My best friend just had to have his 4 year old circumcised too. Nasty. Just ****ing nasty.
Would have been just slightly better to have had it done after birth.
Actually, I've talked to several docs about it, and the general opinion was that most circumcisions "for infection" or some other problem were also, sadly, all about the convenience of the doctor or the parents. Like amputating the eyelid to cure conjuntivitis.
Another body of thought, however, suggests that the unprotected head of the circumcised penis loses sensitivity as a result of every-day abrasive contact. Thus, the circumcised penis has a higher stimulatory threshold?direct stimulation during sex causes a slower increase in pleasure 'allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions'.
We have a winner! The physiological changes to the circ member aren't a matter of opinion -- eventually, it becomes much less sensitive. Just makes sense.
I think German males are generally circumcised, right?
How do you come to this assumption? I cannot remember seeing a circumcized man. I'm uncircumcised myself. Until now, I didn't know that it is so widespread in the US. I was only aware of the religous reasons for a circumcision.
Regarding sex and the sensitivity: I think I'm 'insensitive enough' to satisfy my wife. 8)
We have a winner! The physiological changes to the circ member aren't a matter of opinion -- eventually, it becomes much less sensitive. Just makes sense.
Do I get a cookie?
One thing, though, a reduction in sensitivity doesn't mean a cap on the amount of stimulation one can receive. It just means that more stimulation will be required to produce a certain amount of pleasure. Surely that's just as obvious? I don't think men with a circumcised penis 'get off' on less pleasure. Why would that be?
So, I guess I still don't get why anyone would actually subject their kid to this other than because everybody else is doing it.
I'm circumcised and wish I wasn't. It's barbaric and stupid.
Quote:
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
One thing, though, a reduction in sensitivity doesn't mean a cap on the amount of stimulation one can receive. It just means that more stimulation will be required to produce a certain amount of pleasure. Surely that's just as obvious?
My understanding is that it is much more complex than that.
Here are some stories I just dug up (on an anti-circ site):
One thing, though, a reduction in sensitivity doesn't mean a cap on the amount of stimulation one can receive. It just means that more stimulation will be required to produce a certain amount of pleasure. Surely that's just as obvious? I don't think men with a circumcised penis 'get off' on less pleasure. Why would that be?
[Edit: Rephrase]
Ripping off a bundle of nerve endings DOES reduce the amount of stimulation one can receive. It is also not getting off on less pleasure but rather less pleasure from getting off.
Furthermore, the reason why uncut men can go longer is BECAUSE of the foreskin severely limiting the direct contact. All direct contact vs. very little direct contact is how you come up with the fact that cut men can't last as long. That's the point.
Those of us who were circumcised at birth have no way of knowing what we've lost. Usually, we feel that our sexual experience is fine. However, men who have been circumcised as adults are in a much better position to compare the intact and circumcised states, and many of them tell a disturbing story.
...
Those who were circumcised as infants cannot imagine what pleasurable sensations were destroyed at the onset."
...
It can be difficult for men circumcised at birth to accept that their sexual experience is only a fraction of what it could have been. The implications are very disturbing.
I am compelled by the arguments/explanations/accounts in this article giant. I wonder if I will wake up tomorrow and feel bad; if i will tell my brothers to go to that site?
I fee, however, l that can I salvage something for the circumcised man in the realm of pleasure. For one thing, if a non-circumcised man *can* feel more pleasure because his penis is more sensitive, then at least I will never consciously know of what I am missing out on. But more importantly, I think that physical stimulation is a lesser partner in the enjoyment of sex than mental stimulation. So I still believe that if someone excites my mind enough I can reach the zenith of pleasure. And I still contend that a lack of sensitivity encourages the seeking of greater stimulation.
While I hold my position (more sentimentally than before), I concede that my argument is blunted by the above personal confessions.
I fee, however, l that can I salvage something for the circumcised man in the realm of pleasure. For one thing, if a non-circumcised man *can* feel more pleasure because his penis is more sensitive, then at least I will never consciously know of what I am missing out on. But more importantly, I think that physical stimulation is a lesser partner in the enjoyment of sex than mental stimulation. So I still believe that if someone excites my mind enough I can reach the zenith of pleasure. And I still contend that a lack of sensitivity encourages the seeking of greater stimulation.
Yeah, I guess we'll never know what we're missing.
At least I have comfort in knowing that almost all american guys are like this, and we've created the greatest country in the world. Maybe all the skyscrapers, nuclear missles and money are our way of dealing with it.
What's there to like about it?... As soon as I found out that it wasn't natural... The fact that it's pointless, barbaric, detrimental and that I was permanently mutilated without my consent.
I understand 'without consent' (although do you look at other things about yourself that your parents are responsible for with the idea that you should have been given a choice about it?).
I understand 'pointless': medically, yes (assuming no complications); religiously, yes (assuming your parents were not religiously compelled); hygienically, yes (assuming you can wash yourself).
I understand 'detrimental' in terms of loss of sensitivity (though see my last post).
But
I don't understand 'mutilated' and 'barbaric' though I think they are related to 'unnatural'. You might not be able to explain the idea of a lack of foreskin being unnatural to me. Tanning is natural to me, but porcelain crowns are not. Yet I would never go into a tanning shop, while I have two crowns. I spose it's a personal thing.
I understand 'without consent' (although do you look at other things about yourself that your parents are responsible for with the idea that you should have been given a choice about it?).
The decisions my parents made certainly affected me, but none of them, other than initially creating and giving birth to me, permanently affected me physically, and none, in my opinion, caused irreversable lasting effects.
Imagine if the custom was to remove all of our taste buds for no really compelling reason. To me, I don't see it on the same level as making me go to a certain day care or preschool.
Quote:
I don't understand 'mutilated' and 'barbaric' though I think they are related to 'unnatural'. You might not be able to explain the idea of a lack of foreskin being unnatural to me. Tanning is natural to me, but porcelain crowns are not. Yet I would never go into a tanning shop, while I have two crowns. I spose it's a personal thing.
The difference to me is that a crown is clearly and directly beneficial, whereas circumcision is extremely elective.
My experience is that here in the west (at least the US) we see female circumcision as barbaric mutilation, and, I believe, rightfully so. Why not so with male circumcision?
Gosh, I feel like trumpt preaching the plight of the deprived american male. *shudder*
I'm not circumcised, and not many people are in Australia. Being an extremely secular culture, and certainly in the 1800s a backwards one without much medical infrastructure, we simply don't have the cultural inertia that promotes circumcision.
I know of one person who is circumcised, although I'm sure I know other people who are and just don't tell, and that was for medical reasons.
Another body of thought, however, suggests that the unprotected head of the circumcised penis loses sensitivity as a result of every-day abrasive contact. Thus, the circumcised penis has a higher stimulatory threshold?direct stimulation during sex causes a slower increase in pleasure 'allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions'.
(I do get the slight feeling that we are shouting across the Atlantic [Edit: or from Earth to Mars]: "Mines bigger than yours!" )
Theory does not argue well against first hand experience . . .
Uncircumcised is so sensitive that it feels exposed when exposed . . . it would not feel good to be in rough pants . . . it feels ecverything very well
theory from those (certain quoted doctors) trying to justify a whacko and antiquated religious practice with no, or very little and dubious at that, medical benefits.
Comments
Originally posted by murbot
My best friend just had to have his 4 year old circumcised too. Nasty. Just ****ing nasty.
Would have been just slightly better to have had it done after birth.
Actually, I've talked to several docs about it, and the general opinion was that most circumcisions "for infection" or some other problem were also, sadly, all about the convenience of the doctor or the parents. Like amputating the eyelid to cure conjuntivitis.
Circumcision is fvcking barbaric. Well said.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Another body of thought, however, suggests that the unprotected head of the circumcised penis loses sensitivity as a result of every-day abrasive contact. Thus, the circumcised penis has a higher stimulatory threshold?direct stimulation during sex causes a slower increase in pleasure 'allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions'.
We have a winner! The physiological changes to the circ member aren't a matter of opinion -- eventually, it becomes much less sensitive. Just makes sense.
Originally posted by Carol A
I think German males are generally circumcised, right?
How do you come to this assumption? I cannot remember seeing a circumcized man. I'm uncircumcised myself. Until now, I didn't know that it is so widespread in the US. I was only aware of the religous reasons for a circumcision.
Regarding sex and the sensitivity: I think I'm 'insensitive enough' to satisfy my wife. 8)
Originally posted by finboy
We have a winner! The physiological changes to the circ member aren't a matter of opinion -- eventually, it becomes much less sensitive. Just makes sense.
Do I get a cookie?
One thing, though, a reduction in sensitivity doesn't mean a cap on the amount of stimulation one can receive. It just means that more stimulation will be required to produce a certain amount of pleasure. Surely that's just as obvious? I don't think men with a circumcised penis 'get off' on less pleasure. Why would that be?
[Edit: Rephrase]
I'm circumcised and wish I wasn't. It's barbaric and stupid.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
One thing, though, a reduction in sensitivity doesn't mean a cap on the amount of stimulation one can receive. It just means that more stimulation will be required to produce a certain amount of pleasure. Surely that's just as obvious?
My understanding is that it is much more complex than that.
Here are some stories I just dug up (on an anti-circ site):
http://www.circ-info.org/sensitivity.htm
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Do I get a cookie?
One thing, though, a reduction in sensitivity doesn't mean a cap on the amount of stimulation one can receive. It just means that more stimulation will be required to produce a certain amount of pleasure. Surely that's just as obvious? I don't think men with a circumcised penis 'get off' on less pleasure. Why would that be?
[Edit: Rephrase]
Ripping off a bundle of nerve endings DOES reduce the amount of stimulation one can receive. It is also not getting off on less pleasure but rather less pleasure from getting off.
Furthermore, the reason why uncut men can go longer is BECAUSE of the foreskin severely limiting the direct contact. All direct contact vs. very little direct contact is how you come up with the fact that cut men can't last as long. That's the point.
Originally posted by giant
[B]I'm circumcised and wish I wasn't./B]
I am accessing your link at the moment. But I would like first to ask you some Qs:
1) What do you dislike most about being circumcised?
(the idea, the pain?do you remember/have dreams/have pictures/are told by a relative, social stigma, looks, loss of sensitivity etc)
2) When did you become aware of you desire not to be circumcised?
(adulthood, childhood, or was it a growing awareness)
3) What do you think influences you in your desire not to be circumcised?
(medical/religious/purely personal/partner opinion)
... I mean, if you want to answer them
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
1) What do you dislike most about being circumcised?
What's there to like about it? I was mutilated for no logical reason. What if your parent chopped off one of your pinkies for no reason?
2) When did you become aware of you desire not to be circumcised?
As soon as I found out that it wasn't natural.
3) What do you think influences you in your desire not to be circumcised?
The fact that it's pointless, barbaric, detrimental and that I was permanently mutilated without my consent.
Those of us who were circumcised at birth have no way of knowing what we've lost. Usually, we feel that our sexual experience is fine. However, men who have been circumcised as adults are in a much better position to compare the intact and circumcised states, and many of them tell a disturbing story.
...
Those who were circumcised as infants cannot imagine what pleasurable sensations were destroyed at the onset."
...
It can be difficult for men circumcised at birth to accept that their sexual experience is only a fraction of what it could have been. The implications are very disturbing.
I am compelled by the arguments/explanations/accounts in this article giant. I wonder if I will wake up tomorrow and feel bad; if i will tell my brothers to go to that site?
I fee, however, l that can I salvage something for the circumcised man in the realm of pleasure. For one thing, if a non-circumcised man *can* feel more pleasure because his penis is more sensitive, then at least I will never consciously know of what I am missing out on. But more importantly, I think that physical stimulation is a lesser partner in the enjoyment of sex than mental stimulation. So I still believe that if someone excites my mind enough I can reach the zenith of pleasure. And I still contend that a lack of sensitivity encourages the seeking of greater stimulation.
While I hold my position (more sentimentally than before), I concede that my argument is blunted by the above personal confessions.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
I fee, however, l that can I salvage something for the circumcised man in the realm of pleasure. For one thing, if a non-circumcised man *can* feel more pleasure because his penis is more sensitive, then at least I will never consciously know of what I am missing out on. But more importantly, I think that physical stimulation is a lesser partner in the enjoyment of sex than mental stimulation. So I still believe that if someone excites my mind enough I can reach the zenith of pleasure. And I still contend that a lack of sensitivity encourages the seeking of greater stimulation.
Yeah, I guess we'll never know what we're missing.
At least I have comfort in knowing that almost all american guys are like this, and we've created the greatest country in the world. Maybe all the skyscrapers, nuclear missles and money are our way of dealing with it.
And, like alcimedes said, there's also the BJs.
Originally posted by giant
What's there to like about it?... As soon as I found out that it wasn't natural... The fact that it's pointless, barbaric, detrimental and that I was permanently mutilated without my consent.
I understand 'without consent' (although do you look at other things about yourself that your parents are responsible for with the idea that you should have been given a choice about it?).
I understand 'pointless': medically, yes (assuming no complications); religiously, yes (assuming your parents were not religiously compelled); hygienically, yes (assuming you can wash yourself).
I understand 'detrimental' in terms of loss of sensitivity (though see my last post).
But
I don't understand 'mutilated' and 'barbaric' though I think they are related to 'unnatural'. You might not be able to explain the idea of a lack of foreskin being unnatural to me. Tanning is natural to me, but porcelain crowns are not. Yet I would never go into a tanning shop, while I have two crowns. I spose it's a personal thing.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
I understand 'without consent' (although do you look at other things about yourself that your parents are responsible for with the idea that you should have been given a choice about it?).
The decisions my parents made certainly affected me, but none of them, other than initially creating and giving birth to me, permanently affected me physically, and none, in my opinion, caused irreversable lasting effects.
Imagine if the custom was to remove all of our taste buds for no really compelling reason. To me, I don't see it on the same level as making me go to a certain day care or preschool.
I don't understand 'mutilated' and 'barbaric' though I think they are related to 'unnatural'. You might not be able to explain the idea of a lack of foreskin being unnatural to me. Tanning is natural to me, but porcelain crowns are not. Yet I would never go into a tanning shop, while I have two crowns. I spose it's a personal thing.
The difference to me is that a crown is clearly and directly beneficial, whereas circumcision is extremely elective.
My experience is that here in the west (at least the US) we see female circumcision as barbaric mutilation, and, I believe, rightfully so. Why not so with male circumcision?
Gosh, I feel like trumpt preaching the plight of the deprived american male. *shudder*
Need to do this essay now though... (1AM!)
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
But I'm still complacently contented.
I'm with you. I haven't thought about it in years and probably won't think about it again until my first boy comes along.
Have a good night.
1. You can masturbate with out using lotion.
2. When having sex you can come fully out and in with less 'cock-bending'.
3. You'll appreciate it on those cold winter days.
Originally posted by 709
Smegma.
Soap + Water
I mean, y'know?
Aries 1B
I know of one person who is circumcised, although I'm sure I know other people who are and just don't tell, and that was for medical reasons.
Barto
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Another body of thought, however, suggests that the unprotected head of the circumcised penis loses sensitivity as a result of every-day abrasive contact. Thus, the circumcised penis has a higher stimulatory threshold?direct stimulation during sex causes a slower increase in pleasure 'allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions'.
(I do get the slight feeling that we are shouting across the Atlantic [Edit: or from Earth to Mars]: "Mines bigger than yours!"
Theory does not argue well against first hand experience . . .
Uncircumcised is so sensitive that it feels exposed when exposed . . . it would not feel good to be in rough pants . . . it feels ecverything very well
theory from those (certain quoted doctors) trying to justify a whacko and antiquated religious practice with no, or very little and dubious at that, medical benefits.