Circumcision-- What Is It... Really?

Circumcision is largely unnecessary - except for religious purposes.

Obviously, people can be taught to keep themselves clean on a variety of messy human areas.

As to being ‘scarred’ or ‘damaged’ or to ‘losing size’ (be it flaccid look or girth), well… that is going a bit far.

The idea that there was a secret society of doctors that wanted to cripple the sexuality of the American male. Well…hogwash.
It was a fad, formulated with good intentions, that has since been re-examined. Like many other medical ‘necessities’ throughout time.

Can we please keep things in proper perspective?

Being un-cut, I have an observation. I’m thinking about getting rid of some of the foreskin. Why you ask, during sex, I think it may cause less sensation to the partner because instead of the shaft moving in an out, you have an effect of the penis moving in and out of the foreskin. I believe this causes less friction.

Crashex, the same was discussed here by someone else, who claimed the opposite after restoring, that the skin does a “double-take” both ways, and that the “flap” feels good for both parties.

You can always test the theory by taping up your foreskin to the shaft and wear a rubber to keep it all in place, and see if that differs?

Surely, even the “restorers” are not truly uncut. I hold my foreskin back at times, and a different sensation is observed, more friction.

I understood your post that you meant less friction for her.

I am cut, and yes, having a skin over would probably give me less friction if it stayed in place. BUT I am quite convinced that if the skin was retracted 24/7 I’d loose sensitivity over time. So, more de facto friction but less observed sensation.

Experiment number two: tape your foreskin up and keep it that way for a month or two, until you notice your glans get all matted and dry. Then evaulate the sensation during sex. I’d do that before I actually had any skin cut off.

Both of my sons are uncut. I’ll let them make the decision.

One thing I think should be promoted among pediatricians, urologists, Rabbis and whoever does the cutting: leave as much frenulum as possible. I don’t see any reason to excise it along with the foreskin unless someone deliberately wants to make the sexual experience less pleasurable.

My dick is completely smooth where the frenulum once was. That’s still the most sensitive part of my penis, and I always wish I could somehow get those nerve endings back.

Good for you. One less thing to be accused of as a parent.

If you would like to double check my facts or investigate my ideas more thoroughly just click this link http://www.google.com and look up "history of circumcision", "foreskin restoration" or anything like that. I have a life, and there are automated search engines that can provide reams and reams of in-depth information and cross-referenced sources.

Yes, sir.

Anti-circumcisionists inevitably argue “mutilation” and sensitivity loss. These arguments are indeed a hard pill to swallow for those of us who are circumcized, do not feel in any way mutilated and enjoy exquisite sensation while having sex. In my own case, I feel quite sure that if I went from being circumcized to not, I’d become a premature ejaculator.

Most circumcized men don’t hate their parents for having made the decision for us at a very early age, nor do we hate the religion that might have promoted our being circumcized in the first place. [Now, were we slaves and had been held down and chopped, that would indeed make for a whole lot of justifiable anger.] For those who do feel somehow cheated, or did lose their frenulums or had them surgically alterered during their process, foreskin restoration makes a great deal of sense, at least to me.

I have been studying and sharing information in the field of ED for years. I am not an MD but I have discussed ED with a great many of them and with men who have it. Yours is the first argument I have ever encountered (aside from an obviously botched circumcision) that circumcision causes ED. No credible expert on ED lists circumcision among the many causes of it. I would appreciate your listing here some scientific studies which support that position.

Unfortunately, I do not understand why some men seem to get so worked up about this subject. The fact is, circumcision is mostly reversible. If you want to stay circumcised, stay circumcisied. If you want to get uncircumcised, the method for doing so is no more time consuming or complicated than a basic penis enlargement regimen. You can keep it or undo it, so what’s the big whoop?

I don’t know. What is the big whoop?

Isn’t this your thread?

I thought my response was measured.

You yourself attemted to make a “big whoop” out of circumcision by posting, intitially, incendiary jargon on the subject.

Please do not sidestep the big question: circumcision causes ED? You need to support that unusual position with some science.

I have found when discussing circumcision that even when I do provide sources and cross-references, those sources and cross-references are labeled biased or “anti-circumcision” propaganda, so again I have to urge anyone who would like to take the time to investigate this more thoroughly to look it up for themselves.

The topic of this thread was the genesis of circumcision and its history in the US and not one reply was to that effect. I thought it would be enlightening to understand the basis for its intergration in our culture at the turn of the century. If anyone would like to discuss that, I would be happy to do so. If anyone is interested in more information concerning the history and our cultural adoption of this practice, I will try in the next couple days to dig up some more info. It is really quite interesting, if one can step outside of one’s ingrained prejudices, to see how this practice originated here in the United States and became so widespread.

Understanding that it is reversible is a big step toward overcoming one’s bias about the subject. If it can be undone, there’s really no use in getting steamed about it. Won’t you join me in further friendly discussions of this subject?

I have to work today and won’t be able to reply to many of you until this evening, so bear with me. Tonight I will try to expand upon the historical information presented here about circumcision. Until then, I ask that you keep the replies to the subject of this thread and maybe even investigate this for yourself so that we can discuss it.

Kong

Bro do yourself a favor when you post a fact give a link and you will hear less crap, if you don’t post a link people will think your just blowing smoke. You can do it anyway you want with or without I’m just trying to save you some grief:)