@bearbearbear:

@gayaznboi22:

Though considering it is generally cosmetic, any side-effects that occur shouldn't be too terrible barring being operated on by a quack doctor.

Circumcision not only removes many square inches of some of the most sensitive skin on the body, it denudes the glans penis of protection so that sensation becomes dulled.  That is a pretty terrible side effect.

Improper circumcision is not infrequent.  Some males have lost the entire penis during electric cautery circumcision while many others have been died from severe herpes infection from oral suction during religious circumcision practiced by some Jewish sects.  Infections, bleeding, untreated pain are common.

Female circumcision is generally much worse but it's a matter of degree not kind and female circumcision is often illegal and considered barbaric while male circumcision is neither illegal nor considered barbaric.

You should do some research instead of making inaccurate statements.

I never once said improper circumcision was uncommon; I only said in the quote you quoted that side-effects shouldn't be too terrible.

"Oral suction during religious circumcision" constitutes rape if on a child.  Even if it is part of a religion and between consenting adults, I do not count that as a side-effect.  It is between consenting adults.  And culture or not, that is a very weird thing to do to a freshly circumcised person; not to mention the sucker has to be really irresponsible to not even consider being tested after a sexual encounter.  Not to mention the recipient would just trust the sucker and not question their sexual health.

Also, I'm only relating to children.  I don't count adults as they are old enough to know whether or not they want to have a hard time peeing or having an erection for a couple weeks.

Infections and bleeding and untreated pain are common; I never said they weren't side-effects.  On the grander scale of things, they aren't side effects one would not expect to happen since it is surgery.  All surgery comes with pain and possible infection.

Dulled sensation of a penis is nothing to me.  In fact, that is the most obvious of side-effects; it doesn't bear mentioning.  As long as I can still fuck someone and feel myself having an orgasm, it is a minor side-effect unless the person is a body purist.  I'm not shaming body purists; I just care whether or not my penis works just fine.

And having been swimming since I was 5, I've honestly seen my fair share of cut dicks in my life in the changing room.  And during my slut phase in college, I've also seen a crap ton of cut dicks.  Not once have I seen someone with a "lost penis" or suffering from extreme mutilation, so I'm willing to hedge my bets that would be considered a rather uncommon side effect and a result of working with a quack doctor.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen; the way you phrased that particular fact makes it sound like it is a common occurrence.

Female circumcision is considered barbaric and illegal because of deep-rooted sexism ideals.  In old cultures, a woman's job was to make a family and tend to the house.  Circumcision for them was deemed unnecessary and unusual.  The laws of the US do consider female circumcision illegal, but you have to wonder whether or not that decision is based on deep-seeded feelings of trying to control a woman's body.  I mean, people are fighting against abortion despite the fact the woman is of sound mind to make her own decisions about her own body.

And considering we live in a male-dominated society, it's no surprise male circumcision is legal.  With that mindset in our modern culture, why not give more power and choice to men, including whether or not to be circumcised/circumcise a male infant?  I'm not saying that ideal is right; I'm against a mainly male-centric society.  I'm merely giving potential reasons as to why female circumcision is an illegal offense whereas male circumcision is not.

I never made inaccurate statements; that would require me to make use of extremely definitive terms.  That seems to be where the bulk of your counter-argument stems from; from that particular emotion.  I only used general terms to describe opinions; I never claimed that circumcision is "definitely" low-risk or that the side-effects "are not" terrible.  Respectively, I said "generally low-risk" and "shouldn't be too terrible".  Both terms leave room for argument in moments when side-effects are worse than usual or if someone's experience with the procedure didn't go as planned.

Or at least someone who has made studio-quality porn?

I was fucked a couple times by a guy who's stage name was "Vixen" from latinboyz.  Was 19 then and amazed a porn actor actually lived so close to me.  At least with him, watching him perform was better than taking his dick.  Granted he bottomed in all the vids I saw of him; he was rougher than I liked and smoked too much weed.

Using an enema.  It could be a hand-held one or one that goes as a shower attachment; just make sure to give yourself about 30 or so minutes after the enema.  Sometimes, there may be some leftover water that needs some time to naturally pass.

Also, make sure you go a couple rounds.  It's done properly when the water runs clear.

I feel this is a problem more common than people realize or want to admit.  I myself have a hard time staying hard when I'm about to fuck someone; it's why I usually bottom.  I have no issues getting hard any other time; it's just when I'm about to enter an ass.

For me, I'm not even thinking about "I'm about to go in" or "Hope it goes well".  I just legit start softening until it's nothing.  And strangely enough, it's always when I use a condom that it goes down.  Kinda makes me feel like George from that one Seinfeld episode where he complains about losing an erection between the time of getting a condom and opening it.

But seriously, I have no mental qualms about wearing condoms.  It just seems to affect me as such when I try my hand at topping.  It's somewhat better when I bareback fuck someone, but I reserve that for only one person whom I trust but is a total top who miraculously lets me at him once in a blue moon.

That said, it's best to talk to your doctor to see if there's anything you can do to change it.

@BEAUJONES:

@gayaznboi22:

Which do you prefer?  I like bareback because of the thought that everything is skin-on-skin when I'm being fucked.  That there's no need to wonder if the condom broke or slipped off; it's just a means to continue a good fuck.

While I prefer bareback, I use condoms with one-night stands and guys I meet online.  The only exception is if the guy has a recent test of being clean that they can show; I guarantee very few guys are willing to show or have such evidence.  As of now, I only bareback with my fuck bud.

Drug addicts are dirty or clean. HIV+ people have a disease or virus, and you can ask their HIV status. I thought in 2020 everyone knew how rude and stigmatizing that language is to HIV+ people. Do you call your mom dirty when she has the flu?

True, but it also isn't smart to take people at only their word.  Those who really want ass will say what sounds good so as to make the other person agree to meet.  Got raped in college because of that; never trusted one-night stands at their word alone ever since.

To me, it's not being rude asking about one's status and for proof.  It's being as safe and prudent in an otherwise stupid situation; situation being going for a one-night stand in the first place.

"If LGBTQ+ characters were represented in the same proportion as in the general population, there wouldn't be very many."

I get that; I know that hetero-minded folks greatly outnumber LGBTQ folks.  I was merely saying having at least one character to represent the LGBTQ community would be fine.  Though if video or printed media did decide to make a LGBTQ character only story, it better have a damn good reason story-wise for that decision to be made.

And yes, games do tend to be quite liberal when hurling around insults.  Some of the big offenders tend to be the GTA series and video games that cater to online PVP capabilities where the players openly hurl those insults.  With that being prevalent, it makes it difficult for big game studios to comfortably include LGBTQ characters without some kind of backlash from the general public.  I suppose it falls under the same category as trying to introduce a female character with stereo-typically large boobs; most people are going to hate it unless they are fans of that particular art and character direction.

@sultrysam:

@gayaznboi22:

I get that people fantasize about doing it with people of particular ethnic group; same goes for the opposite in terms of exclusion.  I'm all for them removing it; it doesn't matter what race the guy is when you're merely looking to have some fun.  That and I've had my share of guys just plain ignore me the moment they realize I'm Asian.

Lol how does someone's race not matter if the only thing they're looking for is fun? That's literally part of the most important aspect of what does matter - appearance. It saves everyone's time by having the option to filter out races you're not attracted to.

True, but it creates the idea that one can safely gentrify a particular race.  For example, porn likes to make a show of black and latino guys having huge dicks; some studios even glorify them being super rough tops.  And then there's the mainstream culture of believing African-Americans are probably setting you up to be robbed or that some Latinos are really immigrants whom one doesn't want to associate with.

In that respect, how is the ethnicity filter function any different from blatant racism in some instances?  If anything, it may create a psychological connection in one's mind that gentrification is okay and thus make one practice it outside the boundaries of the Grindr app.  Considering the crazy things going on in the world and United States these days; that isn't too much of a stretch to believe.

@bearbearbear:

@gayaznboi22:

Though considering it is generally cosmetic, any side-effects that occur shouldn't be too terrible barring being operated on by a quack doctor.

Circumcision not only removes many square inches of some of the most sensitive skin on the body, it denudes the glans penis of protection so that sensation becomes dulled.  That is a pretty terrible side effect.

Improper circumcision is not infrequent.  Some males have lost the entire penis during electric cautery circumcision while many others have been died from severe herpes infection from oral suction during religious circumcision practiced by some Jewish sects.  Infections, bleeding, untreated pain are common.

Female circumcision is generally much worse but it's a matter of degree not kind and female circumcision is often illegal and considered barbaric while male circumcision is neither illegal nor considered barbaric.

You should do some research instead of making inaccurate statements.

I never once said improper circumcision was uncommon; I only said in the quote you quoted that side-effects shouldn't be too terrible.

"Oral suction during religious circumcision" constitutes rape if on a child.  Even if it is part of a religion and between consenting adults, I do not count that as a side-effect.  It is between consenting adults.  And culture or not, that is a very weird thing to do to a freshly circumcised person; not to mention the sucker has to be really irresponsible to not even consider being tested after a sexual encounter.  Not to mention the recipient would just trust the sucker and not question their sexual health.

Also, I'm only relating to children.  I don't count adults as they are old enough to know whether or not they want to have a hard time peeing or having an erection for a couple weeks.

Infections and bleeding and untreated pain are common; I never said they weren't side-effects.  On the grander scale of things, they aren't side effects one would not expect to happen since it is surgery.  All surgery comes with pain and possible infection.

Dulled sensation of a penis is nothing to me.  In fact, that is the most obvious of side-effects; it doesn't bear mentioning.  As long as I can still fuck someone and feel myself having an orgasm, it is a minor side-effect unless the person is a body purist.  I'm not shaming body purists; I just care whether or not my penis works just fine.

And having been swimming since I was 5, I've honestly seen my fair share of cut dicks in my life in the changing room.  And during my slut phase in college, I've also seen a crap ton of cut dicks.  Not once have I seen someone with a "lost penis" or suffering from extreme mutilation, so I'm willing to hedge my bets that would be considered a rather uncommon side effect and a result of working with a quack doctor.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen; the way you phrased that particular fact makes it sound like it is a common occurrence.

Female circumcision is considered barbaric and illegal because of deep-rooted sexism ideals.  In old cultures, a woman's job was to make a family and tend to the house.  Circumcision for them was deemed unnecessary and unusual.  The laws of the US do consider female circumcision illegal, but you have to wonder whether or not that decision is based on deep-seeded feelings of trying to control a woman's body.  I mean, people are fighting against abortion despite the fact the woman is of sound mind to make her own decisions about her own body.

And considering we live in a male-dominated society, it's no surprise male circumcision is legal.  With that mindset in our modern culture, why not give more power and choice to men, including whether or not to be circumcised/circumcise a male infant?  I'm not saying that ideal is right; I'm against a mainly male-centric society.  I'm merely giving potential reasons as to why female circumcision is an illegal offense whereas male circumcision is not.

I never made inaccurate statements; that would require me to make use of extremely definitive terms.  That seems to be where the bulk of your counter-argument stems from; from that particular emotion.  I only used general terms to describe opinions; I never claimed that circumcision is "definitely" low-risk or that the side-effects "are not" terrible.  Respectively, I said "generally low-risk" and "shouldn't be too terrible".  Both terms leave room for argument in moments when side-effects are worse than usual or if someone's experience with the procedure didn't go as planned.

Over the years, the video game community has been warming up to the idea of creating games that have female leads and female characters playing strong roles as opposed to just being "damsels in distress".  However, I've noticed that the LGBTQ community - unless I've been living under the heaviest rock known in existence - hasn't been as prolific.  Of course, I'm not saying that a game solely for LGBTQ characters should be created; just that a couple characters should exist so as to not make the video game world as a hetero-only world.  The Fire Emblem series has done some to introduce LGBTQ characters; even if it really is just one character within an entire game.

Question to you all, how do you feel about the general lack of LGBTQ characters in video games made by big name studios?

Well, that's definitely a man who can't hold a good job outside the sex industry.  I mean, multiple arrests for varying felonies?  He probably spent more time in jail than being a productive citizen.

But seriously, it makes me wonder just how closely the porn industry vet their actors before hiring them?  I mean, I get it's just a sexual performance at the end of the day.  Still, it is legally a job, and I'd imagine the employers would prefer to hire those who have not shown a propensity for violence and breaking the law.  And of course, I'm not counting his OnlyFans account since that's pretty much a self-run business.

I get that people fantasize about doing it with people of particular ethnic group; same goes for the opposite in terms of exclusion.  I'm all for them removing it; it doesn't matter what race the guy is when you're merely looking to have some fun.  That and I've had my share of guys just plain ignore me the moment they realize I'm Asian.

Having children for the sake of feeling fulfilled is a bad idea.  Let's say you have a child and the only feeling you have is fulfilled?  What happens when that fulfillment disappears?  Is the love for both your partner and child still there?  It most likely isn't, and it opens the door of wandering to other sexual partners or even being an absentee parent.  It happens a lot in this world unfortunately; having kids because of love and caring is the way to go.