circumcision, performed not by a fully-trained surgeon in an operating theatre but a religious nut-job in a synagogue or mosque.

If there are medical reasons for circumcision then there's absolutely no problem whatsoever, providing it is undertaken in a medical environment and using a suitable anaesthetic. But to allow an invasive procedure to be performed by a church elder because his god told him to do so is lunacy and child abuse. Simple really.

I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you say, but



is nonsense. At least 5 of them are utter gibberish.

I have found pretty much anyone can have it.

They've prevented me stealing an ox for my entire life.

Bollox, only two refer to actual modern day crimes i.e. killing and stealing. There's no law prohibiting adultery and you can tell as many porkies as you like as long as you don't libel or slander anyone. The rest are all to do with religious observance.

No-one will ever stop me making graven images. No-one.

Glad to hear it.

Spot on. The very thought of my glans rubbing against my clothing makes me physically cringe, it has to be covered at all times unless coming out to play. That's because it's incredibly sensitive, the biological equivalent of the female clitoris - in fact the clitoris contains the same nerves.

My circumcised friends don't have that same sensation - their glans is a dry and insensitive lump of skin. Having many circumcised American and Jewish friends, and a couple of circumcised non-religious English friends, the conversation has cropped up a few times.

There are no valid medical reasons for removing the foreskin across the general population (though of course as with everything there are rare exceptions). In general, circumcision is down to nothing more than meaningless tradition or the instruction of some obsolete desert religion, for even more obsolete reasons.

Thankfully people are becoming wise to the pointlessness and cruelty of chopping bits off their children, who after all have no say in the matter.

This pretty much sums it up, to any reasonable person.

The circumcised glans is being unfairly portrayed here as some insensitive lump of dry flesh. However, although it might have become de-sensitised to its everyday environment when unaroused, just the act of touching one shortly after its finished its business an be enough to send its owner into all sorts of agonies. I therefore conclude that on the job it is just as good at sending pleasure signals to the brain as its uncircumcised counterpart.
This isn't a post in support of circumcision by the way, after all we don't have the benefit of self sufficiency in cottage cheese.

cottage cheese.

Yuck !!!

I don't get the religious aspect of it whatsoever. "This small child, made in God's image. Ooh, we'd better lop that bit off"

A few of the lads I know have had to have it done for medical reasons and they say its one of the best things they've ever done, and would recommend every bloke has it done.

Think I'll just avoid getting cock rot instead

Only after finishing its business? You're missing out. Standing to attention or not, the sensation to me is almost the same thanks to the foreskin protecting the nerve endings. If the foreskin is pulled back I can't walk anywhere, it's too sensitive.

I therefore conclude that I get much better blow-jobs than you.




Why?

I think you misunderstood me slightly. The thrust of my point was that the after-ejaculation sensitivity proves the nerve endings are still there so work just as well during and post arousal, they just don't trouble themselves with trivial things like touching cloth.

And as for better blow jobs, I'm in my late forties and been married for 20 years - for your sake I feckin hope you do

Think you've been watching too many embarassing bodies!

You're all doing these double entendres on purpose. Right?

I mean, Keith even mentioned "touching cloth" in his last post...

[urlhttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/dick-cutter/2b/210/420[/url