[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/hm/ - Handsome Men


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 90 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]




File: 4zpvd4r432521.jpg (261 KB, 2012x2046)
261 KB
261 KB JPG
foreskin free thread
>Do not post any 'rate me' or any other self shots here
>>
File: yncsmkvnztm21.jpg (57 KB, 640x853)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>
File: troyryan.jpg (81 KB, 683x1024)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
>>
File: ashtonsummers.jpg (108 KB, 500x750)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
>>
File: DrnvDomU4AAaRr9.jpg (142 KB, 900x1200)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
Fucking finally. I've been waiting forever for someone to make a thread like this! Needs to be a regular thing.
>>
File: Capture.png (497 KB, 433x597)
497 KB
497 KB PNG
>>
File: loganandlandon1.jpg (199 KB, 1000x1500)
199 KB
199 KB JPG
>>
File: loganandlandon2.jpg (229 KB, 1000x1500)
229 KB
229 KB JPG
>>
File: IMG_0008.jpg (596 KB, 2272x1704)
596 KB
596 KB JPG
>>
File: IMG-20141014-WA0000.jpg (115 KB, 720x1280)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: New_folder_pic_44_big.jpg (96 KB, 750x1000)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>
File: 1558362164438.jpg (462 KB, 2048x2048)
462 KB
462 KB JPG
>>
How to masturbate like this? Doesn't it hurt the glans with the friction?
>>
File: serveimage.jpg (351 KB, 1536x2048)
351 KB
351 KB JPG
>>
>>1884196
Depends on how much skin you keep, and you can always use lube/saliva.
>>
File: ht3yc254bgp21.jpg (74 KB, 960x721)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>
File: 1553835283874.jpg (194 KB, 1152x2048)
194 KB
194 KB JPG
>>
>>1884196

Most cuts have enough skin mobility to slide the skin

Tighter ones just use lube

t. tightly cut guy
>>
>>1883228
cope harder, you'll forever be mutilated mutt
>>
>>1884580
So much self-hatred. Cut guys aren't "mutilated". No matter how much you fetishise foreskins and try to "restore" it by stretching your shaft skin, you'll still be a cut fag. So get used to it. You aren't a victim, you're just a moron.
>>
>>1883228
Circumfetishists are some of the most monstrous pedophiles and abusers to exist.
You may fool the average cut-and-coping amerimutt who doesn't know better - and you may have an army of supremacist kike white knights to hide yourself behind, but you don't fool me. I know what you are.
Saged and reported. I hope cancer eats your face eyeballs first.
>>
>>1884602
Oh, look. The anti-Semitic, Intactivist (and likely Incel) thinks people who don't hate themselves for being circumcised, or guys who find circumcised cocks hot, whether they're cut personally or not, are "pedophiles and abusers". God, you people really are worse than anti-vaxxers. Also if this gets reported and taken down (and I don't see why it would), then the same should happen to your stupid cope "intact" threads. I highly doubt it's uncut guys making and posting on those threads... no, it's self-hating cut guys who fetishise foreskins, sometimes even to the point of phimosis. Sad.
>>
>>1884616
You would get a better thread just admitting your parents mutilated you but still prefer cut dicks than pretend otherwise.

Not that guy but it is a draconian practice and should be stopped.
>>
>>1884628
I'm actually uncut, but I wish my parents did have me circumcised because I have phimosis. Maybe personally that's why I think they look better (though I do think they look good regardless desu), but I can guarantee YOU fetishise foreskins because you're a self-hating cutfag. That's almost always the case with Intactivists. Get over it, and stop hating your parents over something like this. It's absolutely pathetic. They didn't have you "mutilated", you're just mentally ill; the problem is with your head, not your dick.

It isn't a draconian practise; it is a medical procedure, which has health benefits, and is comparable to vaccination if anything. It should be promoted.
>>
File: 1.jpg (936 KB, 3024x4032)
936 KB
936 KB JPG
>>1884582
>>1884602
>>1884616
>>1884628
>>1884633

Can we just go back to posting cocks?

If you don't like cut cocks then go elsewhere, there's a foreskin thread for you
>>
File: 404e2766-75b.jpg (52 KB, 575x766)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>1884635
>If you don't like cut cocks then go elsewhere, there's a foreskin thread for you

Exactly. I think they're just purposely trying to derail the thread with their anti-circumcision nonsense.
>>
Ewwe
>>
Me da asco
>>
>>1884643
Anti-circumcision is not a non-sense. Other than that, you're right. If it's not your piece of cake, move on!
>>
>>1884654
Intactivists are no better than anti-vaxxers.
>>
>>1884655
How so?
>>
File: 1552240878431.jpg (38 KB, 600x800)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>1884661
They don't care about the evidence. It's all emotion. You can oppose circumcision on philosophical grounds, fair enough, but you don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to the medical side of things. There are health benefits, and this is undeniable. You can debate the extent of them, but not whether they are any, because there are. Side note: I also find it interesting that most people who find circumcision this evil, barbaric thing are pro-abortion. So it's okay to murder an unborn baby boy, but if he's born and you dare to CIRCUMCISE? Oh, what a terrible person you are! Doesn't really make any sense desu.

I'm not cut, though I want to be, and I have a medical reason for that. Though curing and preventing phimosis aren't the only benefits of male circumcision. Intactivists are pathetic and infantile. Like, get over hating your parents you fucking Incels. Most circumcised men have no problems with their dicks, because the problem is their dick (or yours). The problem is in your heads, and you need to get the fuck over it.

A lot of guys circumcised as adults don't lose any sensation. Some do, and others notice no change. Though less sensation doesn't necessarily mean less pleasure, it can just mean you take longer to cum... which would be very welcome, personally. The fact that Intactivists think a cock with phimosis looks better and is preferable to a cut cock says a lot. I don't hate uncut cocks, and they can be hot, but I think cut looks better. Intactivists hate cut cocks entirely, pretty much.
>>
Who is the guy in the 3rd picture? The helix model
>>
>>1884664
in my experience the ones that adamantly appose circumcision are ones who were bullied/belittled by someone for their uncut penis when they were younger, or rejected by multiple guys because of it. A lot of younger twinky guys 10+ years ago or so were grossed out by uncut dicks.
>>
File: 1559103656801.jpg (1.72 MB, 2300x1455)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB JPG
>>
>>1884635
Sauce?
>>
File: 1556866685883.jpg (1.87 MB, 2368x1536)
1.87 MB
1.87 MB JPG
>>
File: AXtXW40.jpg (681 KB, 2320x3088)
681 KB
681 KB JPG
>>
File: KOC4LKJ.jpg (791 KB, 1440x2560)
791 KB
791 KB JPG
>>
File: llhYtLI.jpg (44 KB, 450x600)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>
https://discord.gg/Gsk4q59
>>
File: 113.jpg (147 KB, 1935x429)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
>>1883228
you might want to take your shitty mutilation fetish thread to /b/
>>
>>1884741
Is he really circumcised or is his skin just stretched out?
>>
File: 3296.jpg (1.17 MB, 1080x4105)
1.17 MB
1.17 MB JPG
>>1884664
>>
>>1884755
It isn't mutilation, you retard. Go back to your foreskin thread.
>>
>>1884766
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/all-about-sex/201510/does-circumcision-reduce-men-s-sexual-sensitivity
>>
>>1884767
>Mutilate: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
?
>>
>>1884769
Male circumcision isn't "damaging" (it has health benefits - fact), nor is it disfiguring (subjective opinion) or making imperfect (again, subjective opinion. It is a surgical procedure.
>>
>>1884768
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
>>
>>1884771
>it has health benefits
nope
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
>>
>>1884772
>http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

Biased website in favour of Intactivism.
>>
>>1884771
>imagine tricking yourself into believing this
>>
>>1884774
>nope

yup
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478224/
>>
File: rqgOg9p.jpg (445 KB, 1874x1759)
445 KB
445 KB JPG
>>1884768
>>1884768
>citing Brian Morris
that guy is a vile circumcision fetishist, he's a known research data manipulator
>>
>>1884781
Propaganda. Nothing wrong with citing Brian Morris. I can cite the World Health Organisation, too... but you'll just find excuses to go against that as well.. Keep derailing this thread and see what happens to your "intact" thread, buddy.
>>
>>1884777
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds%3famp
>Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.
>>
File: 825.jpg (257 KB, 1097x1097)
257 KB
257 KB JPG
>>1884784
>>
>>1884788
They have a cultural bias against circumcision. I trust the WHO and CDC. WHO has no "skin in the game", so to speak. Unless you think they're a ran by Jews, which you probably do, as most Intactivists are anti-Semites. Look, you're not convincing me. I am pro-circumcision. You are anti-circumcision. We disagree. Leave the thread.
>>
File: hiv_0137.png (181 KB, 2339x1653)
181 KB
181 KB PNG
also explain how despite some of you claiming circumcision reduces HIV susceptibility, the US and Africa are much more affected by it despite a majority of males living there being circumcised
>>
>>1884790
a map depicting the percentage of circumcised male population for reference
>>
>>1884790
It does reduce it, but it isn't 100% effective. Can you fuck off now? You're just asking for your intact thread to be spammed with pictures of cut cocks lmao.
>>
>>1884789
>They have a cultural bias against circumcision
no they don't, circumcision was pretty common in the UK during the 19th century
>>
>>1884795
Yes they do, and it's not the 19th century anymore, in case you hadn't noticed.
>>
>>1884791
Of course circumcision is only prevalent in Africa, and White/Islamist far right shitholes.
>>
File: b7a5e08.jpg (398 KB, 3088x2320)
398 KB
398 KB JPG
>>1884711

Sorry anon. Saved it a while ago so I can't remember who it is. Its a guy that posts these himself, isn't a studio of that helps
>>
File: 1556707138516.jpg (338 KB, 1125x1756)
338 KB
338 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
File: codyknightanddylanhall.jpg (993 KB, 1000x1500)
993 KB
993 KB JPG
>>
>>1884839
>>1884837
>>1884804
Trash, remember no self shots
>>
File: 80787_007.jpg (1.29 MB, 1280x1920)
1.29 MB
1.29 MB JPG
>>1884655
too bad low res great pic
>>
File: 2_133254_1280.jpg (188 KB, 1280x1826)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>
File: 2_158020_1280.jpg (330 KB, 1280x1919)
330 KB
330 KB JPG
>>
File: 3a.jpg (192 KB, 2000x1541)
192 KB
192 KB JPG
>>
File: 291b.jpg (412 KB, 1110x894)
412 KB
412 KB JPG
>>
File: 926u28.jpg (292 KB, 1152x2048)
292 KB
292 KB JPG
>>
enjoy your mutilated jewcocks. im going to go make a thread that just has pussies with the clit cut off and the hole sewn shut.
>>
>>1884582
>mutilate
>verb
>mu·ti·late | \ ˈmyü-tə-ˌlāt
>mutilated; mutilating
>Definition of mutilate

>transitive verb
>1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
>the child mutilated the book with his scissors
>a painting mutilated by vandals
>2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple
>His arm was mutilated in the accident.

Any just society would have parents, doctors, and their accomplices thrown in prison for at least a decade and their children (male or female) rehomed to non-violent, non-abusive families.

That said, I would never not fuck a cut guy unless it's particularly vomit-inducing like these fat lards
>>1884837
>>1885055
>>
thread for psychopaths
>>
unpopular opinion, i think circumcision is hot because it is mutilation. Like subincision or other cock modifications

i dont see how so called normal people draw a line in the sand between types of genital modification though
>>
File: 157638375205.jpg (397 KB, 1152x2048)
397 KB
397 KB JPG
>>
>>1885281

Good luck with that on this board
>>
File: 159672210.jpg (42 KB, 520x693)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>
>>1883228
Best thread on 4 chan. Thanks, op
>>
>>1884616
>>1884633
>>1884664
You aren't fooling anyone, Schlomo.
Cry anti-semite and incel all you want, the facts don't change.

>>1884781
Glad someone else is aware of this sick fuck.
Cutfags educate yourselves on this freak and other members of the Gilgal Society.

>>1885338
At last, a respectable cutfag opinion.
If you want to cut your own foreskin off because you find the constant exposure of the glans erotic, then you should be allowed as a personal choice in body mod.

What you SHOULDN'T be allowed to do is to push bunk 'science' with crypto-religious financial backing to make it the new norm to have all dicks bisected because you have eroticized not just the modified penis but also the process of unwilling submission to the modification process. This second part is an important distinction that's often overlooked and downplayed, when it's really the absolute sickest shit imaginable.

Consider: people actively involved in circumcision (like Brian Morris) don't just prefer looking at cut dicks in the way that a conventional gay man might - no, they drift through life on a cloud of erotic euphoria.
Wherever they go, be it the mall, or the cinema or the park, there's likely a man (or little boy, these people are often pedophiles) nearby with a penis that you have modified and interfered with, even if only in a metaphorical or activist sense.

This is what circumfetish is.
It's about as deep and pathological as moral sickness goes.
>>
File: 1546953870016.jpg (86 KB, 1024x768)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
I generally like uncut more than cut but occasionally theres an exception to the rule
>>
>>1885056
>>1885053
>>1885407
Y'all are retarded, these guys are uncut
>>
File: IRbT5X1.jpg (1002 KB, 3024x4032)
1002 KB
1002 KB JPG
>>
File: iVUO5vL.jpg (173 KB, 768x1024)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
>>
circumcision is disgusting and should be banned. Any fuck face who says otherwise is misinformed. Even if circumcision is needed, it should take place when the boy is older NOT a fucking infant for gods sake
>>
>>1885490
Agreed, but don't sgame the victims for loving their own bodies especially for something they cant change and had no control over asshole!
>>
>>1885441
>You aren't fooling anyone, Schlomo.
>Cry anti-semite and incel all you want, the facts don't change.

Yes, the fact is you're an anti-Semitic Incel. You just proved the former with your "Schlomo" comment, idiot.

>>1885490
>circumcision is disgusting and should be banned.

You sound like an anti-vaxxer. Deranged.

>>1885490
>Even if circumcision is needed, it should take place when the boy is older NOT a fucking infant for gods sake

In that case they're unlikely to go ahead with it even when there's a medical indication, and as someone with phimosis, I wish I would've been circumcised when I was younger. I know other guys with phimosis who are either too scared to talk to a doctor about it, or think they have no problem, even though they have a pathologically tight foreskin. The latter are absolutely disgusting.

You Intactivists think phimotic cocks look and are better than circumcised ones. Weirdos.
>>
>>1885516
loving your own body despite having been mutilated is one thing, glamorizing genital mutilation by making a thread about it on a gay porn board is another thing
we need circumcision victims to feel good about themselves, not to spread and promote the idea that circumcision performed on newborn babies is anywhere near necessary or adequate
>>
File: 45.png (1.37 MB, 987x853)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB PNG
>>1884635
>>1884711
@lex gr@nt from onlyfans. he always tries to get his stuff taken down though.
>>
File: 0ESzmPG.jpg (665 KB, 2659x3546)
665 KB
665 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
>>1885674

Godamn that cock is even more impressive up close
>>
>>1885572
>loving your own body despite having been mutilated is one thing

It isn't mutilation.

>glamorizing genital mutilation by making a thread about it on a gay porn board is another thing

It isn't mutilation and people are allowed a preference for cut cocks. That's the point. If you hate yourself so much you view yourself as a "victim" because you're circumcised, fuck off from this thread.
>>
>>1885803
>It isn't mutilation
it is, see >>1885290
>people are allowed a preference for cut cocks
well ask yourself this, are straight men allowed a preference for circumcised vaginas? I'm sure that's an uncomfortable thing for you to think just like it is for any sane person
so how are men any different? you know damn well a circumcised vagina thread in /s/ would get locked in a matter of minutes
>>
>>1885806
>it is, see >>1885290

It doesn't fit the definition of because it doesn't, objectively, make the dick "imperfect". That's a subjective opinion. It also doesn't "permanently destroy" the penis.

>well ask yourself this, are straight men allowed a preference for circumcised vaginas?

It's my understanding that many straight men have a preference for vaginas that have had a labiaplasty. It's the same concept, except unlike labiaplasties, male circumcision is a medical procedure with health benefits. Let me guess: the fact (straight) men 'aren't allowed' a preference for circumcised vaginas, but (gay) men are 'allowed' to for penises is the work of the Jews?
>>
>>1885821
way to cherry pick the least important part of the multiple definitions that accurate describe circumcision. go ahead and "debate" the other two, moron.

babies go through an actual torture situation so you can "appreciate" their scared and callous dicks. you are a psycho.
>>
>>1885821
>it doesn't, objectively, make the dick "imperfect"
but it absolutely does, see keratinization of the glans for starters
>It also doesn't "permanently destroy" the penis
it does, it makes it more difficult for the penis to be stimulated both manually and through penetration, also the fact that it removes sensitive, healthy tissue
>>
>>1885454
>>1885484
>>1885487
These three are fucking perfect and would love to be railed by each of them back to back
>>
>>1885836

And what would your alternative be?

Be repulsed by circumcised cocks and shame their owners for having a procedure performed upon them without their consent?

>Babies go through actual torture so you can "appreciate" them

That's a load of bullshit and you know it. If you're gonna argue at least do it well
>>
File: 15834837.jpg (91 KB, 720x464)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>
File: 157374.jpg (139 KB, 514x697)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
>>
File: 1583476217.jpg (43 KB, 720x521)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>
File: 8263u.jpg (61 KB, 720x519)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>
>>1885836
>way to cherry pick the least important part of the multiple definitions that accurate describe circumcision.

The definition of "mutilation" doesn't accurately describe circumcision, though. That's the thing.

>babies go through an actual torture situation so you can "appreciate" their scared and callous dicks.

Circumcision isn't "actual torture", and actually it's most compassionate to do it as a baby, when risks are minimal. Even if anaesthetic isn't to be used, it's better done as a baby than an adult. Also I don't "appreciate" prepubescent dicks, thanks.

>>1885847
>but it absolutely does, see keratinization of the glans for starters

The penis adapts without the foreskin, yes, but I disagree that circumcision makes the penis "imperfect". It's subjective.

>it does, it makes it more difficult for the penis to be stimulated both manually and through penetration

Just because masturbation may be somewhat more difficult and time-consuming in circumcised men (it varies by circumcision and depends on the tightness), that doesn't mean the penis is "permanently destroyed".

>>1885864
>Be repulsed by circumcised cocks and shame their owners for having a procedure performed upon them without their consent?

Exactly. But the thing is, though, these Intactivists ARE repulsed by their circumcised cocks and ashamed. That's why they're Intactivists. Most circumcised men aren't, because they don't have a problem with their dicks, and neither do Intactivists - the problem with Intactivists is their minds.
>>
https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/getting-circumcised-doesn-t-make-your-wiener-less-sensitive/

>Interestingly, sensitivity at the foreskin was not found to differ from that of other parts of the body, such as the forearm, while sensitivity at both the glans and on the shaft was greater than at the forearm. As such, the study authors conclude that not only is circumcision “not associated with changes in penile sensitivity,” but that “the foreskin is not the most sensitive part of the penis.”

Source: https://www.auajournals.org/article/S0022-5347(15)05535-4/abstract
>>
File: a3n34j72ip0tv.jpg (135 KB, 540x697)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>>
File: ifr4um6r28b85.jpg (92 KB, 720x526)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>
>>1885572
I agree, I like they way cut dicks look most of the time, I realize it's not natural and I would never have it done to a child of mine. My husband is a medical professional and he says that even most cases of phimosis can be treated without having to be cut. Circumcision should only be done in severe medical cases and only partial circumcision is necessary. I'm just saying don't shame guys for something they can't help, shaming them for promoting something that goes against nature is fine.
>>
>>1886260
>I'm just saying don't shame guys for something they can't help, shaming them for promoting something that goes against nature is fine.

Vaccines go against nature, too.
>>
>>
>>1886295
That's actually incorrect. Vaccines introduce a germ and allow the body to build up immunity naturally. You obviously know nothing of medicine.
>>
File: 014_3.jpg (42 KB, 700x700)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>
File: 0dqtshhqiyo21.jpg (414 KB, 2320x3088)
414 KB
414 KB JPG
>>
File: 0q1ywym6xix21.jpg (712 KB, 3024x4032)
712 KB
712 KB JPG
>>
File: lmpbqdbl72u21.jpg (1016 KB, 3024x4032)
1016 KB
1016 KB JPG
>>
File: 1558902598875.jpg (70 KB, 750x642)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
Gay heaven
>>
File: 7bw8u5rkca231.jpg (193 KB, 2048x1536)
193 KB
193 KB JPG
>>
File: 1319155958202.jpg (497 KB, 1024x768)
497 KB
497 KB JPG
>>
File: 7kccqyc2ug131.jpg (1.08 MB, 3024x4032)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
>>
File: 87ympnjtl5j21.jpg (123 KB, 960x1280)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>
File: JjA9QPa.jpg (1.91 MB, 3264x2448)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
>>
File: 0ogx4wi7k4p01.jpg (58 KB, 960x810)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>
File: 0p68frxhv0d21.jpg (735 KB, 3264x2448)
735 KB
735 KB JPG
>>
File: 1470947557540.jpg (130 KB, 720x960)
130 KB
130 KB JPG
>>
File: kculmyew8f131.jpg (465 KB, 2320x3088)
465 KB
465 KB JPG
>>
File: kkxp15381pz21.jpg (594 KB, 4032x3024)
594 KB
594 KB JPG
>>
File: fexsdffmr7131.jpg (330 KB, 2105x2318)
330 KB
330 KB JPG
>>
File: 1489883310044.jpg (418 KB, 960x1280)
418 KB
418 KB JPG
>>
File: 08mm8xzpjjt21.jpg (49 KB, 576x767)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>
File: D6eNefTW0AAg68_.jpg (153 KB, 915x1199)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
>>
File: 3dy3tshejf031.jpg (694 KB, 1910x3088)
694 KB
694 KB JPG
>>
File: kf9s99l7rry21.jpg (237 KB, 1918x2046)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>
File: a9wKVg5.jpg (1.02 MB, 4656x3492)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB JPG




>>
File: 6ztefl5jfsy21.jpg (1.07 MB, 3024x4032)
1.07 MB
1.07 MB JPG
>>
File: 5pz4zkgyk9t21.jpg (1.81 MB, 1439x1914)
1.81 MB
1.81 MB JPG
>>
File: 4zfwboejfmp21.jpg (155 KB, 1077x1672)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
>>
File: 3.jpg (29 KB, 480x640)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>
File: 20190606_182548.jpg (25 KB, 480x640)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>
>>1885882
The point really is why we need to cut down a piece of skin when there's no obvious benefit and causing medical accident from time to time
>>
File: un96cdh43hm11.jpg (93 KB, 960x1280)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>
File: bnywci4quu421.jpg (885 KB, 3024x4032)
885 KB
885 KB JPG
>>
>>1885882
Obviously foreskin is not that sensitive but I'm curious if lack of foreskin (so some sheath over the glans) desensitizes the glans? Because without a foreskin glans of the penis is exposed more to constant friction with underwear (because no extra layer like foreskin)
>>
>>1885882
When the foreskin is removed, there is nothing protecting the glans from rubbing against undies. The skin get rough and callused, reducing sensitivity
>>
>>1884788
The modern-day liberal Krauts obviously have it right about the matter of consent for a procedure that's not only irreversible, but has drawbacks that outweigh the benefits for the vast majority. Routine circumcision is just one practice common in cultures where persons are officially considered to be property of the community or God or whatever, and the fact that it prevails in the US is a symptom of hypocrisy and corruption in a police state with a militarized economy, a scandalously bad attitude to education, and embarrassing levels of domestic violence. (This is not to say that despotisms of Asia aren't worse. They are, to the point of being contemptible, beneath criticism, and beyond remediation.) It should also be obvious that its acceptance relates more to the usual Ameritard puritan inanity than to the influence of certain Hebrew physicians, since overt anti-semitism was a much bigger factor when the practice was popularly adopted.
>>
File: large.jpg (50 KB, 562x1000)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>
File: 1tqLkr51uce2p3o2_1280.jpg (290 KB, 1280x960)
290 KB
290 KB JPG
>>1883243
nice
>>1886349
nice
>>1886371
nice
>>1886582
nice too bad it s a crap pic
>>
File: 3kjhoi.jpg (93 KB, 496x601)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>
Mutilation enablers!
>>
File: CN0091.jpg (975 KB, 625x1280)
975 KB
975 KB JPG
>>
>>1886784

You're right, definitely convincing newborn parents to do it on this gay porn board
>>
File: yvciumkbd6p01.jpg (47 KB, 945x960)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>1886589
>>1886590
Well that's clearly the case. If you take a typical uncut guy, ask him to pull his foreskin back and rub the head against a standard piece of fabric, then he'll tell you that it feels physically painful. Compare that to a cut guy who's lived every minute of his life with the head exposed and rubbing against things, and who doesn't even notice it.

The body is remarkable. When the head is no longer protected by the foreskin the mucous membrane forms a layer of keratin to protect it instead. It's well documented.

The thing is, there's a minority of uncut guys whose foreskins never cover their head. They hit puberty and in the midst of everything growing the skin just slides back behind the head and stays there permanently. For all intents and purposes their situation is no different to a guy who is circumcised. You never seem to hear these men complaining though, or embarking on regimes to stretch out the skin so that it'll cover the head.

It's reasonable to think that there's a difference in sensation between the everyday recognition of something touching the head of your dick, and the intentional rhythmic stimulation of it for sexual purposes. Even if your head is exposed 24/7, either due to circumcision or a short foreskin, and you no longer notice things rubbing against it in your pants, it doesn't mean that when you get hard and start jerking off that you're going to feel that sensation any differently.

A reduction in touch sensation over time is actually quite normal. The first time a guy pulls his foreskin back as a kid the head is barely touchable because it's so sensitive and has never been exposed before. Over the years you'll find guys being able to be rougher with the head, because it toughens up, but you don't hear tons of men claiming they feel less sensation and enjoy sex less with age.

I feel like the impact of circumcision on the head is overblown because people conflate different things.
>>
>>1886799
Exactly. This.
>>
>>1886367

MORE?
>>
>>
File: 1558586826727.jpg (1.51 MB, 3024x4032)
1.51 MB
1.51 MB JPG
>>
some facts so people can finally shut up

>it's ok to like cut dicks
>it's ok to not like cut dicks
>all circumcission "benefits" have been debunked
>it's not ok to shame cut guys, they didnt have the choice
>it's ok to shame people who still want to promote circumcission
>>
>>1887186
>all circumcission "benefits" have been debunked

Fake News.
>>
>>1887186
>it's not ok to shame cut guys, they didnt have the choice

And not every cut guy "didn't have the choice", so shut up.
>>
>>
File: IMG_5845.jpg (489 KB, 1536x2048)
489 KB
489 KB JPG
>>
>>1887206
Like 99% of them didn't. Pretty much no one of sound mind would chose to remove the most sensitive part of their genitals.
>>
>>1887341
Ever heard of phimosis? And it isn't the most sensitive part.
>>
>>1887484
>stubbed your toe?
>take the leg
>>
>>1887492
You're literally retarded if you're arguing against circumcision for PHIMOSIS. That's a legitimate medical reason to circumcise, lmao. Also having phimosis isn't like stubbing a toe, it's hell. :)

(And circumcision isn't like amputating a leg. Get over yourself. You're not a mutilated victim, you're just a circumcised retard.)
>>
I wanted to get circumcised after I turned 18. And as someone who has jerked off with and without foreskin, I can tell you all that sensitivity isn't diminished. Just my 2 cents.
>>
>>1887495
You're the retarded one for pushing amputation as a first resort instead of a last resort for a condition that is *not* life-threatening.
>>
>>1887495
You can easily stretch it
You'd think that would be the preferred option as opposed to lopping it off
>>
>>1884196
Or they could use my mouth
>>
>>1887925
Circumcision is the most effective treatment, and there's nothing wrong with opting for that.

>You can easily stretch it

Depends on the guy.

>You'd think that would be the preferred option as opposed to lopping it off

Some guys don't want to keep it, considering how many problems it's caused for them.
>>
>>1885674
I thought his last name was C0hen?
>>
>>
File: 1560270695073m.jpg (92 KB, 1024x699)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>
File: 1558607380645.jpg (1.16 MB, 3088x2320)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB JPG
>>
File: 1557377994628.jpg (1.96 MB, 2662x3497)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
>>
File: 1549057278191.jpg (1.04 MB, 1676x2984)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
>>
>>
>>1886319
>>1887212
>>1887304
wrong thread
>>
File: 328693 cum.jpg (67 KB, 1204x1024)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>
File: 421700.jpg (117 KB, 720x960)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
>>
>>1885240
really like this cock... i want to suck it so bad
>>
File: X94sakW.jpg (1015 KB, 3024x4032)
1015 KB
1015 KB JPG
>>1888138
Yeah, and yanking teeth is the most effective treatment for cavities. Funny how that's not the first thing dentists try to do!

What part of 'make the most extreme option the last resort' is so difficult for your inbred brain to understand?
>>
>>1888854
Wow, that is a fucking beaitiful dick! Moar please?
>>
File: v67.png (1.02 MB, 912x684)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB PNG
>>
File: IMG_20190609_134849943.jpg (1.38 MB, 3261x2788)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB JPG
>>
am I too small guys?
>>
File: 1480667725603.jpg (245 KB, 1280x720)
245 KB
245 KB JPG
>>1888936
used to be lagolegends4 on reddit, now goes by kinkykitty100 with his g*rlfriend
>>
>>1885517
Keep dreaming with that vile misunderstood
>>
File: 20190612_235234.jpg (3.78 MB, 4032x3024)
3.78 MB
3.78 MB JPG
>>
>>
File: 85hf750.jpg (253 KB, 1536x2048)
253 KB
253 KB JPG
>>
>>1888854
>Yeah, and yanking teeth is the most effective treatment for cavities. Funny how that's not the first thing dentists try to do!

Well some guys with phimosis WANT to be circumcised. They don't want it to be a last resort. They just want it over with. They actually prefer how cut cocks look, and don't want to spend weeks or months stretching their diseased foreskin, when there's no guarantee that it'll even fix the pathological tightness in the first place. Not wanting to keep it when it's caused nothing but problems is understandable. If I was circumcised at birth, this wouldn't even be an issue for me, so consider yourselves lucky.
>>
File: cFJAEKU.jpg (879 KB, 3024x4032)
879 KB
879 KB JPG
>>1889343
>Well some

[how many?]

>guys with phimosis WANT to be circumcised. They don't want it to be a last resort. They just want it over with.

It's their decision to make and no one else's. Bodily integrity takes priority over whatever perceived (subjective) convenience they or other people see.

>there's no guarantee that it'll even fix the pathological tightness in the first place.

...That's the point of trying, to find out instead of dealing in hyperbole and defeatism.

>If I was circumcised at birth, this wouldn't even be an issue for me, so consider yourselves lucky.

I'm really sorry you have to go through this, but no one is at fault here. Your parents respected your bodily integrity. You're in a small minority of uncut guys by having [had?] that condition, maybe like 1%.
>>
>>1889533
omg post moar pics of that guy mmm!
>>
File: aefaseg.jpg (498 KB, 2448x3264)
498 KB
498 KB JPG
>>
>>1889533
>I'm really sorry you have to go through this, but no one is at fault here. Your parents respected your bodily integrity.

The difference is there's nothing wrong with your dick, you're just circumcised. The chance of complications for circumcision are small, <5%. So, unless it was botched, you guys need to get over it. Because there actually is something wrong with my dick. I disagree about bodily integrity, that's 'violated' all the time. Vaccinations, or any other medical procedure a parent has to consent for on their child's behalf. If I ever have a son, he's being circumcised to avoid him ever having to go through this.
>>
>>1887137
this image is antisemitic
>>
>>1889570
>Because there actually is something wrong with my dick.
>If I ever have a son, he's being circumcised to avoid him ever having to go through this.

You're saying someone should have done something to your dick either way, even if there was nothing known to be wrong with it... thus doing something completely unnecessary as far as anyone knows.

>I disagree about bodily integrity, that's 'violated' all the time. Vaccinations, or any other medical procedure a parent has to consent for on their child's behalf.

jesus fucking christ dude

Ignoring your vaccine tinfoil hat retardation for a moment, it's legitimately fucked up that you see nothing wrong with normalizing violating bodily integrity just because you think it's common already. Doesn't even matter what you think of vaccines, that is just an abominable moral position to take.

Back to vaccines, they aren't amputations and they don't cause permanent scarring, or any physical change to the body, can't cripple someone's sex life just cause the doc's hand slipped, and they aren't even permanent! Yeah, they expire after a while. Never mind the life-or-death urgency of them... yet some whiny depressed incel bitch like you thinks 'I can't get muh mushroom head out' is the same as 'I gave everyone polio so now we're all gonna fuckin die'
>>
File: Ns6xUPg.jpg (98 KB, 1024x768)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>1889536
yes

also here's the other ones so far
>>1887925
>>1888854
>>1889052
>>
>>1889628
>>
>>1889629
>>
>>1889628
wow thanks! do u know who this is?
>>
>>1889635
nevermind just saw the post about him being a redditor.
>>
>>1889627
>>1889627
>You're saying someone should have done something to your dick either way, even if there was nothing known to be wrong with it... thus doing something completely unnecessary as far as anyone knows.

It has medical benefits even if it's not done for a medical reason (e.g. phimosis).

>it's legitimately fucked up that you see nothing wrong with normalizing violating bodily integrity just because you think it's common already.

Literally every medical decision a parent makes for their child may or does 'violate' their bodily integrity, because they can't consent. Should we just wait until they're adults before we do anything that may violate their bodily integrity? No, because there are exceptions. The debate is where that line is, not whether there is a line. I see circumcision as any other medical decision a parent makes for their child. I compared it to vaccination because both have health benefits, and Intactivists are like anti-vaxxers in their denial of the facts, but one doesn't need to compare it to vaccination specifically, but rather any other medical decision a parent makes. Why is this different? Because you FEEL like you were "mutilated"? Boo hoo, get over it. You guys being circumcised isn't why you're Incels. The issue is with your head, not your dick. Violation of bodily integrity is already common. Abortion is the ultimate form of that. Though a lot of medical decisions a parent makes for their child are also violations.

And I'm not an Incel. If I was straight, I'd be a virgin, but luckily as I'm gay, I can and do bottom. Intactivsts are typically Incels (and anti-Semites, another big reason for their anti-science stance).
>>
>>1889630

Beautiful
>>
>>1889668
Vaccines are given because you would die if you are exposed to the disease they are designed to protect you from.
You don't generally vaccinate yourself against the common cold or the annual cough and fever you'll get. You vaccinate against deadly diseases.

So you cannot compare it to a literal body modification for vanity. It is plastic surgery, nothing more.
Pamela Anderson didn't give her daughter a breast enlargement to look like her mother while nullifying her daughter's ability to breastfeed and cause permanent damage to her back or violating her daughter's right to chose for herself if she wants that plastic surgery.
Circumcision is just that.
And if we want to do it to prevent "foreskin cancer" A super rare cancer that no one ever died of, then why not have prophylactic hysterectomies or labiaplasties to prevent HPV and cervical cancers in women, which is one of the top5 cancers that women can get.
Or double mastectomies. Breast cancer is the killer number one of the female exclusive cancers. And you don't really need working tits anyway, you can buy formula?

So why don't you shut up, like circumcised men because they deserve to be appreciated and accepted for their body as it is since they had no fucking choice and everyone deserves to be accepted and considered attractive, but don't fetishise them. No one likes that. A person that lost their arm in an accident or even during a heroic deed don't want to be fetishised about their amputated arm.

Cut, Uncut, whatever. Everyone can be attractive and deserves to be appreciated and not to be the target of someone's fantasies or scorn. Go away if you don't like it, but don't point and laugh or worship them either.
>>
>>1889668
How are you am antisemite if your goal is to protect Jews(ans muslims) from mutilation?
And antisemite wouldn't care at all about what they do. Antisemites kinda hate Jews and wish them dead, so why would they fight to protect their penises? This argument is so stupid
>>
>>1887186
this.
>>
File: 2_120123_1280.jpg (181 KB, 1280x1920)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
>>1888620
nice
>>1889052
>>1889628
>>1889629
dam how big
>>
File: 000_1449.jpg (1.18 MB, 1667x1113)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
>>
File: 04 (1) copy.jpg (266 KB, 593x473)
266 KB
266 KB JPG
>>
File: 4437006.jpg (79 KB, 615x619)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>
>>1889800
>Go away if you don't like it, but don't point and laugh or worship them either.

You do realise this is a thread dedicated to cut cocks, right? You go away, lmao. Also why is it okay to fetishise foreskins, but not cut cocks? And you seem to be under the illusion that every circumcised guy was circumcised without his consent, and all those who were view themselves as "mutilated" victims because of it, as you do. But that isn't the case. Most circumcised men don't view themselves as "mutilated" victims, because unlike Intactivists, there's nothing wrong with their heads in that regard.

The vaccination comparison stands because circumcision can reduce risk of HIV transmission by 60%, according to the World Health Organisation... you know, the, uh, experts? That seems pretty comparable to a vaccine to me.

>>1889808
1. It isn't mutilation.
2. Anti-Semites often use anti-circumcision messaging as a way to express anti-Semitic sentiment.
3. Anti-Semites want to ban male circumcision, just to make life harder for Jews.
>>
>>
File: 1463257163018.png (46 KB, 317x293)
46 KB
46 KB PNG
>>1889838
>1. It isn't mutilation.
>2. Anti-Semites often use anti-circumcision messaging as a way to express anti-Semitic sentiment.
>3. Anti-Semites want to ban male circumcision, just to make life harder for Jews.
>>
>>1889869
Thanks for proving my point.
>>
>>1889813
no clue mate, gotta be at least 8 or more?

>>1889800
>>1889838
It's already been explained clearly why circumcision is particularly more invasive and unnecessary than other ways that parents do for their kids so I won't repeat most of it.

>1. It isn't mutilation.
>2. Anti-Semites often use anti-circumcision messaging as a way to express anti-Semitic sentiment.
>3. Anti-Semites want to ban male circumcision, just to make life harder for Jews.

Not agreeing 110% with a religion as if it is infallible is not opposing that religion outright.

>The vaccination comparison stands because circumcision can reduce risk of HIV transmission by 60%, according to the World Health Organisation... you know, the, uh, experts? That seems pretty comparable to a vaccine to me.

Consentual, non-invasive measures including condoms and PrEP are as effective if not moreso. There is no moral justification for circumcision as HIV prevention in first-world countries. I've already said why vaccines are much less intrusive than amputations so I won't repeat that, either.

>>1889869
You're not helping you stupid fuckin fascist. mussolini yourself
>>
>>1889886
>There is no moral justification for circumcision as HIV prevention in first-world countries.

But there is in third world countries? Why do you not care about the 'bodily integrity' of brown people? Seems pretty racist to me...

I don't see why else you would single out first-world countries.
>>
>>1889891
The idea is that people in poorer countries may not have the quality of living (education, finances, government resources, etc) for condoms or other such to be ubiquitous, affordable, or effective like they are in more developed places. So campaigners go there, teach about the benefits of circumcision, and let adult folks make an informed, consensual decision.
>>
>>1889897
>So campaigners go there, teach about the benefits of circumcision

Well at least you don't deny that there benefits. Somewhat reasonable fellow.
>>
>>1889900
Don't get me wrong, I don't like that solution or how the research been used to disingenuously to exaggerate the benefits of or toss out any objections to circumcision. That solution doesn't change any of the underlying causes of the HIV pandemic in the most affected places. One cynical way to look at it is that it's American colonialists looking to validate their own civil religion.

They're the only ones trying to claim that Americans have the same quality of life as Kenyans and thus need to live their lives the same way, but only in one specific way. It's bad science because it's not about science, it's about culture. The western places that don't have routine circumcision are likewise a lot more measured in their responses to the research.

The fact remains that most men who will ever live will never have an issue (life-threatening or otherwise) that circumcision could be a solution for.
>>
Kill yourselves
>>
>>1889915
If circumcision would be a good way to protect against HIV, how come that, although now virtually all of Africa is circumcised, only the countries with a muslim majority have low numbers of HIV positive men, whilst the christian majority countries are being ravaged by HIV?
It has nothing to do with circumcision, it is about sex culture. Muslims don't fuck around as much as others. Not saying this is good or bad, but it just shows the true reason for HIV: Fucking around. Doesn't matter if you have a foreskin, if you fuck around without a condom, eventually you'll accidentally get with someone who has HIV.

If circumcision would be the best protection, then the results of HIV studies in Africa would be completely homogenous with every country having the same percentage of HIV positive men, since all men are circumcised.

BOOM.
>>
>>1889838
60%
even though this number has been debunked, like what the hell? That's a shitty percentage.

Your general chance of contracting HIV is about 1% depending on where in the world you are. 60% less likely to catch it would be like 0.6% chance. wow. Amazing.
Condoms are 100% reducing the chance of getting HIV unless you rip the condom, for which there is a minimal chance.
Newsletter: Corvette upgraded the faulty breaks and you are now 60% less likely to crash the car...would you get in that car? I wouldn't. I want a car that is 100% less likely to crash.

Jews and Muslims are some of the biggest supporters of intactivisim because...newsflash... they are the most affected group.
Jews have been circumcising less and less since the 19th century.

And no, I don't think it is particularily ok to fetishise foreskin, although it is more acceptable to accept and fetishise something that doesn't require any surgery, right?
You would agree with me (although I do heavily defend the beauty and acceptance of cut guys) that it is ok to fetishise nipples, but not okay to fetishise someone that had their nipples cut off for his parents' vanity? Right? Right?

>>1889886
nice dick. That is also a nicely done circumcision. No scarline, no two tone, no flared glans. Just nice looking, natural looking dick. Love it.
(I don't know though if you agreed or disagreed with my statement or why you quoted me ( >>1889808 )
>>
>>1889838
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
Here are the numbers to back up my claim.
>>1889940
>>1889938

the northern countries, virtually 100% circumcised, muslims through and through with coptic minorities: 0.1-1% HIV

rest of Africa, completely circumcised: 1-15% HIV, the highest number on the planet.

The higher the percentage of muslims in any of the countries, the lower is the prevalence of HIV. So a better cure than circumcision would be: Convert to Islam.
>>
File: 26o8kZP.jpg (908 KB, 2801x3736)
908 KB
908 KB JPG
>>1889940
>(I don't know though if you agreed or disagreed with my statement or why you quoted me

Oops, misclick. I do agree with you though.

>>1889938
>it just shows the true reason for HIV: Fucking around.

Pretty sure I learned in sociology that poorer people who don't have as much end up having more sex largely because being poor sucks.

>If circumcision would be a good way to protect against HIV
>If circumcision would be the best protection,

Not sure what the BOOM is for because I didn't disagree with you.

>It has nothing to do with circumcision, it is about sex culture.

We're talking about two different things. Of course sex plays a part in the spread of HIV. I'm saying that (American) researchers are heavily biased towards circumcision and their "research" reflects that.
>>
>>1889940
>>1890059
>(I don't know though if you agreed or disagreed with my statement or why you quoted me

actually i'm confused now which is probably a sign that it's time to stop
>>
>>1889942
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
>>
>>1889915
>Don't get me wrong, I don't like that solution or how the research been used to disingenuously to exaggerate the benefits of or toss out any objections to circumcision. That solution doesn't change any of the underlying causes of the HIV pandemic in the most affected places.

Those evil Jews, right? Manipulating data for profit? I call bullshit, honestly. That's not what is happening, and you didn't even need to mention Jews, because it was implicit in what you said.

>If circumcision would be the best protection, then the results of HIV studies in Africa would be completely homogenous with every country having the same percentage of HIV positive men, since all men are circumcised.

It does offer protection from HIV, but if you fuck around, eventually you'll get HIV regardless.

>60%
even though this number has been debunked, like what the hell? That's a shitty percentage.

Debunked? Wrong. Intactivist lies. You guys just want to paint circumcision as this evil, completely useless thing with no medical utility to it can be banned so you'll hate yourselves less (and to make life harder for Jews).

>Jews and Muslims are some of the biggest supporters of intactivisim because...newsflash... they are the most affected group. Very few circumcised men are Intactivists.

>The higher the percentage of muslims in any of the countries, the lower is the prevalence of HIV. So a better cure than circumcision would be: Convert to Islam.

It's nothing to do with Islam, it's about promiscutiy and lack thereof. Though I must say, the hottest thing about Muslim guys are their cut cocks. It's pretty uncommon in the UK, but common among Muslims. Unfortunately so many are in the closet because they don't want to be acid attacked, stabbed, or burned to death. Islam is pretty shitty, though unsurprising they co-opted circumcision from the Jews.
>>
>>1890059
>I'm saying that (American) researchers are heavily biased towards circumcision and their "research" reflects that.

European researchers are biased AGAINST circumcision because most are uncircumcised, and take the incorrect view that circumcision is something the barbaric, "uncivilised" peoples do. It isn't barbaric.
>>
>>1890074
>Jews and Muslims are some of the biggest supporters of intactivisim because...newsflash... they are the most affected group.

Very few circumcised men are Intactivists. *
>>
>>
>>
>>1883229
Sauce anyone?
>>
>>1890068
lol
accusing me of cherry picking by pointing out how a study done by a lobby to get more money by an unnecessary surgery is cherry picking?
Grand.
>>
>>1888147
That's his real surname. He uses an alias on onlyfans.
>>
>>1890080

mmm amazing bush and cut cock
>>
>>1884616
The anti vaxxer probably are worse. Vaccination is about medication or disease prevention but FR (foreskin removing) and to oppose the ignorant, disgusting circumcision is not anti-Semitism.
>>
>>1884789
https://youtu.be/mWUb4HNNQTA Ok. The problem is not mine if want to insist on fallacies or loathsome and archaic traditions.
>>
>>1890621
>Vaccination is about medication or disease prevention but FR (foreskin removing) and to oppose the ignorant, disgusting circumcision is not anti-Semitism.

Circumcision has health benefits, so opposing circumcision is what's ignorant, and shaming circumcised men is disgusting.

>>1890622
>Ok. The problem is not mine if want to insist on fallacies or loathsome and archaic traditions.

Why is it a fallacy to say there's a cultural bias against circumcision in Europe, but it ISN'T a fallacy to say there's cultural bias in favour of circumcision in America? In reality, the cultural bias cuts both ways, one could say.
>>
>>1890736
>Circumcision has health benefits
ummmmm da fuq?
literally the opposite
for one example an important glad for your immune system is located in the foreskin and is thus lost with its removal hurting the system. literally every study showing the "benefits of circumcision" are either cooked statistics or confirmation bias.
all this to say if someone is happy being cut that's fine but I for one think that should be a desition made BY an adult and not FOR a child. plus if its for religious reasons that's all the more reason that the desition is left to the person it's gonna happen to.
>>
>>1890741
>literally every study showing the "benefits of circumcision" are either cooked statistics or confirmation bias.

[citation needed]
>>
>>1890736
amputations have no health benefits.
shaming amputees is disgusting.

END
OF
DISCUSSION.

commence posting beautiful penises.
>>
>>1890782
Circumcised men aren't "amputees". God, you fucking people love to play the victim. You're circumcised and you HATE that fact, we get it. But goddamn it, get over. You aren't an amputee, or mutilated, or a victim of sexual assault, just because you're circumcised. And all 3 of these things I have seen Intactivists describe themselves as.

Circumcision reduces HIV transmission risk, prevents and cures phimosis, lowers incidence of UTIs among other things. There ARE health benefits. Stop trying to de-legitimise circumcision as having medical utility just because you hate that you're circumcised.
>>
I find American conspiracies/debates to be really fascinating. You hear so many benefits of things like paying for health care, getting circumcised and owning guns and yet none of those are even considered conversation-worthy in other first world countries.
>>
>>1890796
I'm not American, though I am pro-circumcision.
>>
>>1890796
Americans and Russians reside in their respective bubbles exactly like the Kim regime in North Korea. Some kind of weird parallel world like Panem. Outsiders are weird and alien and the mainstream consensus and regime line are the absolute truth.
And the whole world just wants to be a spectator and casual tourist, but gets dragged into their dystopia all the time.
The East and West should have long ago nuked each other so the normal world can prosper again.
>>
>>1890786
I'm not circumcised.
I never had an UTI (which is at a minimal risk to men to begin with, but if you cut a newborn and leave his bloody, exposed genitals in his diaper for the first few years will put him at high risk[side not: The US has a weird spike in male SIDS cases])
prevents and cures phimosis. Sure. Just like pulling out all your teeth prevents and cures caries. Like c'mon, they're just some useless calcium based mutated bones, they are just flaps of skin...err I mean they are just pebbles of calcium. And how many times did you bite your lip? That shit hurts. I'd rather have them all pulled as soon as possible before they start making problems. And the older you get, the more this will hurt to have them removed.

Your first paragraph sounds really desperate. Are you cracking?

AGAIN: No one says your penis is ugly or that you are worth less. But you are the crowd that claims everyone else is less than you and ugly and disgusting.
>>
>>1890074
1) You quoted parts of someone else's reply. I'm only going to reply about the one part that I wrote.

>Those evil Jews, right? Manipulating data for profit? I call bullshit, honestly. That's not what is happening, and you didn't even need to mention Jews, because it was implicit in what you said.

You are legitimately deranged. I guess when your culture perpetrates child genital mutilation and blind support for the apartheid state of Israel, you need to invent things to be mad about. Supporting basic dignity of all people does not make me an anti-Semite.

>>1890076
>European researchers are biased AGAINST circumcision because most are uncircumcised, and take the incorrect view that circumcision is something the barbaric, "uncivilised" peoples do. It isn't barbaric.

They're absolutely correct, actually. The #1 exporter of global violence (America) is also the primary proponent of involuntary circumcision.

>>1890786
>Circumcised men aren't "amputees".

Circumcision is an amputation by definition. To quote a child mutilation supporter: facts don't care about your feelings.

>>1890796
I swear, this country has a fetish for needless human suffering. You can see above what people like me have to deal with for daring to think that better things are possible.
>>
Post more european low tight cut please
>>
File: IMAG2558.jpg (875 KB, 2688x1520)
875 KB
875 KB JPG
>>1891085
>>
>>1890887
>Your first paragraph sounds really desperate.

If you think circumcised men are "amputees", you're the desperate one. How deranged. Such emotionally charged, inappropriate language.

>>1891007
>I guess when your culture perpetrates child genital mutilation

1. I'm not Jewish
2. It isn't mutilation

>blind support for the apartheid state of Israel

Careful, your anti-Semitism is showing. Apartheid state, really? Though I did not mention Israel, you did.

>They're absolutely correct, actually.

Because they agree with you. Got it.

>The #1 exporter of global violence (America) is also the primary proponent of involuntary circumcision.

Throwing some anti-Americanism in there with your anti-Semitism. Unsurprising.

>Circumcision is an amputation by definition.

The foreskin isn't a limb:

>amputee
>/ampjʊˈtiː/
>noun
>a person who has had a limb amputated.


>foreskin
>/ˈfɔːskJn/
>noun
>the retractable roll of skin covering the end of the penis.


>To quote a child mutilation supporter: facts don't care about your feelings.

I do not like Ben Shapiro, and it's funny you should say that, because the facts are on my side. Intactivists are all emotion. You guys need to get a grip.
>>
File: 1480668090495.jpg (94 KB, 500x716)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>1891138

>Careful, your anti-Semitism is showing. Apartheid state, really? Though I did not mention Israel, you did.

The Zionist (*not* semitic, there's a difference) lobby and their adjacents (primarily American Catholics and Christians) cry wolf over the "anti-semitism" boogeyman when there is clearly no such bias, like you are right now.

Zionists (people who support Israel, as opposed to all semitic people) treat Palestinians as subhmans. Opposing Zionism is a moral imperative.

>Because they agree with you. Got it.

hilarious and revealing how this reply can only appear sensical if you remove the next sentence, proving my point above

>anti-Americanism

So you admit there's cultural for circumcision. Stop trying to deny that since you clearly can't contain yourself.

An amputation is any removal of the human anatomy. If circumcision isn't an amputation, why don't you just tell us what type of surgery it is, then?
>>
Can you all uncircumcised-fans go fucking away? I came here for porn, not for your propaganda, and you just ruined my day. Thanks.
I gotta say, now I kinda even h8 uncut diccs.
>>
>>1891182
>when there is clearly no such bias

You brought up Israel, not me. I'm not "crying wolf", I'm calling you out. Your anti-Semitism clearly influences your anti-circumcision activism. Disturbing, but unsurprising. Context matters. When you talk about "Zionists" the way you do, the subtext is clear.

>Opposing Zionism is a moral imperative.

Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Criticise Netanyahu or any particular Israeli administration, sure... but the State of Israel itself? Opposing it's existence is anti-Semitic.

>So you admit there's cultural for circumcision. Stop trying to deny that since you clearly can't contain yourself.

No. I was just commenting on your anti-Americanism. I'm not American. I'm just not surprised that you're anti-Semitic and anti-American.

>An amputation is any removal of the human anatomy.

Not according to the definitions I provided, which are official and proper definitions of the words in question.
>>
>>1891214
>Can you all uncircumcised-fans go fucking away?

They're just asking for their precious "intact" threads to be derailed desu. They'd deserve it, considering they keep derailing this thread.
>>
Threads like this is why I'm bi curious
>>
here's my two cents

I have sucked quite a few cocks cut and uncut. and in all of my instances with cut men, I have had NO hygiene issues. but with most of the uncut men I have been with I find they smell of fish. This is even AFTER they have showered. I was with an uncut man for 5 years and he was INCREDIBLY well groomed and showered every day. but no mater what his dick always had a hint of that scent. that also played into how he tasted.

I have only met ONE uncut guy that I had no issues servicing.

so for me, enjoying a cut cock (mine included) comes from an overall better experience.

I also find that uncut men are harder to please as they become "overstimulated" and it becomes unpleasant for them.
>>
Posts about foreskin [or lack thereof] are fucking chernobyl nowadays. Damn!
>>
This was my first time jerking off to a guy and I do not fucking know how to feel about this
>>
>>1883228
Who is in the OP?
>>
>>1891182
Bruh go to pol lol.

Can one of the mods ban this dumbass
>>
>>1891320
>nowadays
it has always been so
>>
>>1891624
Not as intensely as the last couple weeks. Most people would stick to the kind they like more.
>>
>>1890786
How is circumcision not mutilation? What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to do to come to that conclusion.
Are you sure you know what the word mutilate means?
>>
File: IMG_20190620_222916__01.jpg (1.44 MB, 3869x2197)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB JPG
>>
>>1892165

>mutilate
>/ˈmjuːtJleJt/
>verb
>inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.
>synonyms: mangle, maim, disfigure, cut to pieces, cut up, hack up, butcher, dismember, tear limb from limb, tear apart, lacerate

That isn't what circumcision is, retard.
>>
>>1891215
Is not an Anti-Semitism to oppose to the circumcision.
>>
>>1883229
>/cut/ - circumcision appreciation Anonymous
>>1883228
Cut dicks are so fucking uglies berkkk.. dis scars. :( poor guys
and I am very hungry bottom.
>>
>>1892377
>verb
>disfiguring injury
>mangle
>disfigure
>lacerate

Pretty sure you just proved him right, retard.
>>
>>1892815
>Cut dicks are so fucking uglies

Get the fuck off this thread then. They're not "poor guys", and the scars can be hot. You know what's NEVER hot? Phimosis. Go back to your phimosis-appreciation "intact" thread, loser!

>>1892823
>Pretty sure you just proved him right, retard.

If those are the words you'd use to describe cut cocks, you're mentally ill. It isn't a "disfiguring injury" or anything of the sort. So I didn't prove him right at all.

Nice selectiveness there. What about these?

>hack up
>butcher
>dismember
>tear apart
>>
File: 8MuUdL2.jpg (1.71 MB, 1737x2316)
1.71 MB
1.71 MB JPG
>>1891215
>When you talk about "Zionists" the way you do, the subtext is clear.

Here you go with the victimization complex again. Stating the definition of Zionism is not anti-semitism.

>Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Criticise Netanyahu or any particular Israeli administration, sure... but the State of Israel itself? Opposing it's existence is anti-Semitic.

No religion has a right to its own theocratic state.

>Not according to the definitions I provided, which are official and proper definitions of the words in question.

Again, you had to ignore the next sentence. Hilarious. I'll repeat it:

>If circumcision isn't an amputation, why don't you just tell us what type of surgery it is, then?

Your definitions are meaningless if you can't actually explain what circumcision is if not an amputation.
>>
>>1893883
>No religion has a right to its own theocratic state.

Israel is a secular state, moron. Anyway, I don't want to be about Israel. This isn't even relevant.

>If circumcision isn't an amputation, why don't you just tell us what type of surgery it is, then?

It's a surgical procedure to remove the foreskin. I suppose one could crudely call it an amputation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have health benefits.
>>
>>1883240
Nice cock




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.