Nigel Campbell's picture

The Real Reason You're Circumcised

Who knew College Humor was educational??

The site provides us with a funny take on why men are still being circumcised in 2014. (It's just one take, Instincters! We make no judgments! Equal opportunity for every penis, guys!)

Check it out! 

Does this influence your opinion on circumcision, Instincters?


(H/T: The Gaily Grind)


Blah Blah Blah! All of you uncut fans are speaking without knowledge. I have experienced both cut and uncut. I was cut at 30 years old. I had sex with and without foreskin. Unless you have tried both, then your just assuming one is better. News Flash! Uncut is not. In fact circumcised sex is much better. Before I had to retract the skin now I'm ready to go. And really. Let's be honest. An uncut penis is ugly. Now I have a dick I'm proud to show at the gym or at a public urinal. It is simply beautiful. And if uncut is not ugly, why do most uncut men retract their skin at the gym? 

Whether its original purpose wasn't meant for what it is today, I will always prefer cut, there are too many benefits of having a cut dick. I was cut later in life at 19 and I notice 0 difference in sensation, I am now 27. It looks way better too from what I remember it and I have 0 problem getting off so stop saying it makes things numb, I had it done and have 0 problems.

Paul Douglas: What beats doing it as an adult OR to an infant is - not doing it. Like the other 2,000,000,000 intact males in the world, I'm very happy to still have all my body. I'd do violence to keep my foreskin, for the "symphony of sensation" it gives - not just "more" - that you can know nothing about. 
Where circumcision is not customary, and doctors know more about the foreskin than how to cut it off, the lifetime risk of ever needing to be circumcised is one in thousands. I had a papilloma in my earlobe in 1997 - so should my parents have had my earlobes cut off at birth? Train the caregivers of those elderly men better!

Reader: You pretty well undermine your own argument. Your analogies all fail to match infant circumcision in critical ways: They're either not permanent, or not done to children, or not done without consent. It's not just "sad" that parents choose to make a lifetime reduction to boys' genitals, it's a human rights violation, and logically, a crime. It's illegal to pierce a child's genitals, to tattoo a child (a Fresno man did time for that), to cut ANY part off a baby girl's genitals, to circumcise a domestic pet or a non-consenting man, so why is the infant male human foreskin alone fair game for parental whims? And every circumcised boy will grow up to be a man who didn't consent. Sons don't have to like what their fathers like. More and more men are coming out to say they hate that this was done to them, and well they might.

Am so grateful I was cut when I was an infant. No memory of it & sure beats doing it as an adult. As a health care professional for over 35 years, I can say that I have seen quite a few elderly uncut men who develop significant edema & concomitant problems with foreskin retraction, due to various medical disorders. It is also harder to keep clean. I  know uncut men claim they have more sensation than the rest of us, but I certainly don't think I'm missing anything.


a whole bunch of noise about nothing , it happens , get over it

It doesn't just happen. People choose to make it happen, there's no good reason they should and many good reasons (human rights, certain harms, possible risks) they should not. A man whose sexual function has been seriously impaired by his circumcision can never "get over it".

And you can't change -:)

Yes, avoid it - a real nice cock is not circumcised -:)

It suprises me to see that Americans have forgotten their own saying: IF IT AIN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT!!  

I agree Joseph, I think cut is 1000 times more visually appealing.  Yes you can wash the uncut but cut stays endlessly cleaner with so much less effort and the virus transmission issue is huge since so many people are still unsafe at times and even always unsafe in 3rd world countries. It's a personal choice, and it's sad that we don't make it ourselves *our parents do for us*, but this very preachy video is pretty slighted in it's approach.  Ears are naturally un-pierced, hair is naturally not dyed, skin isn't always naturally altered like being tanned, moisturized, or even being tattooed.  We aren't naturally born wearing clothes and food isn't growing on trees alredy cooked or seasoned.  Life evolves and we find ways to improve things, some may seem barbaric to other cultures and odd, but this particular one may be based off the reasoning of this video, as well as religions, but it's stuck around for a reason much more than "well his should look like mine".  Men that are cut like that they are and then prefer for their children to be as well.  If they were not they would choose not to, end of story, that's what makes this lame video that feels like an episode of "Good Eats" so bias.  

It's absolutely appalling to me that in 2014 only females are protected from forced, unnecessary genital cutting while males are practically demonized for daring to keep their whole bodies. 

IMO, His body, his choice, and nobody should be carving their preference into a baby. If adults want it for themselves, it's weird but it's their choice.

There should be a HBO (or Showtime) series on Kellogg, he was a sick f-ck if you read his bio. His cereals suck too! 

I'm proud and happy to be cut. Or, as I like to put it, I'm sculpted for greater beauty and enhanced pleasure.

I never quite got the American obsession with circumcision. Don't get me wrong, a really nice one is a really nice one, cut or not, but I'm personally very glad to be intact and I must say, probably because I grew up very close to one, I do generally prefer uncut. Plus I reckon if you don't really need to go under the knife, probably best to avoid it.

Add new comment