/cuteboys/ - Boypussy

>>374493

Every country should have this shit outlawed, I don't want to pull a 'MUH CURRENT YEAR" but why the fuck is this shit still practise in this day and age outside of jewish and muslim shitholes?

>>374496

>In a statement [Rabbi Avi Feldman of the Chabad Jewish Center] said circumcision was a core Jewish practice that served as a bedrock of Jewish life.

D…did this man just admit that the only reason he became a rabbi was so he could cut babies' penises?

>>374530

>>374534

Bit of an understatement, really. When you read the Torah or the Bible (New Testament included) you get a really disturbing vibe that the authors held some kind of disgust for the body. A lot of feminists bitch about how God calls periods "unclean" but you can't go two chapters into Genesis without a supposedly benevolent deity of pure love ranting about how it wants everyone to cut their foreskin off, and it wasn't even that long ago that the terms "uncircumcised" and "wicked" were used interchangably. It's genuinely like reading the delusions of an asylum patient.

>>374530

It's just capitalism at work. It's a system that can commodify ANYTHING for its own sake, even the mutilation of baby's genitals and sale of their biological material.

>>374534

>G-d is a sadist

>Or maybe their G-d is actually a demon/satan

Old Testament God most certainly was a sadist. You'd think an omniscient, omnipotent Creator could find ways to save His chosen people that didn't involved BURNING AN ENTIRE FUCKING CIVILIZATION TO THE GROUND after first raping its people with a variety of plagues and murdering innocent children. He told Moses that He knew Pharaoh's heart would be hardened in advance; He knew all this shit was going to happen but did it anyway. I like to tell these people that their God is like a fucked-up child with a book of matches and no restraint for life, pitching a temper tantrum of fire and death because he didn't get his way.

As for the religious angle of circumcision, it's simply a matter of control. The Bible etc are just fairy tales used to control an ignorant population by telling them how to act and think, so they keep throwing money and power at the people in charge. And it's only very, VERY recently in the history of civilization that the State and Church haven't been the same thing. It's been known since antiquity that the best way to control male animals is to castrate them. Well, you can't do that to your citizens or you won't get any babies and you'll die out. This is the next best thing. One wonders how circumcised men managed to masturbate or have enjoyable sex before the invention of petroleum lubricants. Perhaps they simply didn't. Deprive a man of all earthly pleasures, and it's far easier to convince him of the existence of some supernatural pleasures after death. Then, he becomes putty in your hands for life: a tax slave, a soldier, a disposable commodity.

>>367010

>>367010

Every time I look up foreskin restoration tutorials I end up getting horny and usually nutting, then I don't care anymore, I've just sort have accepted it, it sucks, but spending literally hours a day for like 4 years just doesn't seem worth it, and it still won't even be the real thing. Eh, I really don't have much to show anyway. The real sad thing is when a nice big cock is ruined by circumcision, and that almost all the guys here are circumcised, and usually black or spic if they are uncut. About foregen, 2020 is probably an unrealistic prediction for when it will be ready, and it will most likely be way to expensive, and only available in certain big cities…

>>377289

Certain (((forces))) all but guarantee that it will not be available in the states.

I've been restoring for 2 years and it's been worth it to me. Prepared to go for the long haul. So what if it's not the real thing? Better than walking around with the mark of the zog.

>>374696

what the fuck is going on with that dudes fingernail jesus christ

>>374696

I'm cut, but my meatus opens normally, just tested. Is this the real life?

>>385270

I don't fucking know it's fucking pissing me off. I laughed so fucking hard at this.

You can have your highly increased risk of STDs including hiv and Smegma. Cut looks nicer too.

>>386203

Foreskins protect against infections just like any other part of the skin. They produce Langerhans cells fit for this purpose, which are white blood cells designed to protect mucous membranes like those found in the mouth and vagina and on the glans. The foreskin also remains sealed until about the age of 16 or 17, to further protect the glans from infections, and is easily cleaned with warm running water.

The cut made by a circumcision, on the other hand, is highly prone to infections, especially early in life and especially when put in a diaper, and this is a big deal because in infancy the immune system isn't fully developed yet and an infection caused by a circumcision wound can end up going all the way to the spinal cord, which will either kill or cripple the child even if it gets emergency treatment.

Even in adulthood circumcised men aren't at a significantly decreased risk of infections or STDs. Yes, there are some studies that say they are, but these studies are prone to measurement errors and often rife with problems in methodology, leading them to be refuted by further studies no more than five years later.

So you're wrong on all counts. Enjoy your sandpaper dick if you like it, but for fuck's sake don't force your children to live with one.

>>386203

Did you know that people are at higher risk for a lot of diseases, because of parts of their body that aren't necessary for survival? Why don't we cut MORE out of babies, then…? Take out their tonsils and their appendix and spleen. Or if you want an easy non-invasive procedure that doesn't require anesthesia, have I got a deal for you! One of the leading causes of death in men is testicular cancer, so you can instantly HALVE that chance by removing one testicle at birth. Men only need one to maintain normal hormonal rates and produce enough sperm for fertility.

Having only one ball looks nicer, too.

it's gone and it will never ever come back

get over it

>>367068

At the same time, it can help eventually protect and restore sensitivity to the glans. The head is a mucous membrane that, after circumcision, becomes keratinized by exposure.

That and honestly just stop circumcising your kids. Let this barbaric trade end with us. Let us plant saplings that will become trees we will never rest under. We have to be the better men, and kill the Jews.

>>386203

It's objectively, provably false that cut looks better. If it did (and women thought so) then tens of thousands of years of sexual selection in the human species would have reduced or even eliminated the foreskin. But it hasn't at all.

You can't argue against that.

I've been restoring, on and off, for about 6 years. I'm at about a CI-8 right now because of manual tugging.

the change in sensitivity and overall mental health has been pretty great. I went from barely having any feeling in my glans to being a very sensitive boy.

>>386336

>You can't argue against that.

Yes, you can. You don't seem to understand how evolution works. Genital mutilation isn't a genetically inheritable trait, if women preferred sleeping with cut guys, their babies would still be born with a foreskin just like their fathers were, obviously.

Sexual preferences like this are very subjective and are a pretty fragile argument both for and against genital mutilation. It's better to focus on the very real harm that it causes. If you make arguments that are based on values that more people share, then your arguments are going to be more convincing to more people.

>>388617

I didn't say anything about genetic heritability; I specifically said sexual selection.

And if you think that people value their children, you'd be mistaken. That's nothing but a political tagline (mostly for conservatives). The vast majority of parents treat their children as property with which they can do what they please. After all, the very act of creating them was one of complete and total selfishness on their part. Why should that change after they are born? If it wasn't for laws preventing it, all countries would have parents sending their children off to work in factories and sweatshops, in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

>>388677

>I didn't say anything about genetic heritability; I specifically said sexual selection.

Well, regardless, what looks better is not objective. If you try to argue against genital mutilation by saying it looks worse, your argument is refuted as soon as you run into someone who someone who thinks cut looks better.

And preferences, to some extent, have been behind the spread of genital mutilation, but that doesn't really spread past cultural boundaries. It generally seems weird and barbaric to people who haven't had baby mutilation normalized in their culture.

>And if you think that people value their children, you'd be mistaken.

I pity your bleak outlook on this stuff. Most of the parents that I know value their children very much. Maybe their beliefs differ from mine on what is actually best for their children, but most people have empathy for other human beings, psychopaths are a minority.

>>388679

>what looks better is not objective

You just didn't understand; I won't bother explaining it again.

>psychopaths are a minority

And yet tens of millions of baby boys are still mutilated every single day. Your optimism is unfounded.

>>388728

>You just didn't understand; I won't bother explaining it again.

You were making the argument that it's "objectively false" that cut looks better. I'm not sure what you think I don't understand. You don't seem to get the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Preferences are contingent upon a mind, and thus are completely subjective, by definition. Arguments from personal preference are really, really weak to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

>And yet tens of millions of baby boys are still mutilated every single day.

Well, nowhere near that number of people are born each day, the population isn't growing by a billion people every 100 days, but that's beside the point. Most people here in the US have been lead to believe that male genital mutilation is beneficial, or at the very least inconsequential. It has nothing to do with psychopathy, these people are mutilating their children with generally good intentions. It's fucked up, and doesn't negate the harm that's being done, but it's important to understand where people are coming from. Our best bet at stopping genital mutilation is convincing people of the harm that it does, most people are not going to have this done to their kids if they actually understood how much they were harming their kids.

>>388790

>Preferences are contingent upon a mind

Yes, and the preferences of the human mind can be objectively determined by evidence of evolutionary preference. It's completely objective that the smell of shit is repulsive, because that has evolved into the minds of humans; this is not belied by the few people who happen to like it for fetish reasons.

As for the rest, you have me wondering if it's possible to be a psychopath through stubborn ignorance. Most men would rather mutilate their sons than face the reality that they have an inferior and permanently damaged penis.

>>388918

>It's completely objective that the smell of shit is repulsive, because that has evolved into the minds of humans

Yeah, it's true that we evolved an aversion to the smell of shit. That doesn't mean the smell of shit is objectively repulsive. Sensation is inherently subjective, even though it emerges from objective phenomena. I know this is just semantics, but the point I want to get across is just that objectivity isn't necessary to give an argument validity here, this discussion is within the realm of subjectivity.

>As for the rest, you have me wondering if it's possible to be a psychopath through stubborn ignorance.

Well, psychopathy, or antisocial behavior, is characterized by a lack of empathy. That label doesn't really apply here.

>Most men would rather mutilate their sons than face the reality that they have an inferior and permanently damaged penis.

Yeah, this is commonly referred to as mental gymnastics. People in that position "have" to get their son mutilated, because to not do so would be to acknowledge that maybe there's something wrong/unnecessary about it. Mutilating their son reinforces the idea that everything's fine with it.

It's pretty fucked up, we're up against a lot of people who are emotionally invested in avoiding the truth of their situation, which makes rational debate a lot more difficult.

>>389142

If you're going to pick nits this hard, then NOTHING IN THE WORLD CAN BE OBJECTIVE, because you'll always find someone who disagrees, even with actual facts. Color-blind people don't see the sky is blue. Plenty of people deny that the Earth is round(ish). Mentally disabled people don't understand basic precepts of logic. I'm sure there are plenty of people who tripped really hard on their drug of choice and then devised cockamamie laws of mathematics and physics, and honestly believed their own were true instead of the real ones, at least at the time.

It's well and truly objective that cutting off functioning and healthy tissue is harmful and idiotic, and yet it continues. Every single case where doctors thought a part of the body was useless or redundant, it's been proven otherwise. The tonsils, spleen, gallbladder, appendix, etc.: all have uses and shouldn't be removed for no reason. My talking about objectivity is largely irrelevant in this case, because humans AREN'T objective. It's been my constant observation that literally nobody ever changes their mind about anything after they reach the age of 14 or so, and that the only way to win any argument is simply to kill them. It's awfully hard for a corpse to deny that its objectively dead, after all. That's why wars of ideology tend to end with genocides. It might not be rational or sane, but it's the only thing that ever works. If we could, right now, instantly make every circumcised person in the world cease to exist, it would probably never happen again and we'd get rid of a few religions while we're at it. Is that crazy? You're damn right it is. But it's not possible that it will ever change, otherwise.

Nothing ever changes; it just moves around. People look at the rates of circumcision in the USA and see that it's dropping, and think that must mean that it is everywhere. Same with acceptance of homosexuality, less racism, more rights for women, higher rates of atheism, and other such things OBJECTIVELY better for humanity. But this is all wrong. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion; in Indonesia there's almost a quarter-billion of 'em and counting, and they circumcise like the Jews do. Vigilante violence against gays is increasing in the Middle East and Africa; while they celebrate the right to be married in Europe, laws in Russia and India are actually rolling BACKWARD. Meanwhile, our current President has torn open the infected, maggot-infested belly of America and shown it's still just as bigoted and hateful as it was in the 60's; seems racism took a world tour for a few decades and then ended up right back here. The experts say there is less war than there was in decades past; well, try telling that to the Palestinians and Syrians and Libyans, and any poor fuck that dares climb a fence into the USA; you think they give a flying fuck about the statistics?

No, there is no managing this through TALKING about it. This or any other issue. You can't debate or rationalize or reason with a retarded screaming toddler, and every single human being is a retarded screaming toddler. If you don't like what they do, prevent them from doing it, through law or probably through force because they don't listen to law very often, either. And why should they? The laws are made by people probably stupider (and certainly much more corrupt) than they are, and they know it. We all know it. Anyone who didn't know it damn well NOW knows it.

Every single problem in the world is because of humans being idiots. There's enough food, energy, and love for everyone and a couple billion more, but for the few hoarding it from the many. All unsolvable for eternity, because the issue isn't in the system; the issue IS the system. The only person ever did what he goddamn well was told was because he had a boot on his neck. All others resist. A computer program that thinks it needs to purge itself of malware, not knowing that it IS malware.

The only solution is deletion. Always has been, always will be.

>>386203

>Cut looks nicer too.

Oy Vey Dry mutilated cock looks so delicious

>>390227

Very nice anon. Thought I'd keep the thread bumped. Lot of useful information here.

I'll just wait until I can 3d print mine

>>367010

Strapped t-tape is the fastest way to restore, in case anyone's wondering. It forces you to be committed, but you can achieve 24/7 tugging with medical tape and GENTLE tension. Your skin will get super loose and taut from the constant tension, so it's important to exercise due diligence and not hurt your skin.

Simply from the fact that you can tug all the time uninterrupted makes this method the fastest and most efficient one. I've gained a lot of skin in a year even when I was inconsistent, but I have yet to see how much I'm going to gain from tugging all day with perfect efficiency. I'm hoping I'll get flaccid coverage quickly.

>>394340

Foregen is trying to do precisely that, actually. They plan to eventually 3D print scaffolds of foreskins, and use that to allow one's cells to grow into. Before that's possible, however, they have to instead de-celluarize donor foreskins since 3D printing cannot print at the resolution required to replicate a foreskin and it's delicate tissues yet.

>>367068

I don't mind being circumcised at all, but completely restoring sensitivity would be something that might get me interested if it were possible.

>>414125

I've heard from cut and restored guys that up to 70-95% of sensation recovery is possible, which is amazing. I think that's enough of a good reason to restore.

>>414139

That sounds great. I might have to look into this. It's too bad we're not at the point where we can create new, custom-made dicks in a lab from scratch.

>>414148

You definitely should, I think it's totally worth it. I'm currently doing it and it's had a positive impact on my sensitivity, and I'm not anywhere near done restoring yet.

Personally, if I could 3D print my own dick, I'd give myself a giant horsecock.

>>414256

>You definitely should, I think it's totally worth it. I'm currently doing it and it's had a positive impact on my sensitivity, and I'm not anywhere near done restoring yet.

I'm kind of having misgivings about the way it looks. I've seen some great uncut cocks and am against routine circumcision but can't quite warm up to the look. I suppose I could try doing it only partway.

The end of my shaft has ugly wrinkles and deep stretch marks now due to too many years of jacking off without lube, and maybe also doing Angion Method 1.0 (which I would definitely recommend if you're after increased erection quality and veininess; supposedly you can gain size with it too). I've noticed that it now seems there's some extra skin there, and I can pull it over part of my glans. Maybe this is the beginning of some new foreskin and I'm going to end up restoring some of it without even trying.

>Personally, if I could 3D print my own dick, I'd give myself a giant horsecock.

I've actually been looking into penis enlargement, and there are a lot of anecdotes about methods that seem to work. A lot of the techniques seem pretty dangerous, though (jelqing gave me hard flaccid and I plan on staying away from it), and 3D printing a big dick seems like it would be a lot less work.

I long for the day when we'll have the technology to alter our bodies like we're customizing characters in a video game. If it ever comes, that is. I don't seem something like the Singularity coming, for example. There's so much about my appearance I'd love to change.

>>414257

>I'm kind of having misgivings about the way it looks. I've seen some great uncut cocks and am against routine circumcision but can't quite warm up to the look. I suppose I could try doing it only partway.

For me it's not about the look, it's about functionality. I'm doing it because I want to gain back the function of having a foreskin that was lost to circumcision, however I do have aesthetics in mind somewhat and want to have the best looking result that makes me look intact. I actually like the look of foreskin though.

>I long for the day when we'll have the technology to alter our bodies like we're customizing characters in a video game. If it ever comes, that is. I don't seem something like the Singularity coming, for example. There's so much about my appearance I'd love to change.

That sounds like a very cool future and I'd love to be a part of it. We can only hope that it happens and we're alive when it does.

If we are lucky and there are advances in anti-aging and we're able to extend our lifespan long enough, we might get to be a part of that society. It's really unlikely, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

>>414259

>For me it's not about the look, it's about functionality. I'm doing it because I want to gain back the function of having a foreskin that was lost to circumcision, however I do have aesthetics in mind somewhat and want to have the best looking result that makes me look intact. I actually like the look of foreskin though.

That makes sense. I think I need to get used to the look more.

>If we are lucky and there are advances in anti-aging and we're able to extend our lifespan long enough, we might get to be a part of that society. It's really unlikely, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

There's this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/biological-clock-ageing-turn-back-reverse-study-new-a9094261.html

But I know how often journalists have a superficial grasp of the facts and love to give people false hope though. This study didn't even have a control group.

They were able to successfully reverse aging in mice, but there are hurdles to overcome in trying to get it approved for humans:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aging-is-reversible-at-least-in-human-cells-and-live-mice/

>>414262

>I think I need to get used to the look more.

It's how it's supposed to look, and it's normal for it to look that way where you live because the circumcision rate is far lower than here in America. If anything, I will probably have the most reactions since almost nobody has seen a foreskin here, but I'm beyond the point of caring because I care more about my sexuality than people's opinions.

>They were able to successfully reverse aging in mice, but there are hurdles to overcome in trying to get it approved for humans:

This is actually a huge step in the right direction for biological immortality, because they've now figured out what is causes aging. It's not DNA changes, it's epigenetical/metabolic changes that drive aging. If we're able to switch off the genes that causes aging, then a reversal of biological aging takes place as the body repairs itself naturally.

I think biological mortality may be a thing that developed in multicellular organisms as a consequence of the increasing metabolic demands as one grew larger and larger. There are lower organisms that are capable of biological immortality under ideal conditions, and one thing they are very good at doing is regenerating damaged tissue. Crustaceans are also technically immortal, but instead of experiencing cell senescence they just keep on growing and getting bigger until they are no longer able to molt and die as a result.

This is just an educated guess of mine, but I think the only reason immortality is not possible is because at one point being capable of fully regenerating damaged tissue took way too much energy, and organisms that instead healed less efficiently but stored more energy were more capable of growing to much greater sizes. Those organisms that grew way bigger quickly gained dominion over the much smaller and less metabolically efficient creatures, even though the price of gaining such an advantage was losing immortality. That very early event that took place in history is the reason why biological immortality is so rare, because losing immortality was a necessary evil at the time for further development and growth to take place.

So, methinks that aging in humans is just a byproduct of the regenerative capacity of the body lessening. And turning that capability back on by turning off a very ancient mechanism happening in our bodies and restoring our ability to regenerate as if we were in the womb would be the key to obtain immortality. I believe it's possible, because from a study I cannot recall, they have a petri dish of human cells that are still alive even 30 years later, still alive to this day. That means, favorable conditions should enable biological immortality.

>>414269

I heard the earth atmosphere was much thicker than it was now and thus all life forms were gigantic.

>>414288

The levels of oxygen were much higher than they were today, so yes. I know that insects used to be much more massive than they are today, and that's because their method of respiration was limited by the level of available oxygen and the lowering of oxygen caused insects to shrink. Only life forms with more efficient respiration systems were able to continue to grow to large sizes.

>>414269

>It's how it's supposed to look, and it's normal for it to look that way where you live because the circumcision rate is far lower than here in America.

I'm in the U.S. and just using a proxy. I don't remember ever even seeing an uncircumcised schlong IRL.

>If anything, I will probably have the most reactions since almost nobody has seen a foreskin here, but I'm beyond the point of caring because I care more about my sexuality than people's opinions.

Yeah, that's a good way to see it.

My biggest concern about the whole biological immortality thing is that the ruling class will only limit it to select people to limit population growth. If they made it available to people undergoing vasectomies or tubal ligation I'd probably do it, since I wouldn't be a good dad anyway.

The whole idea of reversing aging really excites me though. If it happens, there's a good chance a lot of us will live to see other mind-blowing technological advances. Although given the direction society is heading, I'm not too sanguine about the level of control governments and corporations are going to have over us.

>>414295

>My biggest concern about the whole biological immortality thing is that the ruling class will only limit it to select people to limit population growth. If they made it available to people undergoing vasectomies or tubal ligation I'd probably do it, since I wouldn't be a good dad anyway.

It wouldn't really make much economic sense for them to stop people from having immortality. For one thing, having young and healthy people capable of working greatly increases the labor force, and it would allow for greater productivity. Also, eliminating aging and the associated diseases that come with it would massively cut down on the amount of money that's going towards healthcare. Though, it may be "limited" to the ruling class in a sense that the treatment is expensive at first, but with time it should become more affordable.

Getting a vasectomy would be the easiest decision for me though, because I don't want to have kids.

>>414295

>>414298

I'm all for human neutering because the way people treat their kids disgusts me.

Children are people not alter egos.

I mean seriously, how hard is it to teach kids life skills?

Whats so hard about allowing kids to have cynical leery worldviews?

Adults nowadays are becoming more petulant about everything and it reflects strongly on the way they treat children. I cannot respect the smothering idealism and inspiration on children and treating teens like toddlers.