KaitoTheFoxChild said:
No foreskin...? ...americans SMH

now whats wrong with a nice, circumcised dick?

KaitoTheFoxChild said:
I don't know, the same thing wrong seeing someone physically abuse a puppy? or a child with a black eye beat by their parents. or a picture of a plantation being worked by slaves, all of which I would find questionable if I found them erotic or nice.

Why would you find a circumcised penis nice? Unless you for some odd reason elected it as an adult, it was a forced surgery on a child which many places are trying to make illegal like we made beating children illegal...should we get off to that?

My comment was a sarcasm by the way, there's no indication the character is circumcised, he could be fully retracted being erect, if there was scar tissue you'd have an argument but there isn't. I was merely joking towards it being produced by Chunie the god of drawing penis with perfect anatomy. Minus the one time he fails to draw a proper foreskin.

Funny, there was another guy complaining about circumcision back then.

KaitoTheFoxChild said:
I don't know, the same thing wrong seeing someone physically abuse a puppy? or a child with a black eye beat by their parents. or a picture of a plantation being worked by slaves, all of which I would find questionable if I found them erotic or nice.

Why would you find a circumcised penis nice? Unless you for some odd reason elected it as an adult, it was a forced surgery on a child which many places are trying to make illegal like we made beating children illegal...should we get off to that?

My comment was a sarcasm by the way, there's no indication the character is circumcised, he could be fully retracted being erect, if there was scar tissue you'd have an argument but there isn't. I was merely joking towards it being produced by Chunie the god of drawing penis with perfect anatomy. Minus the one time he fails to draw a proper foreskin.

Well yes it's true that it's a tragedy that so many are put through this procedure without consent, and uncut dicks are technically the "correct" anatomy, but claiming that cut dicks can't be nice, or worthy of attention, or depicted beautifully in art makes you a HUGE elitist asshole. Cut dudes 99 times out of 100 are that way beyond their control, and just because they're injured, missing something, or scarred does not mean their cocks are less worthy of love. A cut penis is just part of someone's story, and the guy it's attached to has no less potential to be beautiful.

P-Duck said:
Well yes it's true that it's a tragedy that so many are put through this procedure without consent, and uncut dicks are technically the "correct" anatomy, but claiming that cut dicks can't be nice, or worthy of attention, or depicted beautifully in art makes you a HUGE elitist asshole. Cut dudes 99 times out of 100 are that way beyond their control, and just because they're injured, missing something, or scarred does not mean their cocks are less worthy of love. A cut penis is just part of someone's story, and the guy it's attached to has no less potential to be beautiful.

While I am against circumcision without the guys approval, I do agree with this statement, as someone whom got circ'd as an infant and has been restoring

Yes, I get it. Circumcision is an issue. It's something that objectively should not be done and it's something that kills more people than SIDS in the US. That's fine to draw attention to.

But damn, you couldn't have picked a worse place to do so if you tried. Furry art is a purposeful deviation from normalcy. Fetish art as a whole is, as well. There's images on this site the contents of which you'd never wish on any real human being. That doesn't mean it has no right to exist.

How about you help make a change out in the real world instead of wasting your and everyone else's time here?

CerberusLongTail said:
[...]

This is late, and I'm not not exactly sure what a crossed out name means (are they banned?), so I don't know if any of the above people are going to see this, but I still want to address something in case they do, or in case any future onlookers see:

Depicting cut peens is not ANYTHING like depicting domestic violence or animal abuse. In portraying them in art, what an artist is doing (and this is a VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION), is portraying the SURVIVIAL of the trauma, not glorifying the tragedy itself. They're not showing actual peens going under the knife and saying "this is good" (I mean, some artists do, but that's a different story). Showing dudes confident and sexy despite what happened to their bodies is showing a character who has overcome trauma, whether it's a main theme of the piece, or just a peripheral decision by the artist.

I'm gonna give another example, and it's a huge Game of Thrones spoiler, but it's the best example I can think of about depicting trauma survival in art (also, content warning: rape). Take Sansa Stark, and how she was held hostage, abused, and raped throughout the show. But her whole story is about using her strength to overcome it all and become an amazing and powerful leader. We're depicting trauma here, and portraying a character after trauma has happened. That does NOT mean we're saying "Hehe, Ramsey did nothing wrong." We're telling a story about trauma survival.

And if you think those kinds of stories and characters shouldn't be depicted in art, or that it shouldn't draw from both the ugly and the good of the world and of life, then you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of art.

P-Duck said:
Well yes it's true that it's a tragedy that so many are put through this procedure without consent, and uncut dicks are technically the "correct" anatomy, but claiming that cut dicks can't be nice, or worthy of attention, or depicted beautifully in art makes you a HUGE elitist asshole. Cut dudes 99 times out of 100 are that way beyond their control, and just because they're injured, missing something, or scarred does not mean their cocks are less worthy of love. A cut penis is just part of someone's story, and the guy it's attached to has no less potential to be beautiful.

P-Duck said:
This is late, and I'm not not exactly sure what a crossed out name means (are they banned?), so I don't know if any of the above people are going to see this, but I still want to address something in case they do, or in case any future onlookers see:

Depicting cut peens is not ANYTHING like depicting domestic violence or animal abuse. In portraying them in art, what an artist is doing (and this is a VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION), is portraying the SURVIVIAL of the trauma, not glorifying the tragedy itself. They're not showing actual peens going under the knife and saying "this is good" (I mean, some artists do, but that's a different story). Showing dudes confident and sexy despite what happened to their bodies is showing a character who has overcome trauma, whether it's a main theme of the piece, or just a peripheral decision by the artist.

I'm gonna give another example, and it's a huge Game of Thrones spoiler, but it's the best example I can think of about depicting trauma survival in art (also, content warning: rape). Take Sansa Stark, and how she was held hostage, abused, and raped throughout the show. But her whole story is about using her strength to overcome it all and become an amazing and powerful leader. We're depicting trauma here, and portraying a character after trauma has happened. That does NOT mean we're saying "Hehe, Ramsey did nothing wrong." We're telling a story about trauma survival.

And if you think those kinds of stories and characters shouldn't be depicted in art, or that it shouldn't draw from both the ugly and the good of the world and of life, then you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of art.

We need more people like you in this world <3

P-Duck said:
This is late, and I'm not not exactly sure what a crossed out name means (are they banned?)

Yup, they were banned. Most likely cause they spammed other pages about this same topic.

KaitoTheFoxChild said:
No foreskin...? ...americans SMH

First off, I don't like foreskin, but if that's your thing, ok, I'm not gonna shame you for it. Second of all, that's racist

SwitchBladeZ said:
First off, I don't like foreskin, but if that's your thing, ok, I'm not gonna shame you for it. Second of all, that's racist

You know you're replying to a banned user, right?

Kinda sad to see all the blatant and blind idiocy in the comments. Claiming that circumcision kills more people than SIDS and comparing circumision to animal abuse, child abuse, and slavery are some of the most retarded things I’ve ever heard. I could MAYBE see it being an issue if it’s done incorrectly. MAYBE. But other than that, just simply no. It’s genuinely sad to see that people view circumcision as some sort of crime against humanity and call it “gential mutilation” and “an issue”. If your dick still works, is healthy, and it can ejaculate, that’s all that logically matters. “Aesthetics” for your penis should ALWAYS be second nature. I’m pretty sure these people have actually succeeded in the sense that reading these comments are probably killing more brain cells than ones you would kill by huffing paint or sniffing permanent markers. There’s nothing wrong with circumcision. Especially at birth. And the argument of not having the consent of a LITERAL INFANT is such a non-argument that it’s actually laughable to bring that up. Infants can’t consent to jack-shit, nor can they make decisions on their own. This is why it’s up to the parents to take care of said infants and make decisions FOR them that THEY feel is correct and healthy for their child until the children are feasibly conscious and educated enough to make their own decisions. This is otherwise known as LITERALLY BEING A PARENT. And even then, toddlers, pre-teens, teenagers, and even some adults alike are brain-dead and unknowing of what willfull decisions that they choose to make could effect in their future life because they don’t have the proper education on the subject matter. Besides, not having foreskin is literally healthier than having it. And frankly; a shit-load of people, including myself, would rather have my dick looking like this than having it look like a wrinkled-up, hideous, elephant trunk/mole rat hybrid with a bunch of nasty-ass shit collecting in the foreskin that is literally universally called “dick cheese”. If you want to know what REAL genital mutilation is, go talk to a male who’s transitioning to a female. That’s REAL genital mutilation. I sincerely hope that the idiots in this comment section are a vocal minority and not the majority. Because, damn, we would be doomed as a species more than we already are if everyone thought like this.

cerberuslongtail said:
" Cut dudes 99 times out of 100 are that way beyond their control, and just because they're injured, missing something, or scarred does not mean their cocks are less worthy of love. A cut penis is just part of someone's story, and the guy it's attached to has no less potential to be beautiful."

Precisely why going out in fictional pornographic depictions, to depict them with circumcised penises is a portrayal, or attempted portrayal of normalizing the abusive practice. The fact that people pretend like there's no difference, or exaggerate (or to me, ignore) the appearance of a circumcised penis, is the type of pro-circumcision culture that allows the practice to continue to violate children. Because apparently being against it, and not finding mutilated penises appealing, makes me elitist having been a victim of the practice myself. I guess I don't share the delusional ignorance of over looking scar tissue, calloused glans, missing sexual organs, and destroyed frenulum. My bad.

And yeah it was against their control, which makes it a lot worse when guys choose to depict mutilated genitals on fictional characters involved in pornography...I just find it interesting how an artist would likely refuse to depict a circumcised female and freely elect (or even liberally depict) males circumcised. Cause that wouldn't be elitist to prefer females that haven't had their genitals abused, but I get called out for being an asshole for pointing out the intrinsic flaws with violation a newborns body and the resulting adult circumcised penis.

I don't share such disregard for violations of human rights. My bad. Sorry for being disappointed with the way we treat infants, and normalize the behavior as adults and hoping for a better tomorrow. Apparently that makes me elitist.

"njured, missing something, or scarred does not mean their cocks are less worthy of love" I never claimed it does. I pointed out a prevalent disregard for child welfare in the US, and the prolific depiction of mutilated genitals in pornography. Instead of saying "abused puppies need love" how about you not turn a blind eye to people abusing puppies so that there are less abused puppies.

" and the guy it's attached to has no less potential to be beautiful." no one claimed that.

Your comment is making you sound elitest in a way. This is coming from a male who was circumsized. It's usually done(usually,there are some cases when it's done to adults by choice,but that's painful) when a child is really young and the nerves are not fully formed in the area, meaning that little to no pain is felt if done early enough and/or properly. Beyond maybe the initial surgery,there are no detrimental side effects,if anything it's easier to clean and less likely to be infected. Not only,that circumcized men last longer during sex. More info: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/sex/a9233552/4-surprising-sex-benefits-of-having-a-circumcised-boyfriend/

I don't see any problem with it. I never dealt harmed in my life and it never bothered me in any way, psychologically or physically while growing up. You are just over reacting.

Edit:I just checked and realized it was a banned user, but I will keep this comment here for future viewers.

Shut up and start appreciating the art

kaitothefoxchild said:
No foreskin...? ...americans SMH

There is no circumcision scar so he isn't circumcised.