# Sex with circumcised vs uncircumsised men?



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Women what were your experiences like with either?

If you reached orgasm through vaginal intercourse was it with a circ or uncirc guy?


----------



## OkWhat (Feb 28, 2014)

Woman can't orgasm through vaginal intercourse, that is just a myth. Right Ladies? Ladies? Oh god....:crying:


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

I have heard women can orgasm through vaginal intercourse don't worry mate. But please don't de rail the thread with a debate on this.


----------



## carlaviii (Jul 25, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Women what were your experiences like with either?
> 
> If you reached orgasm through vaginal intercourse was it with a circ or uncirc guy?


I'm lucky enough to be a woman who can orgasm through vaginal intercourse -- and it doesn't matter if he's circ'd or not. If he isn't, you want to slide that foreskin down off the head though... that rim there is the good stuff.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

I find that inexperienced girls are sometimes weirded out by uncircumcised men. A few years ago, I was at a house party of a friend of a friend and there were BEAUTIFUL women there (we were all between the ages of 19-23). EVERYONE was drunk, and the girls were walking around asking to see an uncircumcised penis. My best friend pointed them in my direction.

That night, I showed about 8 girls my penis. I remember one girl was just fascinated, one thought it was weird, one almost couldn't believe it, one was filled with questions, one couldn't stop staring at it, and one asked to touch it later on in the night  (though briefly, unfortunately. I have a thing with doing things with girls in other people's houses -- unless it's their own. I find it disrespectful. We had a little fun in the bathroom though).

It always comes down to "if you know how to use what you've got, you're good," but I've heard older ladies (I'm talking young 30s) say that "uncircumcised men definitely have advantages." It adds a bit more girth, and makes it look larger. During sex, it 'pulls' up and down which I heard was nice and "different" (although you have to be hitting a girl raw for them to experience that to its fullest extent -- I find it MUCH easier to get a girl to orgasm when there is no protection -- DUH).

Circumcision was meant for cleanliness, but newer research shows that it really doesn't make much difference. With STI contraction it does, but that's only if you're in contact with someone who holds an STI, of course. Now, circumcision is more related to penis-mutilation.

My current lady friend (INFJ -- we're back together again) tells me "oddly, it looks nicer w/ foreskin."

My mom was a nurse, and apparently it was a battle between her and my father. My dad thought she was crazy for wanting us to get circumcised. I can tell you today that I'm SO happy my dad won that battle.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

SharpestNiFe said:


> I find that inexperienced girls are sometimes weirded out by uncircumcised men. A few years ago, I was at a house party of a friend of a friend and there were BEAUTIFUL women there (we were all between the ages of 19-23). EVERYONE was drunk, and the girls were walking around asking to see an uncircumcised penis. My best friend pointed them in my direction.
> 
> That night, I showed about 8 girls my penis. I remember one girl was just fascinated, one thought it was weird, one almost couldn't believe it, one was filled with questions, one couldn't stop staring at it, and one asked to touch it later on in the night  (though briefly, unfortunately. I have a thing with doing things with girls in other people's houses -- unless it's their own. I find it disrespectful. We had a little fun in the bathroom though).
> 
> ...


The next time you tell that story you had sex with all 8 of them.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Kazoo said:


> The next time you tell that story you had sex with all 8 of them.


Yes, suh.

HAHA there could have only been 4 for all I know. I'm going by drunken memory  But I feel as if there were 8. Well, that's the number I use when I tell the story.

Also, I'm sure the women were all beautiful. I was sober when I arrived at the party. It started as a pool party. All them girls in their bikinis :blushed:

Some girls, when hearing this story, resort to calling me a "manwhore." I usually respond with, "nah, I love my penis. I love it so much that I think you'd love it too."


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

Had orgasms with both. I can't say that it much mattered as far as that is concerned.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Oh ok so both feel the same inside? I've heard women say they get sore from circd guys and lube is more important.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

I always used condoms with ex's. Can't tell the difference with condoms.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Oh ok so both feel the same inside? I've heard women say they get sore from circd guys and lube is more important.


Never experienced that. Both are fine in my experience, though I have a slight preference towards circumcised. Never used lube in my life.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Oh ok why do you prefer cut guys? Anything in particular vs uncuts


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Kazoo said:


> The next time you tell that story you had sex with all 8 of them.


I loled but man, could you imagine the response if a female FM said she showed 8 blokes her p***y? Haha.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Either way it's an achievement of some sort I guess lol. But can we please stick to the topic in this thread?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Oh ok why do you prefer cut guys? Anything in particular vs uncuts


Well first of all, to be clear, when I say slight preference I do mean *slight*. I honestly don't care very much, but if I had to pick which I "prefer" in a sexual context I would say circumcised. 

I feel kind of awkward saying so, but it's mostly for oral. I find oral with a circumcised person to be more pleasant than uncircumcised. Also, I have experienced the foreskin getting in the way a bit, in the past, for both oral and regular intercourse. But as I said, it's nothing major.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I honestly wouldn't know what to do with an uncircumcised penis.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> Well first of all, to be clear, when I say slight preference I do mean *slight*. I honestly don't care very much, but if I had to pick which I "prefer" in a sexual context I would say circumcised.
> 
> I feel kind of awkward saying so, but it's mostly for oral. I find oral with a circumcised person to be more pleasant than uncircumcised. Also, I have experienced the foreskin getting in the way a bit, in the past, for both oral and regular intercourse. But as I said, it's nothing major.


Fair enough if that's the way you feel. But to uncut guys reading this I have heard a lot girls say they prefer the more sensitive uncut penis since you can be more passionate with it vs a less sensitive cut penis during oral. However I've seen a lot of girls say they are intimidated by uncut because if you don't shower regularly then odor and salty taste will arise more easily.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

You do the same things but gently since its more sensitive. Don't be scared of them though a lot of women cite that uncut feels better during intercourse because of the reduced vaginal friction and extra gliding action from foreskin.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I've only been with one guy who was uncut. It was weird. I just didn't really know what to do with it.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Asian_Chick said:


> I've only been with one guy who was uncut. It was weird. I just didn't really know what to do with it.



If you have a condom it nullifies the difference. What do you mean by he was weird?


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> If you have a condom it nullifies the difference. What do you mean by he was weird?


I didn't say HE was weird. I just thought it was weird because I never seen an uncut penis before. Instead of the usual mushroom, I got an elephant's trunk.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Asian_Chick said:


> I didn't say HE was weird. I just thought it was weird because I never seen an uncut penis before. Instead of the usual mushroom, I got an elephant's trunk.


His penis is apart of him they aren't separated entities imagine someone calling your vagina weird looking and started comparing things to it. Pretty rude.


----------



## outofplace (Dec 19, 2012)

Circumcised and uncircumcised, both did it for me :kitteh:


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> His penis is apart of him they aren't separated entities imagine someone calling your vagina weird looking and started comparing things to it. Pretty rude.


The mere physical appearances of people have never been the first and foremost things I look for/notice. So that's why I don't think of anyone's body parts in terms of being a part of them, as in a part of their personality.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

infjbrosef said:


> His penis is apart of him they aren't separated entities imagine someone calling your vagina weird looking and started comparing things to it. Pretty rude.


lt isn't like it correlates with your overall physical attractiveness.

l wonder if men think women think of it that way. Not really an 'extension' of me personally, l was once told it was 'pretty' and if that _compliment_ was weird.

But it'd be like if you'd complimented my liver or something.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Actually it does correlate with physical attractiveness. Your penis or vagina is apart of your physique same as your nose and eyes. Also the penis liver connection is a bit silly, we don't deal with each others livers regularly so complimenting it is weird, but that's not the case for your privates we see and deal with those a lot more.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Asian_Chick said:


> The mere physical appearances of people have never been the first and foremost things I look for/notice. So that's why I don't think of anyone's body parts in terms of being a part of them, as in a part of their personality.


Good to know girls like you still exist. But I still wouldn't go telling guys they have elephant trunks or whatever.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Good to know girls like you still exist. But I still wouldn't go telling guys they have elephant trunks or whatever.


LOL.... I wouldn't. I keep most of my observations to myself. They do look like elephant trunks


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Asian_Chick said:


> LOL.... I wouldn't. I keep most of my observations to myself. They do look like elephant trunks


Anteater is the one I've heard lol


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Fair enough if that's the way you feel. But to uncut guys reading this I have heard a lot girls say they prefer the more sensitive uncut penis since you can be more passionate with it vs a less sensitive cut penis during oral. However I've seen a lot of girls say they are intimidated by uncut because if you don't shower regularly then odor and salty taste will arise more easily.


I'm not convinced circumcision causes decreased sensitivity. I tried to find proof of this a couple months ago after discussing it with a friend (and on PerC) and couldn't find anything conclusive. The medical consensus seems to be that there is no difference (or extremely minimal difference) in sensitivity. 

That being said, it really doesn't bother me much and I don't think men should be self conscious about it. Regular intercourse, even without a condom, feels pretty much identical to me. Oral is the only thing I have a preference for, and even then I don't really care. I'm sure men I've dated have all kinds of small preferences that I don't meet, not a big deal.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I think circumcision is cruel and pointless... I'm cut and I wish I had not been circumcised... I have an ugly scar on my dick and my glans is always exposed so it's not moist how it should be. It also affects sensitivity by drying up the skin.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

It's really fun playing hide 'n seek foreplay with a uncircumsized dick but giftwrapping and Nutella can work better on a cut one.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> I'm not convinced circumcision causes decreased sensitivity. I tried to find proof of this a couple months ago after discussing it with a friend (and on PerC) and couldn't find anything conclusive. The medical consensus seems to be that there is no difference (or extremely minimal difference) in sensitivity.
> 
> That being said, it really doesn't bother me much and I don't think men should be self conscious about it. Regular intercourse, even without a condom, feels pretty much identical to me. Oral is the only thing I have a preference for, and even then I don't really care. I'm sure men I've dated have all kinds of small preferences that I don't meet, not a big deal.


The isn't much evidence because it kinda a taboo subject. I seen people that were cut, they decided to restore their foreskin and found that after restoration the consensus was that your glans became more sensitive. That's not study, but hundreds of men say the same. It makes sense too when a foreskin protects your glans and frenulum (the most sensitive part of penis which is often cut in circumcision) the area is inherently going to be subject to less friction and hardening of the skin. (keratanization)


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> The isn't much evidence because it kinda a taboo subject. I seen people that were cut, they decided to restore their foreskin and found that after restoration the consensus was that your glans became more sensitive. That's not study, but hundreds of men say the same. It makes sense too when a foreskin protects your glans and frenulum (the most sensitive part of penis which is often cut in circumcision) the area is inherently going to be subject to less friction and hardening of the skin. (keratanization)


Yeah, it does make sense. The data just doesn't really seem to confirm it though. There have been many studies on this, some of them testing the adult sensitivity and sexual pleasure of those who were uncircumcised versus those that were circumcised in infancy. Some studies found small differences in sensitivity, but most didn't. 

They also tried this with self reporting techniques in Africa. Circumcision is increasingly common in adult males there because it protects against HIV and infections. They tested/asked males about their sexual experiences before the circumcision and then every six months afterwards for five years. The reported sensitivity did not go down, and in some cases actually went up. It is possible that five years is not long enough for any real changes to emerge, but it matched the data from the previous studies I mentioned. 

I think some scientists then did a meta-analysis and concluded that if differences in sensitivity *are* caused by male circumcision, the difference is not statistically significant. 

Anyway, I'm not very pro-circumcision in infants, I don't find it necessary in a first world country. But I think it's good to have all the facts! I've noticed a lot of people on PerC getting quite upset about it recently, I guess it's a hot topic these days.


----------



## carlaviii (Jul 25, 2012)

What to do with an uncirc'd penis: see list of things to do with a circ'd penis. Nutella is... well, never an entirely bad idea but... odd.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

The only difference I've ever noticed is visual. It doesn't "feel different" orally to me that much, and inside it all feels the same.


----------



## sceptical mystic (Mar 6, 2014)

infjbrosef said:


> Women what were your experiences like with either?


Only one of my partners so far was circumcised, and sex with him was the best I've ever had. Not that the two things are correlated, (the reason was rather because he was the one I shared the strongest emotional and intellectual bond).

From a purely mechanical point of view, circ or uncirc guy has never made much of a difference to me - but I remember sex was sort of painful for him (the circumcised guy).


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

sceptical mystic said:


> Only one of my partners so far was circumcised, and sex with him was the best I've ever had. Not that the two things are correlated, (the reason was rather because he was the one I shared the strongest emotional and intellectual bond).
> 
> From a purely mechanical point of view, circ or uncirc guy has never made much of a difference to me - but I remember sex was sort of painful for him (the circumcised guy).


That might be because some people are 'tightly circumcised' which means they have very little slack penile shaft skin, which when the shaft is erect it stretches the skin tight and can cause painful erections. This is why a lot of people decide to restore foreskin. 

So to be clear, when you had intercourse with the circumcised men there was no significant differences during sex without a condom?

It's also strange you say that from a mechanical view they are the same because the way penetration works is inherently different for a cut and uncut man. (without a condom of course)


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> Yeah, it does make sense. The data just doesn't really seem to confirm it though. There have been many studies on this, some of them testing the adult sensitivity and sexual pleasure of those who were uncircumcised versus those that were circumcised in infancy. Some studies found small differences in sensitivity, but most didn't.
> 
> They also tried this with self reporting techniques in Africa. Circumcision is increasingly common in adult males there because it protects against HIV and infections. They tested/asked males about their sexual experiences before the circumcision and then every six months afterwards for five years. The reported sensitivity did not go down, and in some cases actually went up. It is possible that five years is not long enough for any real changes to emerge, but it matched the data from the previous studies I mentioned.
> 
> ...


Circumcision is in NO ways common among African males,
I mean,
It is MORE common than before,
But you'll find the practice,
Especially in the Southern Region is looked upon with hostility Haha


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

SirenOfTheGanges said:


> Circumcision is in NO ways common among African males,
> I mean,
> It is MORE common than before,
> But you'll find the practice,
> Especially in the Southern Region is looked upon with hostility Haha


With good reason too, whats the logic behind snipping off the skin and desensitizing the penis to protect against HIV. It's like a watered down form of castration. HIV is transmitted through contact of infected blood or sexual fluids during intercourse. A condom is logically more effective at ensuring sexual fluids do not mix with each other. How does removing the protective casing of the penis reduce the amount of fluid exchanged between two parties other then reducing the desire for sex itself?


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

ls it that serious? Half scoffing at this thread, but partially want to know. l've only seen them in free webcam porn never seen one, because like, l've never watched porn, ever.

But if l had seen one, hypothetically, it didn't seem so weird. lf the guy goes soft a lot mid-intercourse it might be more noticeable.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

@Lady O.W. Bro, :laughing:
I have a feeling that the foreskin would be the least worrisome part in that type of situation.... (Speaking from experience - it is!)


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Swede said:


> @Lady O.W. Bro, :laughing:
> I have a feeling that the foreskin would be the least worrisome part in that type of situation.... (Speaking from experience - it is!)


l was thing it could just be...floppy, lol :crazy:


l have to wonder if it's very different with different men, how much variance in foreskin/penis ratio they can have.

Some of the guys in the porn l've never watched ''theoretically'' had a lot of extra somethin' somethin'


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> l was thing it could just be...floppy, lol :crazy:
> 
> 
> l have to wonder if it's very different with different men, how much variance in foreskin/penis ratio they can have.
> ...


I'm laughing so hard right now! :laughing:


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

lol. whatever you guys :mellow:


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> l have to wonder if it's very different with different men, how much variance in foreskin/penis ratio they can have.
> 
> Some of the guys in the porn l've never watched ''theoretically'' had a lot of extra somethin' somethin'


I have also never ever watched porn. Especially not online. Ever. But I have heard from, uhm, friends and such that things are unproportioned in those kinds of films. It made me even less interested to see for myself. I was not disappointed...


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Lady O.W. Bro said:


> lol. whatever you guys :mellow:


Aww I'm sorry!! I thought we were talking about floppy flaccid penis with foreskin. What's NOT to giggle about? :tongue:


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Swede said:


> I have also never ever watched porn. Especially not online. Ever. But I have heard from, uhm, friends that things are unproportional in 'those' kinds of films. It made me even less interested to see for myself. I was not disappointed...


I don't know about you guys but I prefer tumblr porn.  And whenever the ladies flawless perfectness make me feel inadequate I notice how every penis is like 12" long.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> If you find that hurtful ... then you are way *too sensitive*.


Well, he is uncircumcised...


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

MindBomb said:


> Well, he is uncircumcised...
> 
> View attachment 95362


Then I bet he doesn't last as long.

Yes, I'm being mean.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

Swede said:


> Yes, absolutely! I guess it's more the impression I've gotten from some men that I've dated that they are essentially 'buddies' with their organs. It's interesting and endearing, honestly.
> I mean, I love my boobs and all but never bothered to actually baptize them. And I have fun with Miss V (hah, I just named her.. . even though that is a pretty lame name), but it's not like she is my BFF or anything, we're pretty independent of each other most of the time.





Wellsy said:


> @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=56445" target="_blank">Swede</a></i></span>
> 
> There is much that is innately irrational about us humans, even in being aware it's irrational the only real comfort to it is acceptance from others
> 
> hahaha I don't think I have the same sort of relationship with my anatomy as described.


Many guys do personify their dicks because it's seen as an extension of the ego. It's why PD can cause such an existential crisis. And also why many guys insult each other's penis size as a one-up-manship tactic:






So, yeah, make fun of our penis and them's fightin' words. I think we've already seen that in this very thread!


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

MindBomb said:


> Many guys do personify their dicks because it's seen as an extension of the ego. It's why PD can cause such an existential crisis. And also why many guys insult each other's penis size as a one-up-manship tactic:
> 
> So, yeah, make fun of our penis and them's fightin' words. I think we've already seen that in this very thread!


I'm choosing not to take this as a dig at my post this time around. Correct me if I'm wrong... :kitteh:

But, yes, I've understood that they are important, which is why I keep saying that people don't date a man's penis, but the man himself. And I've never ever insulted a partner's penis because I understand that it would be an incredibly mean and damaging thing to do. (They have not always shown me the same level of concern though, seems like a lot of immature men are very focused on giving their GFs anorexia.)


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Then I bet he doesn't last as long.
> 
> Yes, I'm being mean.


and the asshole of the thread award goes too...

I don't think I ever mentioned any of those details. Even if I did how would that change any ideas I might have shared? I don't resent sex I think it's beautiful, I appreciate it, I do however think that circ'd guys are getting left overs of what real sex feels like.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Wellsy said:


> Be wary of what you wish for.
> Crazy things happen in the deep dark forests of "Sex & Relationships Forum"
> 
> As for my own experiences to the OP topic.
> ...


I should have asked, for responses related to experiences without condoms since a lot of people have just posted their experiences with condoms, and of course in that situation the cut or uncut penis is basically the same.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> I should have asked, for responses related to experiences without condoms since a lot of people have just posted their experiences with condoms, and of course in that situation the cut or uncut penis is basically the same.


You know, women generally don't necessarily want to bring this up, but our vaginas are really not that physically sensitive compared to a penis. The most sensitive parts are the clitoris and the G-spot (and not all women find the latter). 

I suspect that part of this is cleverness on Mother Nature's part; vaginal birth is pretty darn painful as is, so adding millions of extra nerve endings to the birth canal would not help matters. In all honesty, I really don't think that the average vagina is sensitive enough to pick up on whether a penis has foreskin or not and depending on the situation even whether a condom is used or not. 

Some women orgasm vaginally through stimulus of the g-spot, others orgasm through stimulus of clitoris during intercourse (either through touching/being touched with hand & fingers or by being rubbed by the mans stomach/hips), and some never orgasm through intercourse at all but love to see their partner orgasm, so it essentially becomes more of a foreplay or after-play for the woman, depending on when her partner gets her off. As long as both partners are satisfied anything works.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

infjbrosef said:


> and the asshole of the thread award goes too...
> 
> I don't think I ever mentioned any of those details. Even if I did how would that change any ideas I might have shared? I don't resent sex I think it's beautiful, I appreciate it, I do however think that circ'd guys are getting left overs of what real sex feels like.


You've been an elitist jerk the entire thread, discounting what everyone has been saying, and you can't take a few jokes? Honestly, get off your computer and go for a run. Some endorphins might help you dislodge the stick from your large intestine.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Swede said:


> You know, women generally don't necessarily want to bring this up, but our vaginas are really not that physically sensitive compared to a penis. The most sensitive parts are the clitoris and the G-spot (and not all women find the latter).
> 
> I suspect that part of this is cleverness on Mother Nature's part; vaginal birth is pretty darn painful as is, so adding millions of extra nerve endings to the birth canal would not help matters. In all honesty, I really don't think that the average vagina is sensitive enough to pick up on whether a penis has foreskin or not and depending on the situation even whether a condom is used or not.
> 
> Some women orgasm vaginally through stimulus of the g-spot, others orgasm through stimulus of clitoris during intercourse (either through touching/being touched with hand & fingers or by being rubbed by the mans stomach/hips), and some never orgasm through intercourse at all but love to see their partner orgasm, so it essentially becomes more of a foreplay or after-play for the woman, depending on when her partner gets her off. As long as both partners are satisfied anything works.


Very brave of you to bring this up and I thank you, however I am aware of this information already. 

Off this topic though, does anyone know how to change your original post?


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> You've been an elitist jerk the entire thread, discounting what everyone has been saying, and you can't take a few jokes? Honestly, get off your computer and go for a run.


If you have nothing valuable to add to this thread, then please leave.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

infjbrosef said:


> If you have nothing valuable to add to this thread, then please leave.


Why are you being so sensitive?

So very, very sensitive.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

The only image I have for this thread:


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

infjbrosef said:


> If you have nothing valuable to add to this thread, then please leave.


You seem to think that you're superior to men who are cut; you aren't. There's a lot of misinformation out there on the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. @_BlackDog_ tried to show you meta studies that should have dissuaded you from your notions of uncut superiority. I've had sex without a condom once; I thought it was disgusting (no one tells you your vagina is going to be flushing out semen for a few days). So, I've never had sex without a condom since then. Personally, I didn't feel a difference between sex with a condom and sex without a condom other than the guy lasting half as long without a condom, so I doubt I'd notice any difference between sex with an uncircumcised man compared to a circumcised man.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

infjbrosef said:


> Very brave of you to bring this up and I thank you, however I am aware of this information already.
> 
> Off this topic though, does anyone know how to change your original post?


First off, thanks! But, hmmm, seeing that you are already aware of everything I wrote, I'm curious why you are even bringing up the question in OP? Plus, I tend to write for more than just in response to OP, since there could be other men & women who may benefit from some of the posts in this thread in the future. I think other members respond in a similar manner.

Anyway, you have a 24-hr grace period to edit your posts by clicking the "edit" option in the lower frame of the post (next to the "reply" option). The titles can't be modified once you post (I've learned that the hard way). Another pretty cool feature for future reference is the "poll" option that lets people share their opinion through a vote. That might have been a better way for you to collect data efficiently. 

And you'd better just get used to people being silly and joking around sometimes, honestly. People come here to have fun, so it's better to view posts as something positive - you created a thread where PerC:ers popped in both to share their experiences and to relax & enjoy themselves. It's a good thing! Just ignore what you don't like and 'thank' people for what you think helps you and everything will be all right.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> I've had sex without a condom once; I thought it was disgusting (no one tells you your vagina is going to be flushing out semen for a few days).


Bwaaahahahaha! Yes, it is rather ... disturbing. Sticky, smelly, and it gets all cold and blah. I hate having the semen run down into my butt crack - can't sleep with that going on! Seriously! The things we do for love. *sighs*


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Swede said:


> Bwaaahahahaha! Yes, it is rather ... disturbing. Sticky, smelly, and it gets all cold and blah. I hate having the semen run down into my butt crack - can't sleep with that going on! Seriously! The things we do for love. *sighs*


I was seriously like "WTF is wrong with my vagina?!" after that one experience, and then I found out that you basically drip semen for a few days. Was like ... ugh. 



Wasn't sure how I felt about it, other than kind of disgusted. Damn you, mother nature!


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

@koalaroo, I am seriously belly laughing right now. Not my usual smirking or snickering but my iPad is bouncing on my belly! Thanks, I needed that! 
:laughing:


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> You seem to think that you're superior to men who are cut; you aren't. There's a lot of misinformation out there on the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. @_BlackDog_ tried to show you meta studies that should have dissuaded you from your notions of uncut superiority. I've had sex without a condom once; I thought it was disgusting (no one tells you your vagina is going to be flushing out semen for a few days). So, I've never had sex without a condom since then. Personally, I didn't feel a difference between sex with a condom and sex without a condom other than the guy lasting half as long without a condom, so I doubt I'd notice any difference between sex with an uncircumcised man compared to a circumcised man.


Explain how I think I am superior to men who are cut? I never said that nor did I say that I was uncut or cut. Other than that good to see some form of contribution.


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

I'm so glad i'm still fully in tact. The feeling of knowing that i would never have a girl pull it up like a sock with bad elastic and play it like a pan flute? I'm not sure i could cope.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

OMG, I forgot the wet spot! How the heck could I forget the torture, I mean the (questionable) honor and bonus, that entails sleeping in the wet & cold spot!? Chivalry is indeed dead...

I think I'll probably never have sex again, now that I think about it... :dry:


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

Nothing turns me on like cutting penises. Give me a scalpel, flesh and blood and voilà - orgasms galore.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I honestly wouldn't know what to do with an uncircumcised penis.


Don't worry; there are plenty of others who would...


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Don't worry; there are plenty of others who would...


Oh, I'm sure there are!


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

OrchestraInside said:


> Nothing turns me on like cutting penises. Give me a scalpel, flesh and blood and voilà - orgasms galore.


Can't believe mother's and father's still go through with this barbaric act, treatment before any diagnosis, a shining example of current medical practice.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Can't believe mother's and father's still go through with this barbaric act, treatment before any diagnosis, a shining example of current medical practice.


This might be uncouth but out of curiosity, are you cut or not? Because I would be curious since you're passionately against it. Obviously, my apologies if your offended I'm asking.


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

Honest question to the women, how would you take it if it was your parents choice to give you breast implants? Would you be thankful, if it turned out that men prefer large breasts? If it made you upset, would you feel better if research showed a slight decrease in chance to get breast cancer?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

MooOfTheCow said:


> Honest question to the women, how would you take it if it was your parents choice to give you breast implants? Would you be thankful, if it turned out that men prefer large breasts? If it made you upset, would you feel better if research showed a slight decrease in chance to get breast cancer?


I don't see the comparison. I had my ears pierced when I was a baby. It's a cultural thing that Italians do. I'm thinking it saved me trouble from going through the painful experience of it as an older child. Regardless, my question still stands and I'm curious if men who are against it are cut and resentful they hadn't the choice or if they're uncut and feel like other men should be too? I don't know. Just curious I guess. Not really looking for a debate.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

NK said:


> I don't see the comparison. I had my ears pierced when I was a baby. It's a cultural thing that Italians do. I'm thinking it saved me trouble from going through the painful experience of it as an older child. Regardless, my question still stands and I'm curious if men who are against it are cut and resentful they hadn't the choice or if they're uncut and feel like other men should be too? I don't know. Just curious I guess. Not really looking for a debate.


This is the comparison in MoonOfTheCow's question, in both situations parents think they will improve the quality of life of the child. In both situations the child is not in control of their own body.

However it is unfair to compare piercing an ear with circumcision, the effects of ear piercing can be quite easily reversed and not as noticeable, ear piercing is also not a fundamentally sexual change as breast implantation and circumcision are.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> I can see the comparison, in both situations parents think they will improve the quality of life of the child. In both situations they are not in control.
> 
> However it is unfair to compare piercing an ear with circumcision, the effects of ear piercing can be quite easily reversed and not as noticeable, ear piercing is also not a fundamentally sexual change as breast implantation and circumcision are.


You still haven't answered my question. Also, motive is why my comparison works and the other does not. Ear piercing can be done both as a baby and older. Same as circumcision. It's less painful and complicated as baby. I did not have my son wait to choose himself for that reason alone. I did not have it done so it looked sexually pleasing such as is the comparison to the boobies. 

:tongue: I win! Lol!


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Answer question ?


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Swede said:


> Bwaaahahahaha! Yes, it is rather ... disturbing. Sticky, smelly, and it gets all cold and blah. I hate having the semen run down into my butt crack - can't sleep with that going on! Seriously! The things we do for love. *sighs*


 @koalaroo

I was actually completely unaware of this (although it makes sense) and I feel even worse for you ladies. It's much easier being a man in so many ways. Women have to inherently be strong people. Damn.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Myoho Traveller said:


> It's really fun playing hide 'n seek foreplay with a uncircumsized dick but giftwrapping and Nutella can work better on a cut one.


You, ma'am, sound fun


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> They also tried this with self reporting techniques in Africa. C*ircumcision is increasingly common in adult males there because it protects against HIV and infections.* They tested/asked males about their sexual experiences before the circumcision and then every six months afterwards for five years. The reported sensitivity did not go down, and in some cases actually went up. It is possible that five years is not long enough for any real changes to emerge, but it matched the data from the previous studies I mentioned.


I got lost there, circumcision protects against HIV? how? about infections I agree in terms of hygiene, contamination, but HIV? how so?? I personally don't think so/don't believe it possible.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

@Swede, what you say is actually pretty true, it varies on diff people but I guess there are episodes in life or actually complete diff lifestyles that make it look differently.




Swede said:


> Yes, but have you lived with one.. I suspect that you haven't, but I have for my entire life.
> 
> It is designed to keep the fluids in, because that elevates the chances to get pregnant.


True, in fact women in love will often act differently, some women have an intense desire to keep fluids in there, just as many men can feel a deep desire to do so (instead of just reaching orgasm)





Swede said:


> And I just don't wash in there - that is the way I was taught and I think that it is weird to hose up water in there. And creepy! And potentially painful too (but I'll refrain from telling you why I know this can be the case, TMI and all that).
> 
> When you have baby girls, you are specifically instructed by the health personnel NOT to wash the vagina. When you grow up, you are instructed by the medical community NOT to wash your vagina, including throughout your period. I have dated no less than 2 medical Drs in the past and neither one instructed me to rinse inside after sex (and none of my partners have ever had an issue with it, tbh). Unless the rules have suddenly changed, I am sticking to what I was taught & told by the experts.
> 
> ...


True, I guess some women will find weird that a man posts about this but, washing is good, literally washing inside is not recommended. Sex during period can be a fun movie to be part of once you decide to find out how it is, there are sensations only possible during that sensibility time frame. Besides, it helps a lot to relieve pain (if there is some) inflammation and... more but that's not something for me to post so specifically.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

@Falling Leaves had a more accurate explanation of the ''44 percent reduced HIV transmission''' figure awhile ago, l could just search for it but my brain is lazy.

Anyway, the correct statistic interpretation translates to something much less impressive. Please share again with the class, @Falling Leaves :kitteh:


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

changos said:


> I got lost there, circumcision protects against HIV? how? about infections I agree in terms of hygiene, contamination, but HIV? how so?? I personally don't think so/don't believe it possible.


This article deals with the claims in detail, and it's pretty easy to read:

The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine | Practical Ethics

A relevant excerpt:


> According to the _New York Times_, these studies include 14 publications “that provide what the [AAP] characterizes as ‘fair’ evidence that circumcision in adulthood protects men from HIV transmission from a female partner.” Notice the phrase _in adulthood_. The AAP policy, by contrast, is concerned with circumcision _in infancy_, a procedure for which there is literally no evidence of a protective effect against HIV. Notice also “fair” rather than “good” evidence and that the findings apply exclusively to (heterosexual) (African) (adult) males. This is in contrast to females, for whom circumcision of the male partner is a risk factor for becoming infected with HIV. The _New York Times_ continues:“Three of the studies were large randomized controlled trials of the kind considered the gold standard in medicine, but they were carried out in Africa, where H.I.V. — the virus the causes AIDS — is spread primarily among heterosexuals.”
> 
> There are a number of things to say about these “randomized controlled trials.” First, the trials appear to have been “controlled” in name only, as this exhaustive analysis carefully demonstrates. Clinically relevant flaws included “problematic randomization and selection bias, inadequate blinding, lack of placebo-control … inadequate equipoise, experimenter bias, attrition … not investigating male circumcision as a vector for HIV transmission, not investigating non-sexual HIV transmission, as well as lead-time bias, supportive bias … participant expectation bias, and time-out discrepancy (restraint from sexual activity only by circumcised men).”Hence, as I explained in this earlier post, the “Africa studies” may not have been a clear-cut example of “gold standard” medical research.
> 
> ...


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

@OrchestraInside


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

changos said:


> I got lost there, circumcision protects against HIV? how? about infections I agree in terms of hygiene, contamination, but HIV? how so?? I personally don't think so/don't believe it possible.


This is a good point that I addressed earlier. HIV transmits through mixing of blood and mixing of sexual fluids, how does lopping a piece of skin off the head of the penis actually prevent this?

Well it doesn't, oviously when you have a circ'd guy having sex vs uncirc without protection their fluids will be in no way hindered in mixing with a females vaginal fluid because a flap of skin is missing from protecting the head, it makes no difference.

The only reason I can see, unless someone can convince me otherwise, is that chopping off the protect casing, the foreskin, acts to desensitize the penis and therefore reducing the desire for intercourse.

*@Lady O.W. Bro*


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

changos said:


> True, I guess some women will find weird that a man posts about this but, washing is good, literally washing inside is not recommended. Sex during period can be a fun movie to be part of once you decide to find out how it is, there are sensations only possible during that sensibility time frame. Besides, it helps a lot to relieve pain (if there is some) inflammation and... more but that's not something for me to post so specifically.


Absolutely, I agree with all your points! Intercourse can also help to get the period started IME, which can often be a good thing, because some women are in a lot of pain and discomfort before it finally begins.

For me, back when I did NOT want to get pregnant, that time of the month was the time when I could finally relax 100% and truly enjoy myself. Some women do stress a lot about a potential unplanned pregnancy and I used to be one of them, because I knew that for me personally abortion would not be an option, while I suspect that for the majority of my partners it was the only option. My partners enjoyed that time of the month because it was also the time of the month where we did not use condoms. 
I have since had both my tubes removed for medical reasons and the level of freedom I feel now is absolutely incredible! I wish I had taken them out years ago, tbh, but it's easy to be wise after the fact.

And I agree with you about your second statement as well; the exchange of/exposure to body-fluids is to many the ultimate sign of intimacy, be it saliva, semen, vaginal secretion or what have you. To many of us, this type of experience would only be acceptable with a person that we love and have a special bond to.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I personally find it impossible and actually irrelevant (having a bit of more skin) but as always I showed interest on data.



Lady O.W. Bro said:


> @_Falling Leaves_ had a more accurate explanation of the ''44 percent reduced HIV transmission''' figure awhile ago, l could just search for it but my brain is lazy.
> 
> Anyway, the correct statistic interpretation translates to something much less impressive. Please share again with the class, @_Falling Leaves_ :kitteh:


Yes, I would like to see the whole idea



MooOfTheCow said:


> This article deals with the claims in detail, and it's pretty easy to read


Thanks, yes it makes sense to me and to the logic I mean



infjbrosef said:


> This is a good point that I addressed earlier. HIV transmits through mixing of blood and mixing of sexual fluids, how does lopping a piece of skin off the head of the penis actually prevent this?
> 
> Well it doesn't, oviously when you have a circ'd guy having sex vs uncirc without protection their fluids will be in no way hindered in mixing with a females vaginal fluid because a flap of skin is missing from protecting the head, it makes no difference.
> 
> ...


Exactly. It is very important not to prove to one or two persons, but to post conclusive data to avoid confusing other people. The extra skin sure matters for hygiene and infections but it depends a lot on that: hygiene.



Swede said:


> Absolutely, I agree with all your points! Intercourse can also help to get the period started IME, which can often be a good thing, because some women are in a lot of pain and discomfort before it finally begins.
> 
> For me, back when I did NOT want to get pregnant, that time of the month was the time when I could finally relax 100% and truly enjoy myself. Some women do stress a lot about a potential unplanned pregnancy and I used to be one of them, because I knew that for me personally abortion would not be an option, while I suspect that for the majority of my partners it was the only option. My partners enjoyed that time of the month because it was also the time of the month where we did not use condoms.
> I have since had both my tubes removed for medical reasons and the level of freedom I feel now is absolutely incredible! I wish I had taken them out years ago, tbh, but it's easy to be wise after the fact.
> ...


 totally agree


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

@Lady O.W. Bro

Okay then, but if you've brought gum, I hope you've brought enough for the rest of the class! 

[and I see this has turned into *that* discussion...]

*ahem*

When a person says HIV/AIDs risk has gone down by 42%, that's something called a relative risk reduction - the key word there being _relative_. It's the percentage risk which is reduced by 42%, not your _actual_ risk (so you aren't 42% less likely to get aids; if your starting risk is, say, 0.5%, then the risk is only actually reduced by around *0.2%* or so. Barely anything). Tabloids love using RRR because it's very misleading to the lay public.

Furthermore, I daresay benefits from circumcision in an African population aren't comparable to a Western population, simply because our risk of contradicting the disease (and other STIs) is far lower.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

changos said:


> I got lost there, circumcision protects against HIV? how? about infections I agree in terms of hygiene, contamination, but HIV? how so?? I personally don't think so/don't believe it possible.


 @infjbrosef

Circumcision does not reduce the desire for sex. 

The protection provided by circumcision has to do with the foreskin itself. One reason that has been proposed regards microbes on the penis. It was recorded in a study that circumcised men had about 81% less bacteria living on the penis than uncircumcised men. The researchers believe the reduced rates of HIV infection might have to do with the immune cells in uncircumcised men becoming 'overburdened' and ceasing to prevent the infiltration of healthy cells. 

Furthermore, the foreskin has a very large number of Langerhans cells, which are attracted to antigens and bind with foreign bodies. The foreskin is very susceptible to tears, especially during intercourse, though they can be tiny and often go unnoticed. Langerhans cells tend to group around these tears and ''attract'' the virus so that it can bind to it and trigger a widespread immune response. However, something about the HIV virus inhibits the reaction of the immune system once it is inside the body. No foreskin means less risk of tiny tears and less risk of infection. 

The foreskin also creates an ideal living environment for bacteria and viruses, especially after intercourse. Also, with the foreskin intact the penis head is more protected most of the time and therefore more open to tiny tears or scratches itself. The inflammation then allows the virus to get even closer to entering the body right off the bat, and then we get the immune reaction problem mentioned above. 

Sorry this was poorly written, I wanted to respond but I am tired and having trouble forming coherent sentences.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Nice to see you don't take it negatively, nice talking 10 points for you, thanks for clarifying


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Anyone find it curious that NOT ONE circumcised man is picketing against it ?


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

NK said:


> Anyone find it curious that NOT ONE circumcised man is picketing against it ?


I've come across many American men (online/articles/documentaries, it's not a European thing to get circumcised, here it's weird) who were circumcised and resent their parents for it.

There are many men who go through the process, as grown ups, to "stretch" (fascilitate the growth of new skin cells on the penis) the foreskin back.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Derange At 170 said:


> I've come across many American men (online/articles/documentaries, it's not a European thing to get circumcised, here it's weird) who were circumcised and resent their parents for it.
> 
> There are many many who go through the process, as grown up, to "stretch" (fascilitate the growth of new skin cells on the penis) the foreskin back.


Okay. Fair enough. Just that no one in this thread appears to be in that category of men.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Makes perfect sense that women shouldn't wash their vaginas. For the same reason that sex underwater just doesn't work.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

NK said:


> Okay. Fair enough. Just that no one in this thread appears to be in that category of men.


I don't think most men, in most circumstances, would be willing to admit that they're unhappy with their penis and why. It's a sensitive issue.


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

NK said:


> Okay. Fair enough. Just that no one in this thread appears to be in that category of men.


I am, but this thread was directed at women. Circumcision discussions get heated and are unpopular. It's kind of a catch-22: if you say nothing then people are free to claim you don't exist; if you say something you get ignored and ridiculed because no one wants to think about this issue.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Derange At 170 said:


> I don't think most men, in most circumstances, would be willing to admit that they're unhappy with their penis and how. It's a sensitive issue.


Why would they be unhappy with it because it was missing it's foreskin? The extra foreskin isn't gonna make it bigger, really. Besides, women like it the way it is. And while I've never seen one uncut, I know some women prefer it so I'm not sure what the problem is. 

I think it blows. Total double standard. Men bitch and are turned off when women express their insecurities and dissatisfactions about their bodies, as opposed to helping them feel more desirable and get over it. Yet men have insecurities too and hide behind the "cause" of it. I don't think this is about 'mutilation' (because a guy can orgasm with it cut - unlike female genital mutilation). This is about how men FEEL. ... Let's call it what it is.


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

NK said:


> Why would they be unhappy with it because it was missing it's foreskin? The extra foreskin isn't gonna make it bigger, really. Besides, women like it the way it is. And while I've never seen one uncut, I know some women prefer it so I'm not sure what the problem is.


Different men have different reasons, it is not only about sensitivity or size. To understand my reason, please try to go through the breast implant analogy in your head. Technically people would be correct if they said "your breasts are fine, they still work don't they?" Yet you have scar tissue and an unnatural appearance, and should not have had that choice made for you by someone else.



> I think it blows. Total double standard. Men bitch and are turned off when women express their insecurities and dissatisfactions about their bodies, as opposed to helping them feel more desirable and get over it. Yet men have insecurities too and hide behind the "cause" of it. I don't think this is about 'mutilation' (because a guy can orgasm with it cut - unlike female genital mutilation). This is about how men FEEL. ... Let's call it what it is.


Surely you see the irony of detesting double standards, when the slightest incision to your genitals as a child would be a crime, yet removing (what grows to be) 15 square inches of tissue from mine is a "successful procedure".


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

NK said:


> Why would they be unhappy with it because it was missing it's foreskin? The extra foreskin isn't gonna make it bigger, really. Besides, women like it the way it is. And while I've never seen one uncut, I know some women prefer it so I'm not sure what the problem is.


Because that skin is on a very sensitive part of the body and a bodypart that is definetive of thier gender identification and expectations that are placed on them by society. Your expectations aren't defined by the pierced holes in your earlobes, but they are by what we all carry between our legs.

To you it's a piece of skin. To men it's a part of what makes them who they are.

I wouldn't like it much if I went to get surgery to get my apendix removed and I woke up circumcised because the doctor in charge thought it was more aesthetically pleasing. 



NK said:


> I think it blows. Total double standard. Men bitch and are turned off when women express their insecurities and dissatisfactions about their bodies, as opposed to helping them feel more desirable and get over it. Yet men have insecurities too and hide behind the "cause" of it. I don't think this is about 'mutilation' (because a guy can orgasm with it cut - unlike female genital mutilation). This is about how men FEEL. ... Let's call it what it is.


More like, we focus so much attention on women's control over their bodies (the way the abortion debate is sometimes framed, or contraception) that we tend to neglect that men like having the same type of control over theirs.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

MooOfTheCow said:


> Different men have different reasons, it is not only about sensitivity or size. To understand my reason, please try to go through the breast implant analogy in your head. Technically people would be correct if they said "your breasts are fine, they still work don't they?" Yet you have scar tissue and an unnatural appearance, and should not have had that choice made for you by someone else.


Like I said. It's about how you feel. Some circumstances I'm sure don't leave it as aesthetically pleasing as others. So I get your analogy. But it's about how you feel about it's appearance. Not the 'mutilation' factor. If you hadn't had it done, you might have opted for it as an adult but it would have been a painful experience by comparison. (Leading me back to my analogy). 

Your cause won't be taken seriously if your motive is emotional. I hate to say it but you have to appeal to self interest. Women who have circumcised their babies who are behind you are their because of self interest (to alleviate guilt. Feel like a better person etc). You need to be honest with why you are fighting any said such cause. Then develop a strategy but if what you are looking for is self gratifying sympathy from people - keep doing what you're doing. But don't hide behind a thread that's strewn to appear as advocating change, a 'cause' then.

if this issue is something you want to see change happen. Treat it more like a game. With less heart. Your emotions are all over this with how you feel about botched circumcisions. Sorry if that was blunt. Just didn't know how else to make my point.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

SharpestNiFe said:


> How DARE you think my penis looks like an elephant's trunk?
> 
> The only natural question is:
> 
> ...


Neither.... not my favorite animal.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Asian_Chick said:


> Neither.... not my favorite animal.


You, ma'am, underestimate the value of the elephant.

I recommend you go watch Dumbo. Then watch it again. Then again.


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

NK said:


> Like I said. It's about how you feel. Some circumstances I'm sure don't leave it as aesthetically pleasing as others. So I get your analogy. But it's about how you feel about it's appearance. Not the 'mutilation' factor. If you hadn't had it done, you might have opted for it as an adult but it would have been a painful experience by comparison. (Leading me back to my analogy).
> 
> Your cause won't be taken seriously if your motive is emotional. I hate to say it but you have to appeal to self interest. Women who have circumcised their babies who are behind you are their because of self interest (to alleviate guilt. Feel like a better person etc). You need to be honest with why you are fighting any said such cause. Then develop a strategy but if what you are looking for is self gratifying sympathy from people - keep doing what you're doing. But don't hide behind a thread that's strewn to appear as advocating change, a 'cause' then.
> 
> if this issue is something you want to see change happen. Treat it more like a game. With less heart. Your emotions are all over this with how you feel about botched circumcisions. Sorry if that was blunt. Just didn't know how else to make my point.


The big problem about appealing to self interest is: what is in it for a circumcised man, or a parent who has circumcised their son, to admit it is senseless disfigurement of a child? It is absolutely in their best self interest to deny it, because what do they get in exchange for the truth (or in your eyes, for pity and self righteousness), besides shame, guilt, disgust and anger? Therefore my appeal is not to pity but to empathy. I believe that people who grow up in a cutting culture must transcend their self interest in order to stop perpetuating this mistake.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> I don't condone it in infancy except perhaps in areas where it is recommended for HIV prevention, and it should always be up to the parent to decide. I probably won't circumcise my son if I ever have one.
> 
> I'm just saying - it doesn't seem to reduce sensitivity in most cases, so no point saying it does.


I know you mean well, and you argue your points very well, but I can't help but think that studies about this topic are a moot point and that arguing them is kind of stupid.

Because how does one quantitatively measure pleasure? _It cannot be done_.

Take it from a man: The most sensitive part of the penis is the frenulum. It is the male equivalent of the clitoris in terms of pleasure. I honestly don't even know if I could orgasm without frenulum stimulation. It makes up a good 80-90% of the pleasure from sex. Would you experience decreased pleasure if your clitoris were removed, altered, or damaged?

I mean, let's get real here. 



BlackDog said:


> Also, circumcision should not include removal of the frenulum. I know it happens, but I've never seen one first hand that was missing the frenulum.


You are correct. Removal is not common. Usually it is just damaged severely (as it is part of and attached to the foreskin).


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

MooOfTheCow said:


> The big problem about appealing to self interest is: what is in it for a circumcised man, or a parent who has circumcised their son, to admit it is senseless disfigurement of a child? It is absolutely in their best self interest to deny it, because what do they get in exchange for the truth (or in your eyes, for pity and self righteousness), besides shame, guilt, disgust and anger? Therefore my appeal is not to pity but to empathy. I believe that people who grow up in a cutting culture must transcend their self interest in order to stop perpetuating this mistake.


I hate to be the barer of bad news but if you only appeal to empathy you won't get very far. You might make a true friend or two if you're lucky. But from my experience (hoping people might have empathy for autism enough to change or do something). But really, why would they? 

I don't feel like I've mutilated my son. I'm sorry I don't because I know that's not what you want to hear. I felt that chances are, he would want it done and so I felt it the safest and most optimal time to have it done when he was a baby. To be honest, I agree we don't live in biblical times and we have soap and hospitals so it's not so much a need for cleanliness. But then again, my son is disabled and needs help with personal hygiene stuff and I'm glad I did it. Because that type of maintenance would be beyond what I could handle. I know emotions are painful but sometimes we need to set our own feelings aside to see from the other parties eyes if we want to change their minds. Does that make sense ?


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

NK said:


> I hate to be the barer of bad news but if you only appeal to empathy you won't get very far. You might make a true friend or two if you're lucky. But from my experience (hoping people might have empathy for autism enough to change or do something). But really, why would they?
> 
> I don't feel like I've mutilated my son. I'm sorry I don't because I know that's not what you want to hear. I felt that chances are, he would want it done and so I felt it the safest and most optimal time to have it done when he was a baby. To be honest, I agree we don't live in biblical times and we have soap and hospitals so it's not so much a need for cleanliness. But then again, my son is disabled and needs help with personal hygiene stuff and I'm glad I did it. Because that type of maintenance would be beyond what I could handle. I know emotions are painful but sometimes we need to set our own feelings aside to see from the other parties eyes if we want to change their minds. Does that make sense ?


Yes. I don't wish you ill for circumcising your son, or assume any malice on your part. It's unpleasant for me to know that the message I bear has nothing but pain for those who would hear and believe it. Most of the time I appeal to reason, but I thought it more appropriate to share personally here. I guess I am an idealist (INFP after all), but I still believe empathy must be a motivator in this case, if the end result is to be wholesome. If not empathy for myself and other unhappily circumcised men, then at least for the child's pain and terror, that never need happen at all in the first place. We are speaking of course only of the "successful" surgeries, because deaths and amputations (of which we have no accurate numbers) are seen as no more than collateral damage.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

emberfly said:


> I know you mean well, and you argue your points very well, but I can't help but think that studies about this topic are a moot point and that arguing them is kind of stupid.
> 
> Because how does one quantitatively measure pleasure? _It cannot be done_.
> 
> ...


I don't see why referencing studies is stupid. I don't have a penis, the only way I can have any knowledge of the subject at hand is through experience with people who do have one and through medical studies. My first hand experience with circumcised males has been comparable to my experience with uncircumcised males. 

There are multiple ways to measure pleasure (potential song lyrics?) but what I was mainly arguing against was the stated 'fact' that circumcision causes a reduction in sensitivity and overall sex drive. Some studies have found differences in sensitivity (there are ways to measure that) and others have not. The only way to adequately deduce whether or not there is a correlation or causal relationship between circumcision and loss or reduction of sensitivity and sex drive is through a meta-analysis of relevant studies. They did one of these in 2013 - the largest of its kind, to date - and found that statistically speaking there is no difference in sensitivity or overall sexual satisfaction. 

How is this measured?

In many ways. Some of the studies were based on males who were choosing to undergo circumcision procedures after reaching adulthood. They had the subjects report on sensitivity, sex drive, sexual satisfaction, etc. before the surgery and then every six months or so after the surgery for the next 5-6 years. Those who underwent the surgery reported no reduction in any of the above mentioned areas. They also questioned males who had been (successfully) circumcised in infancy alongside intact males and found no difference in overall sexual satisfaction. A third type of study could involve males who choose to 'regrow' their foreskins, but I'm not aware of any articles on that particular demographic. 

As far as the frenulum goes, I honestly don't know what percentage of routine circumcisions result in loss or severe damage of this tissue. In my personal experience, circumcised males have a frenulum and it is very sensitive. I am not holding that up as evidence, since it is purely anecdotal, but that's all I've got without looking those numbers up.


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> There are multiple ways to measure pleasure (potential song lyrics?) but what I was mainly arguing against was the stated 'fact' that circumcision causes a reduction in sensitivity and overall sex drive. Some studies have found differences in sensitivity (there are ways to measure that) and others have not. The only way to adequately deduce whether or not there is a correlation or causal relationship between circumcision and loss or reduction of sensitivity and sex drive is through a meta-analysis of relevant studies. They did one of these in 2013 - the largest of its kind, to date - and found that statistically speaking there is no difference in sensitivity or overall sexual satisfaction.


"They" being microbiology professor Brian Morris, author of the book "In Favor of Circumcision", owner of pro circumcision website circinfo.net, and frequent commentator on news stories about circumcision, who explicitly calls for mandatory circumcision of all infant boys.

In Favour of Circumcision: Brian Morris: 9780868405377: Amazon.com: Books
CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal

Author's Response to: Does sexual function survey in Denmark offer any support for male circumcision having an adverse effect?

Science is not without its politics.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

MooOfTheCow said:


> "They" being microbiology professor Brian Morris, author of the book "In Favor of Circumcision", owner of pro circumcision website circinfo.net, and frequent commentator on news stories about circumcision, who explicitly calls for mandatory circumcision of all infant boys.
> 
> In Favour of Circumcision: Brian Morris: 9780868405377: Amazon.com: Books
> CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal
> ...


Morris was one of the scientists who did the 2013 meta-analysis, yes. It's no secret he is in favour of circumcision, but that doesn't necessarily discount his findings. The analysis consisted of a lot of studies that are available online for anybody who wishes to read them, along with the meta-analysis itself.

PS - Anyway, this all started because I said I am not convinced that circumcision has significant negative sexual effects. Some studies have shown reduction in sensitivity but even those don't prove anything about sexual sensitivity. Just because a penis feels a feather touch slightly better than a circumcised penis does, doesn't mean those results will necessarily translate to a better sexual experience. 

The results are mixed. Morris happened to have conducted the largest study to date, but even without his findings the results are still mixed at best. This whole thread was built on the assumption that circumcision causes noticeable decrease in sensitivity and sexual satisfaction. I'm just not convinced that's true.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

NK said:


> I hate to be the barer of bad news but if you only appeal to empathy you won't get very far. You might make a true friend or two if you're lucky. But from my experience (hoping people might have empathy for autism enough to change or do something). But really, why would they?
> 
> I don't feel like I've mutilated my son. I'm sorry I don't because I know that's not what you want to hear. I felt that chances are, he would want it done and so I felt it the safest and most optimal time to have it done when he was a baby. To be honest, I agree we don't live in biblical times and we have soap and hospitals so it's not so much a need for cleanliness. But then again, my son is disabled and needs help with personal hygiene stuff and I'm glad I did it. Because that type of maintenance would be beyond what I could handle. I know emotions are painful but sometimes we need to set our own feelings aside to see from the other parties eyes if we want to change their minds. Does that make sense ?


Why do think it was the the "safest" and "most optimal" time to cut your child when they were at the most vulnerable stage of their life.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Why do think it was the the "safest" and "most optimal" time to cut your child when they were at the most vulnerable stage of their life.


Because the amount of skin is insanely small in comparison and they won't remember it. The traumatic experience of it is no more traumatic than the birthing experience. and they use a topical numbing agent as well so the cry is not from excruciating pain, but more because that is what babies do, at that stage of the game. They scream and cry, they sleep and eat and poop.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> I don't see why referencing studies is stupid. I don't have a penis, the only way I can have any knowledge of the subject at hand is through experience with people who do have one and through medical studies. My first hand experience with circumcised males has been comparable to my experience with uncircumcised males.
> 
> There are multiple ways to measure pleasure (potential song lyrics?) but what I was mainly arguing against was the stated 'fact' that circumcision causes a reduction in sensitivity and overall sex drive. Some studies have found differences in sensitivity (there are ways to measure that) and others have not. The only way to adequately deduce whether or not there is a correlation or causal relationship between circumcision and loss or reduction of sensitivity and sex drive is through a meta-analysis of relevant studies. They did one of these in 2013 - the largest of its kind, to date - and found that statistically speaking there is no difference in sensitivity or overall sexual satisfaction.
> 
> ...


Were these studies questionnaire based? Men who are circ'd might feel defensive while answering these and this may skew the results.

Here is a more objective study I have found that shows the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch. Please take a look.

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - Sorrells - 2007 - BJU International - Wiley Online Library


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Were these studies questionnaire based? Men who are circ'd might feel defensive while answering these and this may skew the results.
> 
> Here is a more objective study I have found that shows the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch. Please take a look.
> 
> Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - Sorrells - 2007 - BJU International - Wiley Online Library


Thank you, I've seen the study. My point is that there is conflicting evidence. A meta-analysis is really the only way to flesh out the truth from so many studies with such a variety of methods. If Morris is considered too biased to be trusted then someone else will have to step up and conduct an analysis. We can't glean much of a pattern from one or two studies. 

Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic... [Urology. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

_"We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing.* In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis."*_

Sensation and sexual arousal in circumcised and un... [J Sex Med. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

_"...No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups."_


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

SharpestNiFe said:


> You, ma'am, sound fun


:blushed:

I've been told that lots of times - that, playful as well as completely nuts - when I played the "now you see it, now you don't" game, with one ex-bf. Or maybe he laughingly said was nuts, when I did the whole ventriloquist act with his penis Yeah, I have a very strange sense of humour but if there isn't anything more hilarious than sex; I don't know what it is. :laughing:


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

Whether or not cutting penises enhances their application as battering rams, I'd advise being generally wary of _any _species given to genital mutilation to placate deities or "because everyone does it".


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> Thank you, I've seen the study. My point is that there is conflicting evidence. A meta-analysis is really the only way to flesh out the truth from so many studies with such a variety of methods. If Morris is considered too biased to be trusted then someone else will have to step up and conduct an analysis. We can't glean much of a pattern from one or two studies.
> 
> Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic... [Urology. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> ...


Find first hand study , that conflicts, with the evidence I have presented. Questionnaires and meta-analysis of the like are not as strong evidence of the desensitizing effects of circumcision as mapping of the fine touch thresholds of the male uncut vs cut penis.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> Thank you, I've seen the study. My point is that there is conflicting evidence. A meta-analysis is really the only way to flesh out the truth from so many studies with such a variety of methods. If Morris is considered too biased to be trusted then someone else will have to step up and conduct an analysis. We can't glean much of a pattern from one or two studies.
> 
> Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic... [Urology. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> ...


Some people just don't appreciate or understand meta-analysis, apparently. 

"I don't want a huge combined sample size analyzed by multiple research teams, I want a smaller one analyzed by one team. That'd convince me more..."

Jeez.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Sovereign said:


> Some people just don't appreciate or understand meta-analysis, apparently.
> 
> "I don't want a huge combined sample size analyzed by multiple research teams, I want a smaller one analyzed by one team. That'd convince me more..."
> 
> Jeez.


Have it your way if you want to take someones opinion of other data rather than scientific data itself.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

infjbrosef said:


> Have it your way if you want to take someones opinion of other data rather than scientific data itself.


A meta-analysis is an analysis of previous analysis. It's not so much an opinion as it is another data analysis. 

The mere fact that you'd characterize it in such a way is telling. Look, no offense, but you seem irrationally attached to the idea that CIRCUMCISION IS MOST DEFS THE WURST THING EVAH! 

I don't know if you're trying to feel better about being cut/uncut, or if you're simply another moral crusader outraged about a relatively unimportant issue (compared to things like global hunger, human trafficking, wars, etc.), but it really doesn't matter to me. The overall body of research is inconclusive about the effects, and so am I. Do I think it possibly causes decreased sensitivity? Sure. But does that really matter in the grand scope of things?

The data seems to suggest "no." And I am very predisposed to believe the data.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

All that is not to say that I support circumcision in our culture. I don't. Culture is never a good reason for mutilation. 

The only way I can think of that I'd support circumcision is to combat the spread of STIs in regions where circumcision would be an effective way to reduce transmission rates. Since we have plenty of other (better) ways, and relatively low STI rates to begin with, it'd be less necessary here than pretty much everywhere else. The fact that we still perform the procedure at such high rates does not reflect well on our reasoning skills. 

Good hygeine is the solution to bad hygeine; not mutilation. And with that, I'll stop proffering my opinions.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Just wanted to chime in to say that not all circumcisions are done via full out cutting. 

Behold, the plastibell: 

Plastibell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ETA: This was the procedure done on my sons and they didn't seem to be in any discomfort at all; however, if I could do it all over again, I wouldn't have allowed it. I don't find it necessary.

The other side of the argument is nursing knowledge. I witnessed an elderly patient with a swollen foreskin cutting off circulation because a nursing assistant with little understanding pulled the foreskin to clean and forgot to put it back. That was a disaster. 

So, when an old man relies on others to care for him, I can see where it might be beneficial, or...it could become the norm to not circ and then the hygiene practices would be well known. Idk.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> Find first hand study , that conflicts, with the evidence I have presented. Questionnaires and meta-analysis of the like are not as strong evidence of the desensitizing effects of circumcision as mapping of the fine touch thresholds of the male uncut vs cut penis.


Neither one of the studies I just posted for you (that you quoted) were questionnaire based or a meta-analysis. So... not sure what you want. That is the *point* of a meta-analysis. Individual studies don't mean a lot when they conflict with other research in the field. You need people to compile all the data and determine if there are patterns.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

@BlackDog
Perhaps you need to explain to him Hierarchy of Evidence.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Wellsy said:


> @_BlackDog_
> Perhaps you need to explain to him Hierarchy of Evidence.


I think he's already made up his mind, opposing evidence be damned. I should probably call it quits. 

We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

@BlackDog
hahaha I see you're becoming more accustom to the internet.
At least you were willing to try.
Just a flaw of humanity to have self preservationist schemas.

I'm not sure how I feel about the word mutilation being used, seems too emotive. 
Because I don't think it's mutilation especially when ones considers when it's medically apt to perform a circumcision.
I'm slightly concerned that in the future there will be people so extreme in their views they'll get into conflicts over circumcising their child when it's actually needed even though I believe overall it's an unnecessary procedure. 
On the plus side, i'm not sure where circumcision isn't the norm there will be a spread of misinformation on the hygienic nature of a lack of foreskin that some people feel inherent to uncircumcised men hahaha


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

Sovereign said:


> A meta-analysis is an analysis of previous analysis. It's not so much an opinion as it is another data analysis.
> 
> The mere fact that you'd characterize it in such a way is telling. Look, no offense, but you seem irrationally attached to the idea that CIRCUMCISION IS MOST DEFS THE WURST THING EVAH!
> 
> ...


I don't think the potential unneccessary mutilation of newborn infants is a "relatively unimportant issue." 

Does circumcision make a difference to our life? I can't say, there hasn't been enough work done to find out. However I have seen a trend that indicates erectile dysfunction is more common in mid-life to older circumcised men.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> I think he's already made up his mind, opposing evidence be damned. I should probably call it quits.
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree.


I don't disagree as much as remain uncertain on the evidence you have posted. I don't understand why you passionately advocate the arguments for circumcision, it seems you strongly oppose my evidence and my views.

Best case scenario for you, circumcision has no effects on sexual sensitivity (despite the removal of frenulum, and thousands of nerve endings in the foreskin) and it may have some effect on the prevalence of aid's in sub-saharan African communities. 

In the worst case scenario, circumcision may significantly reduce the pleasure and mechanism of sexual intercourse and may not directly effect the prevalence of AID's for example western Europe is largely uncut and experiences no AID's epidemic. 

So I ask again, could you please inform us why exactly you prefer to hold the views for this procedure, close to your heart? It's hard to admit we have done wrong by our kids, but it is even worse to ignore it, it represents a lack of compassion.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> I don't disagree as much as remain uncertain on the evidence you have posted. I don't understand why you passionately advocate the arguments for circumcision, it seems you strongly oppose my evidence and my views.
> 
> Best case scenario for you, circumcision has no effects on sexual sensitivity (despite the removal of frenulum, and thousands of nerve endings in the foreskin) and it may have some effect on the prevalence of aid's in sub-saharan African communities.
> 
> ...


I don't hold it close to my heart. I don't even condone circumcision in my country, I find it unnecessary. If I move to a high-risk area and then have a baby, I might reconsider. I am just interested in the facts and I don't think there is enough solid evidence for us to say that circumcision causes loss of sexual function or satisfaction. 

I guess I am just a bit irritated by this trend lately, where perfectly healthy circumcised males want to sue their parents over the procedure. They find one study saying it correlates with erectile dysfunction or reduction in sensitivity and just go hog wild with it, not having any knowledge of how to intelligently interpret data from a study and without any idea that a single study in a sea of conflicting evidence is next to useless on its own. Then a meta-analysis is conducted and everybody writes it off because one of the scientists involved happens to condone circumcision. 

Anyway, I'm not saying you do all things, just some people in general do and it gets under my skin. Yes, maybe circumcision causes significant reduction in pleasure and sensitivity. But unless you have access to some studies that nobody else in the community has then the answer at this point is "we don't know" (at best) or "it causes no significant difference" (at worst). I really don't think we need to start shaming parents who had their babies circumcised with the best intentions, nor do we need to make circumcised men feel inferior. Its telling them there is a problem when there might not even be one.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

infjbrosef said:


> I don't think the potential unneccessary mutilation of newborn infants is a "relatively unimportant issue."


I think it is, at least relative to the others I mentioned. I suppose it's a relatively huge issue compared to the current itch I have on my upper back. 



> Does circumcision make a difference to our life? I can't say, there hasn't been enough work done to find out. However I have seen a trend that indicates erectile dysfunction is more common in mid-life to older circumcised men.


And it may be. But how significantly? 

Again, I don't pretend that any action, circumcision included, is without consequences. I don't doubt that it has drawbacks, which is why I'm generally against it. Just not in an "it's theoretically bad, so screw the meta-analysis" kind of way.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> I don't hold it close to my heart. I don't even condone circumcision in my country, I find it unnecessary. If I move to a high-risk area and then have a baby, I might reconsider. I am just interested in the facts and I don't think there is enough solid evidence for us to say that circumcision causes loss of sexual function or satisfaction.
> 
> I guess I am just a bit irritated by this trend lately, where perfectly healthy circumcised males want to sue their parents over the procedure. They find one study saying it correlates with erectile dysfunction or reduction in sensitivity and just go hog wild with it, not having any knowledge of how to intelligently interpret data from a study and without any idea that a single study in a sea of conflicting evidence is next to useless on its own. Then a meta-analysis is conducted and everybody writes it off because one of the scientists involved happens to condone circumcision.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not saying you do all things, just some people in general do and it gets under my skin. Yes, maybe circumcision causes significant reduction in pleasure and sensitivity. But unless you have access to some studies that nobody else in the community has then the answer at this point is "we don't know" (at best) or "*it causes no significant difference" (at worst)*. I really don't think we need to start shaming parents who had their babies circumcised with the best intentions, nor do we need to make circumcised men feel inferior. Its telling them there is a problem when there might not even be one.



So cutting the frenulum, cutting the thousands of nerve endings found in the foreskin as well as removing the protective casing for the glans, is no significant difference? (In a worst-case scenario)

The main point in all of my posts have been to get people to understand, not to shame them. If you feel any shame on this issue, that is not abnormal. However harboring in denial is a dangerous and irresponsible state of mind.

The notion that people sue their parents is quite ridiculous. The males that have taken legal action tend to sue the medical authority responsible for the procedure. Parents often lack adequate medical knowledge, and the responsibility should fall on the professional(s), as it is their duty to make the judgement to go ahead with the procedure and inform the parents of why they decided to do so.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

infjbrosef said:


> So cutting the frenulum, cutting the thousands of nerve endings found in the foreskin as well as removing the protective casing for the glans, is no significant difference? (In a worst-case scenario)
> 
> The main point in all of my posts have been to get people to understand, not to shame them. If you feel any shame on this issue, that is not abnormal. However harboring in denial is a dangerous and irresponsible state of mind.
> 
> The notion that people sue their parents is quite ridiculous. The males that have taken legal action tend to sue the medical authority responsible for the procedure. Parents often lack adequate medical knowledge, and the responsibility should fall on the professional(s), as it is their duty to make the judgement to go ahead with the procedure and inform the parents of why they decided to do so.


I've really said all I wanted to, at this point. When a new meta-analysis is conducted that shows a distinct difference in any of the areas we have discussed, then I will believe that circumcision causes these problems. Until then the data just doesn't fit and I remain unconvinced. 

It would be hard to sue a doctor over circumcision when every medical organization I am aware of claims the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. I think calling it 'mutilation' is a stretch, to be sure. I think if you don't like circumcision then don't circumcise your son(s). Most circumcisions don't seem to have affected the man in any meaningful way (despite exceptions) and I think telling people that it causes reduction of pleasure or sensitivity when we just don't know that at this point is unnecessary and irresponsible. It smacks heavily of an agenda, and until there is real proof to support it I won't have any part in it. 

I think we really ought to just agree to disagree on this.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> ...some people in general do and *it gets under my skin*.


You said, "gets under my skin"...










Yep, I'm immature.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> I've really said all I wanted to, at this point. When a new meta-analysis is conducted that shows a distinct difference in any of the areas we have discussed, then I will believe that circumcision causes these problems. Until then the data just doesn't fit and I remain unconvinced.
> 
> It would be hard to sue a doctor over circumcision when* every medical organization I am aware of claims the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks*. I think calling it 'mutilation' is a stretch, to be sure. I think if you don't like circumcision then don't circumcise your son(s). Most circumcisions don't seem to have affected the man in any meaningful way (despite exceptions) and I think telling people that it causes reduction of pleasure or sensitivity when we just don't know that at this point is unnecessary and irresponsible. It smacks heavily of an agenda, and until there is real proof to support it I won't have any part in it.
> 
> I think we really ought to just agree to disagree on this.



There are no benefits of circumcision in developed countries, however there are very real desensitizing effects. You mention that every medical organization you have heard of advocates the benefits. It may come as a shock to you but the majority of the world is uncircumcised (%70) and there are plenty of medical organizations that do not support this barbaric procedure.


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> I've really said all I wanted to, at this point. When a new meta-analysis is conducted that shows a distinct difference in any of the areas we have discussed, then I will believe that circumcision causes these problems. Until then the data just doesn't fit and I remain unconvinced.
> 
> *It would be hard to sue a doctor over circumcision when every medical organization I am aware of claims the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.* I think calling it 'mutilation' is a stretch, to be sure. I think if you don't like circumcision then don't circumcise your son(s). Most circumcisions don't seem to have affected the man in any meaningful way (despite exceptions) and I think telling people that it causes reduction of pleasure or sensitivity when we just don't know that at this point is unnecessary and irresponsible. It smacks heavily of an agenda, and until there is real proof to support it I won't have any part in it.
> 
> I think we really ought to just agree to disagree on this.


Really, can you name a single one besides the AAP (which is a trade organization, not a medical)?


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

infjbrosef said:


> There are no benefits of circumcision in developed countries, however there are very real desensitizing effects. You mention that every medical organization you have heard of advocates the benefits. It may come as a shock to you but the majority of the world is uncircumcised (%70) and there are plenty of medical organizations that do not support this barbaric procedure.


It's a religious practice used by religious familys and you're arguing someones way of life based solely on the 'fact' that yours is 'better'.

While yes, medical facts 'may' outweigh circumcision based on your unreliable fact sheets but that still proves nothing to the people who are already circumcised. 

 I have a feeling the argument's been over for awhile already anyways.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

Where I come from, we have a saying.

If your man is whole, you ain't.


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

ItsSunnyOutHere said:


> It's a religious practice used by religious familys and you're arguing someones way of life based solely on the 'fact' that yours is 'better'.
> 
> While yes, medical facts 'may' outweigh circumcision based on your unreliable fact sheets but that still proves nothing to the people who are already circumcised.
> 
> I have a feeling the argument's been over for awhile already anyways.


At least you're honest enough to admit it's a religious practice and not a medical one. The only real question (the pleasure argument is ethically irrelevant), is if religion justifies surgery on a healthy child. It still amazes me that so many people can argue yes.


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

MooOfTheCow said:


> At least you're honest enough to admit it's a religious practice and not a medical one. The only real question (the pleasure argument is ethically irrelevant), is if religion justifies surgery on a healthy child. It still amazes me that so many people can argue yes.


It's all about opinions, you don't have to justify what other people do _because_ it has _no direct impact on you_ that's positive or negative. I understand your line of questioning but in the end it's just an opinion. Not a life or death situation.

Your personal opinion should have _no relevance_ to my own because my own does not directly impact you so here comes the 'equality' aspect. This doesn't mean I'm devaluing your opinion by not taking it into relevance, it's just almost like me telling someone to cut their hair a certain way just because I think they'd look better with it and then getting angry when they don't.

What's the point? My religion practices differently then your own and I don't need to justify it. Learn to live with it or your life's going to a big sticky mess of arguments.

Sorry if I come off sharply. roud:


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

ItsSunnyOutHere said:


> It's a religious practice used by religious familys and you're arguing someones way of life based solely on the 'fact' that yours is 'better'.
> 
> While yes, medical facts 'may' outweigh circumcision based on your unreliable fact sheets but that still proves nothing to the people who are already circumcised.
> 
> I have a feeling the argument's been over for awhile already anyways.


What was that? All I got from that was "I was cut myself and now I am trying to defend my culture and this obsolete practice."


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

infjbrosef said:


> What was that? All I got from that was "I was cut myself and now I am trying to defend my culture and this obsolete practice."


All I got from this was that you're insulting my opinions because they don't validate with your own tiny ideals.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

ItsSunnyOutHere said:


> All I got from this was that you're insulting my opinions because they don't validate with your own tiny ideals.


Protecting children from unnecessary harm is a tiny ideal is it?


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

infjbrosef said:


> Protecting children from unnecessary harm is a tiny ideal is it?


I dont appreciate how quickly you started using 'Strawman' Fallacies because you automatically assume. No, It's not a tiny ideal to protect children but until you prove without a shred of doubt that 'mutilation' is occurring consistently I don't respect any of your opinions. These simple 2-5% chances of 'mutilation' caused by human error prove nothing.

The only concept you've proven more then once to just be short sighted and to have no evidence of your claims besides personal feelings and believe me when I say that everyone has an opinion. Yours is no different except in the fact it just pleads ignorance.

Why dont you get back on topic and start explaining to me how it endangers my future children? What's going to go wrong if I DO decide to circumcise my boy? But wait! You need evidence to prove that my belief is lesser then yours.

I advise you start digging before you use more fallacies.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Swede said:


> Absolutely, I agree with all your points! Intercourse can also help to get the period started IME, which can often be a good thing, because some women are in a lot of pain and discomfort before it finally begins.
> 
> For me, back when I did NOT want to get pregnant, that time of the month was the time when I could finally relax 100% and truly enjoy myself. Some women do stress a lot about a potential unplanned pregnancy and I used to be one of them, because I knew that for me personally abortion would not be an option, while I suspect that for the majority of my partners it was the only option. My partners enjoyed that time of the month because it was also the time of the month where we did not use condoms.
> I have since had both my tubes removed for medical reasons and the level of freedom I feel now is absolutely incredible! I wish I had taken them out years ago, tbh, but it's easy to be wise after the fact.


My husband volunteered to join the seedless grapes club. After his 6 month post op appointment, I realized what a relief that was. So much stress off my shoulders! I hadn't even realized I had stress surrounding sex because of fertility. 

And... agreeing with you on the not washing inside the vagina. Biiiiiig no no. I got all gungho on washing everything as a kid one time and got the UTI from hell for my bright idea. I didn't tell anyone until I started peeing blood. No washing vagina's. Bad idea.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

I think that the discussion is pretty interesting because it shows how inflexible we all can be.

I don't agree that circumcision is comparable to breast implants; I am guessing that the former was a treatment that became tradition back in the days when it was harder to keep clean due to lack of clean water, soaps, washing machines etc, so it was introduced as a way to prevent decease and suffering. The latter has never been connected to physical health, quite to the contrary, even though for some women it has probably been important from a self esteem point of view.
I do also not agree that circumcision is comparable with female genetalia mutilation - there is no health benefit connected to this tradition, but it is a way for society to suppress/take away the enjoyment of female sexuality in a sick attempt to control the women.

I believe that the parents who circumcise their sons do so with their sons' best interest at heart in the vast majority of the cases. I also believe that the father is many time making the call, likely deciding to treat his son the way he was treated himself, but that is just a suspicion I have. 
I would guess that it is easier for a parent to have control over the healing process when the boy is a baby compared to when the boy is a toddler. 
As I stated earlier, personally I'd choose not to circumcise my son/s, but I would feel incredibly guilty if he ended up having health issues thanks to my decision. That's parenthood for you; you will make the wrong call many times, that's how life works. 

When it boils down to it, passion can be good, but it can also become dangerous if seeps of into obsession. I almost see the issue with circumcision comparable to abortion; it is dangerous to implement a zero-tolerance policy, but it is equally dangerous to use abortion as a birth-control method (the obvious difference between abortion and circumcision of course being that the embryo is affected). 
Common sense and balance is the key to most choices in life, IMO. 

So what is the rate of circumsision in a country where it is performed when health requires it and not based on tradition? Well assuming that it is not *underused*, Finland might be a good example:


> Denniston reported in 1996 that the neonatal circumcision rate in Finland is zero and that the rate of later circumcision is 1 in 16,667.[56] Similarly, Wallerstein estimated in 1980 that the Finnish rate of adult circumcision for health reasons is six per 100,000.[57] Schoen et al., however, reported in 2006 that data from 1996–1998 indicate a circumcision rate of about 7.1%;[58] Houle reported the same figure in 2007.[59] Finland's Ministry of Social Affairs and Health reported in 2004 that, "some 500-1000 circumcisions are performed as a therapeutic measure annually in Finnish hospitals",[60] amounting to 710 nationwide cases in 2002.[61


----------



## MooOfTheCow (Aug 14, 2011)

.


----------



## infjbrosef (Dec 1, 2012)

ItsSunnyOutHere said:


> I dont appreciate how quickly you started using 'Strawman' Fallacies because you automatically assume. No, It's not a tiny ideal to protect children but until you prove without a shred of doubt that 'mutilation' is occurring consistently I don't respect any of your opinions. These simple 2-5% chances of 'mutilation' caused by human error prove nothing.
> 
> The only concept you've proven more then once to just be short sighted and to have no evidence of your claims besides personal feelings and believe me when I say that everyone has an opinion. Yours is no different except in the fact it just pleads ignorance.
> 
> ...


It doesn't endanger your children, but I would have thought you wanted them to experience the full pleasure of intercourse as it is an important part of relationships later in life. I assume that you advocate circumcision due to the profound medical benefits rather than to protect your possibly mistaken reasoning. Could you please share these profound and life changing benefits?

Here are some articles explaining the sensitivity differences in uncut/cut men.

Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as me... [BJU Int. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - Sorrells - 2007 - BJU International - Wiley Online Library


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

infjbrosef said:


> It doesn't endanger your children, but I would have thought you wanted them to experience the full pleasure of intercourse as it is an important part of relationships later in life. I assume that you advocate circumcision due to the profound medical benefits rather than to protect your possibly mistaken reasoning. Could you please share these profound and life changing benefits?
> 
> Here are some articles explaining the sensitivity differences in uncut/cut men.
> 
> ...


Atleast you provided evidence this time and no, I dont advocate circumcision in the slightest but I don't appreciate blatant shitposting just because you disagree either so it was at an intersection of love and hate. Also ridiculing me based on just sexual sensitivity? I function well within my normal reasoning and I'm circumcised.

At least my parents gave the forethought of 'wanting' to care for me but I do agree it wasn't probably one of the best choices they've ever done for my healthcare. It's in the name of their belief that had statistical proof showing it _was _ a healthier alternative all though so I'm willing to just deal with it because I'm attempting to see with open eyes. 

Are you?


----------



## Sunn (Mar 12, 2014)

infjbrosef said:


> It doesn't endanger your children, but I would have thought you wanted them to experience the full pleasure of intercourse as it is an important part of relationships later in life. I assume that you advocate circumcision due to the profound medical benefits rather than to protect your possibly mistaken reasoning. Could you please share these profound and life changing benefits?
> 
> Here are some articles explaining the sensitivity differences in uncut/cut men.
> 
> ...


Also this just proves "sexual issues". Got any mutilation? Or are we still straying off topic.


----------

