circumcision
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: circumcision
(02-09-2014 11:39 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  If you have no foreskin you can't masturbate by moving the skin over the glans so it destroys the function. I am not gay and don't engage in anal sex with men so, no, I can't say I have been f..ked up the ass if that is what you are asking but the mechanics of it are easy to understand if you think about it.

Maybe you are just "wet" enough that this issue does't arise but most guys, young males, who masturbate need to spit on their hands or use lubricant and it results in uncircucised males masturbating less often which would be "abnormal". Anyway, men who are uncircumcised have the option of "wearing" the foreskin off the glans so you would have difficulty telling that they were uncircumcized and when erect the skin pulls back exposing the glans fullly but the natural remaining skin moves more easily creating less friction which is a benefit for older women who aren't so "juicy".

So, leave your kid with something he has to lubricate until he finds a partner. Maybe that is good but maybe these kids wonder what it would be like to have the thing.

As for your not being able to imagine someone getting more pleasure from an extra, lets say 20 to 30 square inches of the most sensitive skin on the body, all I can is ....OH YEAH BABY!

I'm not sure the jerkin it less theory is correct. My record when I was a teen was 18 times in one day... And I still average 2-3 per day. Also, haven't needed lube (for me or for her)

So... There's that.

And its not even losing the skin that makes it less sensitive. The skin itself is no whereeven close to the sensitivity of the glans. Losing the skin exposes the glans to more frequent stimulation from pretty much everything, which is then adjusted for by the brain, by decreasing sensitivity.

Also, 20-30" ^2 of foreskin is a ridiculous estimate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
02-09-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: circumcision
(02-09-2014 12:13 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 11:50 AM)Smercury44 Wrote:  My comment on "have you been on both sides to compare" was wondering if you'd gone from uncircumcised to circumcised to be able to compare the difference in sensitivity. I'm really curious about that, and your earlier post seemed to indicate you had experience there.

Hold the phone, are you saying because circumcised males have to use some kind of lubricant, that they masturbates LESS frequently? I'm sorry, I don't believe that for a second Laugh out load


I suppose it is something women don't think about. If an uncircumcized male just holds his foreskin back and stops it moving then he gets the same sensation as a circumcized male with limited movement of the skin on the shaft. Men who are circumcised have to masturbate in a different way. That is a well known fact. Men with foreskins can move the glans within a protective foreskin and have an experience which is much the same as sex with a partner.

Also, a permanently exposed glans grows an extra layer of skin which is less sensitive.
http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/06/1...turbation/
Yes, men who are circumcized masturbate less than men who aren't because they have lost a whole range of sensations and movement of the organ within its covering. That is actually one of the supposed "benefits" of circumcision which led to its adoption throughout North America in the late 1800 by our puritanical forefathers and people like Kellogg. Do you really think that in those days they would do this if they thought single hard up men would actually get more enjoymeng by being circumcised? There's no shortage of information about this subject.

The article you provided has a lot of "people thought it would.." "Commented that it was likely to..." Reduce rate of masturbation etc. I understand that's how it started, I'm saying I don't believe it was effective.

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: circumcision
Gods I hate this topic.


Carry on

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
02-09-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: circumcision
(01-09-2014 02:36 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  They didn't cut anything though. They just put a little plastic ring around it and after a couple of days the foreskin falls off. Easy peasy. I don't think either of them even noticed.
My effing goodness, how is that not terrifying to you? To me, that makes me cringe. Like if somebody wanted to choke off my nipple or fingernail.

(02-09-2014 11:52 AM)Smercury44 Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 11:41 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  Male Genital Mutilation.

That's a really unfair comparison. Female genital mutilation can permanently remove any chance of sexual satisfaction - ever.

I want to point out again that I'm not pro circumcision, nor anti, just participating and learning.

I disagree and think it's a perfectly fair comparison. Yes the effects of FGM are more severe, but the action (of mutilating a baby's genitals for no good reason) itself is near equivalent.

Not necessarily a fact, but I have read that often a male's genital sensitivity will decrease greatly due to circumcision. Although that doesn't heavily weigh in on my opinion as just the act of snipping, or choking off part of a child's body for no real reason is enough to make me feel like it is just plain wrong. As an uncircumsized male, I can't even adequately express how terrible the act of cutting the foreskin off seems to me, especially without consent.

Doing it out of necessity for a specific medical reason is a different matter.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
02-09-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: circumcision
(02-09-2014 12:12 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  I'd be curious to hear from a guy who wasnt snipped that chose to as an adult that didnt have a medical reason for it to be honest.

I have a friend who got it done when he was 20. I don't know exactly why. I think it was either religious or cultural aesthetics thing, I didn't ask. He did say that for the first couple weeks he couldn't wear loose boxers cause the sensations from the fabric were physically painful. He also said that he had to completely change up his technique for jerkin. He wasn't obviously overjoyed or disappointed, but he did say its cool to look at. I just messaged him on Facebook for a 7 year update on how its affected his life and his partners... Hmmm, I probably should have spoken to him over the past 5 years, this might be weird.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
02-09-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: circumcision
(02-09-2014 12:30 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 12:12 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  I'd be curious to hear from a guy who wasnt snipped that chose to as an adult that didnt have a medical reason for it to be honest.

I have a friend who got it done when he was 20. I don't know exactly why. I think it was either religious or cultural aesthetics thing, I didn't ask. He did say that for the first couple weeks he couldn't wear loose boxers cause the sensations from the fabric were physically painful. He also said that he had to completely change up his technique for jerkin. He wasn't obviously overjoyed or disappointed, but he did say its cool to look at. I just messaged him on Facebook for a 7 year update on how its affected his life and his partners... Hmmm, I probably should have spoken to him over the past 5 years, this might be weird.

Dude! I know its been years! Whats up? Hows your penis! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hobbitgirl's post
02-09-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: circumcision
Laugh out load gotta love ya WATC, that won't be awkward Laugh out load

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Smercury44's post
02-09-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: circumcision
I really only got involved in this debate because I think the Jesus story of baptism and then him turning up on a horse is based on Izates Manu Monobasus being converted by a Nazarene.

As for the ridiculousness of my estimate of how much of one's penis is hacked off, it depends on how you measure it but if you have a circumference of 5 inches and the scar would be half way down a 6 inch shaft and allowing for both inner and outer skin over 2 inches or so of the glans, you do get something in that range, and even if you are talking about half that amount, then you are still talking about tens of thousands of nerve endings which were originally attached to some receptors in the brain.

This may seem crude but it is very easy to look at a baby and just say it is a small useless bit of skin and gee it looks nice with its little bit sticking out the end and he won't notice but in adulthood it translates/grows into something which actually has a function.

From the article I posted:

Robert Darby, writing in the Australian Medical Journal, noted that some 19th century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:

In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as “a source of serious mischief”, and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that “circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse”, and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised

When it was finally realized that masturbation did not cause illnesses, the foreskin got blamed for penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.

.
I believe that relating the non-religious history of circumcision is important in understanding why the procedure came to be."

I think that says it all. The only argument I can see for it is an aesthetic one (apart from medical conditions) and that is a matter of taste and a need for some to conform.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 05:30 PM by Chas.)
RE: circumcision
(02-09-2014 09:06 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  All the reading I'm doing is saying that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Not my opinion, just what I'm reading.

Then you have not looked at credible evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 05:26 PM
RE: circumcision
(02-09-2014 11:28 AM)Smercury44 Wrote:  Can't imagine much of one though.

You don't have one, so your opinion is of little import.

Quote:Have you been on both sides to compare?

You have been on neither side. So, there's that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: