Cut or uncut?

AckwelFoley

gcgirl wrote: »

do you and your mate ever compare and contrast?? :rolleyes:

No.

Thats sooo 1980's rural Ireland type of activity.

We prefer to watch football and drink beer.

2 stroke

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I've my tonsils out, I don't have a fully functional throat as it evolved either.
The most likely reason for the foreskin would be to protect it when we were naked Neanderthals running through bushes hunting prey. It's really as useful as your appendix at this stage.

You can have my appendix if you want. My tonsils I'll fight for, but I'll give up women before I'll give up my foreskin.

missingyou

snyper wrote: »

No.

We prefer to watch football and drink beer.

and i know a couple of guys who actually do...

....who are now in long term relationships...

...with girls... suprisingly :L

Silverfish

Can we keep it on topic please? Thanks.

gcgirl

2 stroke wrote: »

Any woman considering Circumcision on a baby should get an uncircumcised man, peel back his foreskin and run her tounge over the piece that would have been cut off and see how much pleasure he feels.
As a teenager I was presented with the choice of circumcision, even then I didn't understand all the issues, but I'm glad I made the decision to wait a few more years and see if it caused difficulties later on.

Esp The frenulum Which is prob the most sensitive part of the guy's gland!!

Wibbs

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I've my tonsils out, I don't have a fully functional throat as it evolved either.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. If you weren't told you wouldn't know whether or not you had tonsils. They're not a sensate part of the body.

The most likely reason for the foreskin would be to protect it when we were naked Neanderthals running through bushes hunting prey. It's really as useful as your appendix at this stage.

OK lets say that's correct. Then it would satnd to reason that the uncovered glans is more sensitive to damage(and stimulus) than the covered one. Jeremiah 16:1 puts the point that we need it to protect the sensitive glans from clothing itself. Indeed not wearing clothing I could walk around with the foreskin retracted as it wouldn't be rubbing against anything. Again the appendix is pretty much a vestigial organ, the forskin is not.

All mammals have one. It has evolved to protect the sensitive glans to prepare it for the only time(that it's evolved for) when it is uncovered and that is for intercourse. Simple as that. Why? Because it is an extremely erogenous area that evolution has deemed requires protection to properly function as an erogenous part of the body that leads to orgasm. It's also essentially an internal part of the body. Its analogous to the clitoris which is also covered until aroused. What if the vagina itself was exposed and dried out? Wouldn't function the way it was supposed too. If it didn't play such an important role in arousal then it quite simply would not have evolved in every mammal.

I've never had to use it either.

Which is precisely my point. I couldn't rub that part without lube it would be too painful as it is very sensitive. No way. The fact that you can proves at least in this case that you are less sensitive than an uncut man. That can't really be debated if you can do that without lube. Pretty much every uncut guy who reads that will wince a little at the thought of a dry hand.

I yeah you can try that if you wish,

Hence I would find out after the glans had essentially calloused and dried out what it would be like to be cut, so in effect I can find out what it is like to be cut. You can't find out what it's like not to be. That was my point.

but when it comes to intimacy, it still works just the same.

Actually it doesn't. While it still clearly works, it is not working at it's full functionality. Even forgetting about penile sensitivity it's drier and the gliding action of the foreskin is entirely lost. The erogenous tissue of the foreskin itself is lost.

I firmly believe that a lot of those that have it done later in life find it so different due to their mindset that it must be different, as they have lost part of their manhood.

No they find it different because it is. Simple as.

Completely, for the same reason that we do not remove peoples appendix routinely, even though it can also lead to complications and in some cases death. There is no need to put a person through the trauma of surgery unless there is a problem.

Agreed.

PS. tallaght01

Wibbs you're confusing your "30% of a given population get penile cancer", which is obviously untrue (and was never claimed) with "30% of cancers of males in certain countries are penile"

30% of a given population is the same as saying 30% of cancers of males in certain countries. They're populations studied along political boundaries, unless your talking about racial populations.

I think the Prof's abacus is fine.

I still think it needs new batteries. The figures he quotes are all way under 10% for any populations/country he mentions. If he is trying to make a point that it can occur in 30% of those presenting with cancer in a given country, why is that country not referenced? It's like me saying I am claiming 20% of a countries males wear hats, and go on to give as an example only 1% do in the countries I've studied. makes no sense and hardly bolsters his case, even if true. And yes I'm aware that the stats run along the lines of who gets cancer and what cancers they break down into(at least I think so. He's about as clear as mud). In any case even in the prof's report the highest he could muster was 8.3%. Is this over a lifetime? Is this in one year? Is this across general population? Is this across people with cancers? What proportion where circumcised?

His first line is "Penile malignancies are uncommon", yet then claims 30% of all cancers are penile in some countries. Hardly uncommon is it? If that is just referencing the west then he should have made that clear at the outset. Even with causation he first says; "The common sites of origin may be related to constant exposure to smegma and other irritants within the prepuce." then goes on to say; "No firm evidence indicates that smegma acts as a carcinogen, although this belief is widely held". Apparently by him with his codicil of no firm evidence. Mkay. His contention that "In Uganda, this is the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with 1% of men being diagnosed by age 75 years", also has issues. Cancer of all kinds must be damned rare in Uganda of only 1% of males get the most common kind by 75. A bunch of teetotal non smoking vegetarians they must be. His next book tltle, "How to avoid cancer like a Ugandan".

Professor of medicine he may be, statistician and clear communicator of research he is not.

MIN2511

The long posts are getting longer and harder to read, buttom line of this thread is that some of us agree with circumcision and others "strongly" disagree with it...

Wibbs

Pretty much, though I would say "strongly" on both sides.

The shortest answer I would give of my opinion is that the foreskin is important, not least for sexual pleasure, it is not some vestigial "piece of useless skin" that requires removal as a given in otherwise healthy newborn males. It's loss does remove some of that sexual function. Many of the reasons given are the same as for FGM, yet because it's acceptable to us and medicalised(esp in the US) it is not considered even in the same area. To perform the operation, because of "culture" and women's preference are IMHO not good reasons. If I was to suggest to a woman I was with that her genitals required augmentation because I didn't like the look of her and considered it a bit sloppy, I would rightfully be pilloried, yet some have suggested exactly that for the male. I would also repeat in the case of a medical need then intervention in that case is of course warranted and in that context fine.

AckwelFoley

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty much, though I would say "strongly" on both sides.

The shortest answer I would give of my opinion is that the foreskin is important, not least for sexual pleasure, it is not some vestigial "piece of useless skin" that requires removal as a given in otherwise healthy newborn males. It's loss does remove some of that sexual function. Many of the reasons given are the same as for FGM, yet because it's acceptable to us and medicalised(esp in the US) it is not considered even in the same area. To perform the operation, because of "culture" and women's preference are IMHO not good reasons. If I was to suggest to a woman I was with that her genitals required augmentation because I didn't like the look of her and considered it a bit sloppy, I would rightfully be pilloried, yet some have suggested exactly that for the male. I would also repeat in the case of a
medical need then intervention in that case is of course warranted and in that context fine.

Hey Wibbs

The way i look at this as i do any other part of the human body is, that the foreshin is there for a reason. Im sure there are reasos that one could be beter off without it, but i personally would never have the procedure performed on me or a a child of mine unless necessary. But its there and im sure there is a reason for it

If i see you at the next BGRH on the 4th, i will propose a toast to forekins

Star Lord

Wibbs wrote: »

No they find it different because it is. Simple as.

To be honest, I'd say that it's probably a little of both.

I'll be honest though, the main reason I joined the argument was that reading your posts does give the impression that the circumcised penis is something that is maimed, insensitive and simply does not function as well as an uncircumcised penis. I do wholeheartedly agree that it should be something that is done ONLY out of medical necessity or the choice of the individual.

I'd imagine the... addition... I've got on mine would be very different and possibly difficult for someone that still had their foreskin though...

Snyper wrote:

If i see you at the next BGRH on the 4th, i will propose a toast to forekins

Wibbs

Yea lets agree to disagree or agree or, god knows what. All this talk of willies. sheesh.:D

Red Hand

I propose that Wibbs change his nickname from Wibbs to Willies.:pac:

All posts in this thread from now on will count as a vote for the name change.:p

Wibbs

Oh God. That is all.:D This is not a vote BTW...... Now I suppose I could suggest that I've been called willie before for far better reasons, but the ladies would spot that as BS so......

I

Think

That

TWM (The Willy Meister)

would

Be

Silverfish

C-c-c-combobreaker

Better

Wibbs

Cut or uncut as a guy, women are terrible cruel Ladies my....:D

Silverfish

Silverfish wrote: »

C-c-c-combobreaker

Holy heart failure!! ~Shakes fist~

tbh

I'm 34 now, and I got circumcised about two years ago. I think this makes me a little unique in the context of this thread, as the only other person who was circumcised when they were not a kid was Damo, and I think he was 13. So basically, I've had lots of sex uncut, and lots of sex cut.

So, firstly, the reasons I got the op done. I'm a type one diabetic, and one of the problems this causes is that the excess of glucose in your urine causes a build up of the (sorry) smegma under the hood. The problem is that the skin in the foreskin loses it's elasticity, and so you can't "peel" it back. This makes washing very difficult (remember when you were a kid and your mammy was trying to take off your polo neck, and you couldn't get it over your head?), and so things get itchy and....lets say, unpleasant.

Sex was very painful without a condom as my foreskin would not retract, so it felt very tight and sore. With a condom it was fine as the condom tended to hold the foreskin in place, but of course that meant that it reduced sensation.

So, now that I've had the op done, I just want to let you know a couple of things.

My penis is not so sensitive that it hurts whenever I walk - for the lads, what you are thinking of is if you rolled your foreskin back and just walked around like that. Not nice. When I'm just doing my normal day to day things, it feels just like I'm not cut. That doesn't mean I'm used to the sensation, it means there is no sensation. When I'm having sex, It's amazing. I don't really need any lube, assuming everything is done in the right way (i.e. manipulation of the shaft, rather than the head), or I can use lube if my oh wants to pay attention to the head - the point is, I don't need to. I can also masturbate to orgasm without using lube with no discomfort whatsoever.

SO, for me it's not a case of making the best of what I have, or learning to live with, or cope, with the effects of the operation. Sex feels exactly the same way it did before I started feeling the effects of not being cut, no better, no worse. Those of you who got the op as kids are not missing out. Those of you who are not cut are not missing out, because when you are having sex, the foreskin is pushed back anyway. The only people who can benefit from getting cut are those who were like me, and couldn't retract their foreskin.

as for the look, some like it, some don't, like hairy chests. personally, I much prefer the look now, it looks sleeker and more menacing
hope that helps.

Star Lord

Huzzah!!!

I was only 4 when I got mine done, so I was a kid, just not a baby. But I still remember what it was like when I'd the surgery done... esp. one horrible incident where the sheets stuck... but anyway...

At least now we have some first hand experience that can put the sensitivity issue to rest.

The fact of the matter is, the penis still gets engorged with blood and is still very sensitive, just the little things like direct contact don't hurt, they just feel nice!

ozchick

ztoical wrote: »

following on from the "does size matter" thread where a few comments regarding the attractiveness of male organs were made and it reminded me of a recent conversation with a friend. I was taking about an ex boyfriend who was Canadian and therefore circumcised - this seemed to really intrigue her as all her boyfriends were uncircumcised. Just got me wondering what the general view on circumcised vs uncircumcised was on this forum

I didn't think the nationality had anything to do with it!

Geeze, interesting to see how many men are in the ladies lounge!!:D

2 stroke

I don't think anybody need feel "unique in the context of this thread" I've been down pretty much the same path except I didn't get the op. It was recomended when I was born, again when I was around 5 and reviewed at every medical examination until my late teens when a series of excercises allowed me retract for the first time. If I neglect these excercises/good hygene the old problem returns. However I resolve to remain firmly connected to my foreskin.
It's not a subject I normaly discuss, but I think its time old fashioned thinking on this subject changed and that thas procedure was banned except where there there are real medical reasons for this operation

cuckoo

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

But I still remember what it was like when I'd the surgery done... esp. one horrible incident where the sheets stuck... but anyway...

I think that line quoted above would be reason enough for circumcisions to take place only when really, really needed. Eeeeeeeek. :eek:

From a visual point of view i'm really not bothered what a penis looks like, i'm more interested in the man it is attached to and what we're getting up to and how it feels. What's that cliche - 'the largest sex organ is the brain'? I'm going to go all Marksie now for a minute, but sometimes there are too many hang ups about everything sexual being just to do with the genitals.

2 stroke

Grawns wrote: »

"Circumcision earned its reputation as a cost-effective public health procedure for desert societies in ancient Egypt. Today the virtual absence of deaths from penile and cervix cancer, as well as lessened Aids and prostate cancer deaths in these societies, vouches for the lasting benefit that has been acquired from this procedure for peoples with limited access to water."

While re reading the thread I came across this quote. I think possibly my thinking could be swayed if faced with regularly cleaning under the foreskin with hot desert sand.

ztoical

ozchick wrote: »

I didn't think the nationality had anything to do with it!

I mentioned the nationality because in some countries its far more common for men to be cut - like in the USA and Cananda - I had a few conversations with female friends when I lived in the US and pretty much all of them had never been with an uncut man where as it tends to be the other way around in Ireland.