choppedwheatfields: Often in my posts I’ll use the phrase “he was allowed to keep”
choppedwheatfields: Often in my posts I’ll use the phrase “he was allowed to keep” in reference the remaining parts of a circumcised penis. Because there really is so much you can legally get away with cutting away… Above are two photos submitted by an American follower- 20, obviously male and obviously circumcised. He was cut at 3 against his will and always wanted to keep his full penis, with his head “soft and safe under my foreskin.” Instead he was left permanently exposed with a low cut, seemingly as a reminder that there was no compromise on the issue. He sent these photos with a story about how he finally confronted his single Mother on his anger over the issue. One of the more interesting things she apparently blurted out in frustration back was “It was my choice to make, not yours!!!” Maybe not morally- But culturally, and legally in America she is 100% right. It is the parents and the doctors choice what happens to a boy’s penis until he is 18. There is no inherent human right to his body. When this follower masturbates, the pleasure he feels from his frenulum was a pleasure he was given permission to feel. The lack of sensation from the lack of inner foreskin is pleasure he is never allowed to feel. Look at those photos in detail, examine every scar line, and tissue remnant. This is what he very literally was allowed to keep. Circumcision is an act of submission, and these lines are the unnatural boundaries of his sexual universe defined by his doctor without the owners desires in mind. Love the act of submission -- source link