• thespcicifcocean@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    8 hours ago

    i’m cut and have no idea what this meme is about. growing up, i thought all dicks just looked like mine, i only found out about what a dick is supposed to look like the first time i watched porn…

    • Floodedwomb@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      9 hours ago

      As a gay man, and a slut, i think I have an opinion that matters here. I don’t believe that they can be compared directly. Some cut ones are cut way far back and seem to cause pain, while others are crazy long and look like a weird sea creature. I have never noticed a large difference in cleanliness or sensitivity. They do taste different.

  • tenchiken@anarchist.nexusEnglish
    64·
    19 hours ago

    Me, who has learned where the ladyparts lay, enjoys taking time to get to know them and typically doesn’t need mechanical assistance due to sufficient preamble.

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
    41·
    20 hours ago

    TBH no idea how the foreskin helps with jerking a fully erect penis. Do you pull it all the way up, somehow? Or do you just have that much smegma?

    • PhilMcGraw@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      11 hours ago

      It’s crazy how you poor mutilated people have no idea how it was designed to work.

      For one, I haven’t had smegma since my parents taught me to clean behind the foreskin (arguably later than they should have) when I was 7. You think we’re all just walking around with dirty penises?

      For two, the foreskin pulls back below the head, you can pull it down far enough that you look circumcised then you can pull it back over. Pull is a strong word it doesn’t take effort, but doing this is pleasurable to the point of ejaculating (i.e. that’s one way to masturbate as a person with a foreskin). No need for lube.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
        5·
        9 hours ago

        I’m uncircumcised. The foreskin is automatically pulled down/back when you’re fully erect (or at least mine is…), what mystifies me is how you’d pull it back up far enough that you can use it in place of lubrication for the glans. Is your foreskin just that long? Mine certainly isn’t.

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
          4·
          7 hours ago

          So I think there’s 2 parts to this, one is different people are different but the other is that when masterbating one might not be quite as erect as with a partner

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.comEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          It must depend on the person because so am I and I certainly don’t have enough slack to use it like that.

        • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orgEnglish
          3·
          14 hours ago

          Yeah, but it goes up further and with the head of the penis being the most sensitive area, having that foreskin is quite useful.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
        19·
        18 hours ago

        My foreskin doesn’t go all the way up when I have a full erection, and I don’t think that’s rare.

        Edit: Curious amount of downvotes. Are you grossed out by anatomical descriptions of healthy male genitals? If so, WTH are you doing in this thread? Do you not think that it’s rare? Then comment instead of downvoting, or at least in addition to it.

    • drath@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      17 hours ago

      Not sure I understand, but you grab below glans and force foreskin on and off the penis head repeatedly. Don’t have to pull it all the way to the tip, going halfway is enough. The foreskin skin is much smoother than hands, so barely any lube is required, just the natural skin oil is enough. I wouldn’t call it smegma as it usually refers to white substance full of dead skins and bacteria, but the underside of healthy clean penis foreskin is naturally a little wet.

  • TerranFenrir@lemmy.caEnglish
    31·
    20 hours ago

    I’d honestly love to see a world war between circumcised and uncircumcised folks. I wonder who would win.

    • Medic8teMe@lemmy.caEnglish
      16·
      10 hours ago

      Old enough to have no choice in the matter. We should be pissed at the church, backward medicine and our parents, not each other.

        • Medic8teMe@lemmy.caEnglish
          7·
          8 hours ago

          They did heavily in lots of countries including mine. For decades and decades and decades. It was framed in two ways. You could go to hell if you didn’t or you could get really sick and it could fall off. Wonderful direction from the church. In my specific case Catholic Church.

          • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
            1·
            8 hours ago

            That’s wild, I didn’t expect that even the catholic church gets in on this. Where I live, this would sound completely absurd to most christians.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneMEnglish
      56·
      20 hours ago

      Uncircumcised is the default and probably has a numerical advantage, but once you get circumcised, you can’t go back. The circumcised can always convert people, and there’s nothing the uncircumcised can do to stop their POWs from being forced to switched sides.

      However, what about everyone who doesn’t have a penis? Would their allegiance lie with the uncircumcised? Would people who’ve experienced genital mutilation join the circumcised? Who would formerly circumcised people who now don’t have penises join? Would bottom surgery make someone automatically join team circumcision?

      This whole thought experiment begs many questions.

      • SpoonyBard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        19 hours ago

        I think we would see an additional category. People that were circumcised against their will, wanting to go back to the side they may have loyalty for. Someone who was passionate that the uncircumcised side was the only side to be on, the righteous side, but was forced into circumcision.

        I think they try to sew back on the foreskin. The thought may begin with some being ashamed that they lost their foreskin and had to “replace it”, but it may quickly become a thing of “who is going to know?”.

        Problem is… someone would come up with a way to tell. And the “true foreskiners” do not accept the “sewed on foreskiners”. There is bigotry and divided among their side. Causing an inner struggle and broken down factions of the same side. Some “sewed on foreskiners” may feel that the “true foreskiners” aren’t the side they used to be and won’t accept them anyways, so they removed the replaced foreskin to either join the circumcised or possibly start their own, new side. “The circumcised reborners”

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
      4·
      12 hours ago

      Obviously the circumcised. They would easily convert the captures enemy soldiers to their side but the uncircumcised would not be able to do it.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
        7·
        17 hours ago

        Wasn’t the Iraq war mostly between muslim Iraqis, who are almost always circumcised, and US-americans, who are also usually circumcised?

        • dandelion (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          7 hours ago

          TIL Iraqis circumcise their boys!!

          I will go with my original thought then, the Crusades - I think European Christendom had not yet incorporated circumcision at the time, but the Muslim world was practicing circumcision, so that would be a war between the circumcised and the uncircumcised?