| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/29/2007 3:21:06 PM | | As a child of AI & J (Abraham, Issac & Jacob), I still don't know the symbolic meaning of the foreskin and why it is removed. I want mine back. I wanna leave this world exactly as I came in. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/29/2007 4:33:36 PM |
If someone said they had an operation which would decrease thirty percent of your sexual nerve endings so you would experience 30 percent less pleasure would you do it? Uncircumcised men have better sensory experience by far, circumcised men have to rely on oral to get as much pleasure.
LIke I said earlier, I received mine in my early 20's. I do not believe this. Actually I have just the opposite opinion. I think there are more exposed nerve endings. IMO, and based on how it feels. I'm sure with any removal of tissue is the removal of nerve endings. The foreskin doesn't have any sexually stimulating nerve endings. It's just skin.
Getting a circ did nothing to modify my behavoir. But then I got a local and watched the whole damn thing nobody ripped it off or anything crazy.
Does anyone remember reading James Michener's "The Source"? In the book a man gave himself a circ in his room for religous reasons. I would not advise this.  | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/29/2007 4:34:34 PM | "As a child of AI & J (Abraham, Issac & Jacob), I still don't know the symbolic meaning of the foreskin and why it is removed. I want mine back. I wanna leave this world exactly as I came in."
.....through your mothers womb? | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/29/2007 4:41:26 PM | to blairskimo
thats what i think its about keeping it clean... just like girls have to go through procedures to keep it friggin clean!! | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/29/2007 7:42:07 PM | On circumcision and aggression:
Since so many people are against circumcision, and some people claim there is a relationship between circumcision and aggression, I thought I'd look it up on the internet. What I found shocked me. There are thousands upon thousands of papers on the internet, many by learned physicians and psychologists. But I cannot seem to find one actual clinical study on the observations of a few hundred men, half circumcised and half uncircumcised.
All of these papers seem to suggest the same theories as proposed by Freud, which is that circumcision is unnecessary and therefore barbaric, and according to Freud's theory that everything is based on early sexual experiences, counts circumcision as a sexual trauma.
However, Freud was not fond of his Jewish heritage, and may have felt a natural disgust at circumcision as a permanent reminder of his Jewish identity, something that he could hide from everyone but a lover.
So, we have no choice but to discount his anti-circumcision viewpoint.
Now, if you wanted to back up anything like this, one or two studies would be easy enough to perform. However, surprisingly enough, I cannot find any, nor does anyone seem to be quoting any studies. Very, very unusual for a field in which many questions such as if schizophrenia is from nature or from nurture, have been resolved by such studies.
See http://www.circlist.com/rites/british.html
Of course, I cannot be sure, but I am in England, and circumcision is only about 15-30%. White Christian & Catholic males aged 16-24 are the least likely group of all to be circumcised, particularly among the working class. Those who live in these areas know that aggression, fighting, and sexual violence are rife amongst these young men.
There is little clear evidence to suggest that circumcision increases aggression. But at the least, it appears that people who are circumcised in the UK are more likely to belong to groups where violence and aggression are far less common.
On circumcision and sensitivity:
I just looked up this one. See http://www.circlist.com/considering/sensitivity.html
The evidence of less sensitivity is questionable and debatable.
What interests me the most is one guy who was circumcised at 35, and noticed no decrease in sensitivity at all. Not saying one guy is all guys, but one would expect the loss of sensitivity to be universally noticed by all men who engaged in sex both before and after circumcision.
On circumcision and health:
What I do know, is that I have had a lot of male friends over the years who told me about every ailment under the sun, particularly the dreaded "caught in the zipper" scenario. However, the only person I ever met who had a problem with general genital health of the member, was someone who was uncircumcised and tried having sex with a woman, but despite daily showers, had neglected to clean the area under the foreskin. He discovered that intercourse was painful, checked the area and realised that he had loads of bits caught there, including a piece of corn.
I myself have found that because the foreskin has been removed, it is as difficult to wash the area as washing my fingers.
On circumcision and choice:
Circumcision as a baby is relatively easy and I know of no-one who remembers the pain. However, as an adult, it is a very different story. Just ask any Muslim, who is circumcised at 13. Or ask cjgregory (msg #6).
I also know of no-one personally who wants it reversed or regretted it.
There is a website which is in favour of having it reversed. The website owner is very proud of his 11,000 hits in 6 months. That averages 1 visit every 24 minutes, or about every half-hour. Can you imagine how successful POF would be if that was the number of people who were coming on the site?
I am not suggesting that everyone has to be circumcised.
I am merely suggesting that everyone has the right to be circumcised, and until loads of men who were circumcised as infants complain about it, there is nothing wrong with circumcision on one's boys either.
Of course, I know of many people who believe that it is only fair and right to enforce their views on other people, whether they want that or not. This view was held by the Jesuits Missionaries in South & Central America, amongst others. I can list much bloodshed spilt as a result of this attitude. Not millions, but tens of millions. Maybe hundreds of millions in total. Please, stop demanding that others agree with you. I'm not a murderer, and I would hate to think that anyone on this site would incite murder, and that is exactly what these type of reactions incite people to do. Every day, the BNP (British National Party, which is Pro-Nazi), spouts things along the same lines. So do the terrorists organisations.
Only tolerance can combat the enemies of life. Tolerance means that I accept being uncircumcised as a valid way of life, and you accept being circumcised as a valid way of life. If you and I can do that, then we both have a shot of happiness. If not, the holocaust is coming, and it will eat us alive. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/29/2007 8:29:41 PM | | I am un-cut and I have had no problems! I clean it everyday and there is no problem. The only thing that I have heard of is if the sex is too rough, it has a tendendancy to rip. Anyone know about this? | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 7:41:48 AM | When you clean . You pull back . You lather . You clean under all the ridges of the head including the little pockets where the foreskin is attached to the head . Done !
No Its not painful . The foreskin pulls all the way back naturally during intercourse any way at least for me . | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 8:02:16 AM | | I am circumcised, though if I had a boy I would have to think about doing it to him or not. I prefer myself not having the skin..because one thing comes to mind when I imagine myself having a foreskin: SMEGMA. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 8:13:00 AM | | in my admittedly limited experience (hah) during sex I've found no difference between cut and uncut.... | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 9:41:01 AM | I am also Uncut.
Just think of me as Torpedo man. Because that's what it looks like a long Torpedo.
When i was with the 18-23 crowd of girls when i was younger ... they thought it was icky and doesn't look good. Most prefer the better look of a circumsized man but what does it matter if your having a good time? Looks don't get you pleasure :) | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 9:41:36 AM | Ok....its about time I put my 2 cents worth into this discusion.
I am not cut and I have never heard a woman say "eee-ewww"., but than : I was taught when I was young to keep myself clean, period.
As far as sensetivity goes, as one person said : some nerves are being cut. I can't coment on that because I obviously never experienced both ways, but I can tell you about women who were cut at child birth by doctors who do not have a clue about a womans clit , or they just don't care what or where they cut. The only way these women can have an orgasm , is by way of the G-Spot.
By the way, the desendent of Abraham , Isaak and the other fellow , makes more sense when he says that he wants his foreskin back ,than a lot of people here.
Maybe we have too many doctors who are desendents of Abraham, Isaak and the other fellow here in North America who like the idea of mutulating poor defencless boys. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 10:09:02 AM | | Great Kahuna: "Mutilating poor defenceless boys".....please - don't you think that's a bit overdramatic. Let's face facts shall we - multiple studies over mulitple years have shown that getting cut prevents HIV infection, which is one of the fastest spreading STD in the world. So getting cut has a lot going for it vs getting not cut which has zero advantages. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 10:16:14 AM | | You wanna put links to those studies here please . Ide like to read them cause the last I heard wearing a rubber and practicing safe sex (knowing your partner , getting tested etc etc ) prevented HIV infection | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 10:29:56 AM |
"Mutilating poor defenceless boys".....please - don't you think that's a bit overdramatic.
No, far from it.
I find some peoples lack of morality disturbing.
You wanna put links to those studies here please . Ide like to read them cause the last I heard wearing a rubber and practicing safe sex (knowing your partner , getting tested etc etc ) prevented HIV infection
Indeed, I would also be interested in reading those studies. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 10:43:39 AM |
Great Kahuna: "Mutilating poor defenceless boys".....please - don't you think that's a bit overdramatic. Let's face facts shall we - multiple studies over mulitple years have shown that getting cut prevents HIV infection, which is one of the fastest spreading STD in the world. So getting cut has a lot going for it vs getting not cut which has zero advantages.
Actually, getting cut does not prevent HIV. Some studies have shown a *slightly* decreased risk of HIV infection in circumcised men, but it is completely ignorant to think that being circumcised will prevent HIV. How about using condoms each and every time? Still not 100 percent, but more effective than circumcision.
I worked obstetrics for a few years, and have seen many circumcisions. It is pretty brutal. Even with a local, the babies scream and cry, and are extremely sleepy for the next 24 hours. This alone tells me it was traumatic for them. Just because a baby can't remember the pain doesn't mean they don't feel it. I have also seen way too many bad circs where the babies bleed or even the tip of the penis is removed by accident. It is a surgery, and I feel it should be reserved for those for whom it is medically necessary.
I am also having a really hard time believing the story about the man who found corn under his foreskin. Come on. Give me a break. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 12:57:16 PM | Geez - talk about laziness... all you need to do is put in circumcision and HIV and pages of the stuff will show up. Forum moderators, please excuse the following links as they were requested by other pof'ers.....
I tried to collect a few of the many - please note - I do have a bias in favour of medical journals instead of conspiracy theory webpages.....
British Medical Journal....based on findings from the Lancet
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592
Alliance for Human Research Protection - has additional links
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/07/05.php
If you want the above in easy to understand english - several international news companies - covered it - CBC/BBC/New york Times.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/12/13/circumcision-hiv.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4371384.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14hiv.html?ex=1185940800&en=a9c5f3bee34f5dea&ei=5070
The following is a summary of speech made at a medical conference dealing with how to incorporate circumcision and the number of lives it could save....quite startling
http://www.pslgroup.com/news/content.nsf/medicalnews/852571020057CCF685257325006A6370?OpenDocument&id=&count=10
Pete1978: "I find some peoples lack of morality disturbing." - I take it saving lives is amoral then? Interesting.
shyblondee: I would add that any botched operation is painful - but just because something is painful, doesn't mean that its bad. Take triple bypasses - they hurt - but they save lives.
P.S - Cicumcision will not 100% prevent the spread of HIV - only condoms and other forms of safe sex will. But it does help, especially in those countries which due to cultural reasons are against condom usage. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 2:28:39 PM | ^^^
Sorry, but I find advocating circumcisions as a way to save lives a bit of a stretch. A triple bypass is necessary to save a life. A circumcision is not.
The vast majority of uncircumcised men do not have HIV. Japan has one of the lowest circumcision rates in the world, and also the lowest incidence of AIDS. How do you explain that? According to you they should all be dropping dead from AIDS because the men are uncircumcised. Pediatricians DO NOT recommend routine infant circumcision because the risks outweigh the possible benefits.
Here is another link for you which contradicts the findings you seem to accept as fact.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/ | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 2:37:01 PM | Actually - the analogy was not between life saving operations, but between pain and necessity.
Japan has low rates of aids primarily because of higher condom use. Again, condoms are the primary means of avoiding STD's..... | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 3:36:51 PM | To each their own. I am against it.
I dont find a difference in guys that i've been with if they've been cut. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 3:38:20 PM | You said:
"Mutilating poor defenceless boys".....please - don't you think that's a bit overdramatic.
I said:
No, far from it.
I find some peoples lack of morality disturbing.
Then you said:
Pete1978: "I find some peoples lack of morality disturbing." - I take it saving lives is amoral then? Interesting.
What are you talking about? Of course saving lives isn't amoral, but abusing children is immoral.
Here is another link for you which contradicts the findings you seem to accept as fact.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
Good link, thanks.
I found these parts at the end particularly relevant.
(Quoted from http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/ )
“Based on the studies published in the scientific literature, it is incorrect to assert that circumcision prevents HIV infection. Even if studies showing circumcision to be beneficial are accurate, the risk from circumcision outweighs any small benefit it may have. To depend on circumcision to protect against HIV infection in lieu of condoms, which have been shown to be efficacious76,77, is dangerous. Promoting circumcision as protection against HIV could also promote, intended or not, the inference, that a circumcised penis is adequate protection from contracting HIV, resulting in an increase in HIV infections. The circumcision experiment in the United States, which has failed to prevent the spread of this pandemic, should serve as a lesson to other countries.”
"Some have suggested that American men are resisting a layer of latex that would further decrease sensation from a glans already desensitized from the keritinization following circumcision. Moreover, condoms are more likely to fall off the circumcised penis78" | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 4:03:13 PM | sexyfunguy - Your not making much sense to me. First you say ,
Let's face facts shall we - multiple studies over mulitple years have shown that getting cut prevents HIV infection
I ask you to back up what you say and not just believe it blindly , (which you seem to resent when people do that which really puts up some red flags about you, ) then not only do you get your back up ; You insult people and call em lazy
Geez - talk about laziness... all you need to do is put in circumcision and HIV and pages of the stuff will show up. Forum moderators, please excuse the following links as they were requested by other pof'ers.....
I tried to collect a few of the many - please note - I do have a bias in favour of medical journals
I wanted to see what you read. How YOU came to these conclusions .
Then you say this , which kinda has me confused after you basically state that those of us whom are uncircumsized are walking bacterial and viral fraps of infection ,
Japan has low rates of aids primarily because of higher condom use. Again, condoms are the primary means of avoiding STD's.....
I have no idea where your comming from . That is to say what your motive is cause your not making any sense.
What are trying to prove or what are you trying to say. That there is more of a chance un-circumsized men will get girls sick and less of a chance that you wont cause your circumsized .
I am not saying you are but that is what its sounding like to me. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 4:06:10 PM | | I wasn't given a choice. My foreskin is gone. I often wonder what they did with it. Did it get discarded with bio-hazardous waste? Did it get tossed in a container with other foreskins and get sent to some Frankfurter company? | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 4:06:29 PM | "Japan has low rates of aids primarily because of higher condom use. Again, condoms are the primary means of avoiding STD's....."
Actually, that is an assumption on your part. I see no research that shows high condom use in Japan. Where is yours? | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 4:24:49 PM | Been uncut since well, (duh) birth, and no one has ever said "Ewwwww". I've never experienced both ways but have considered getting a circumcision from time to time. Then I read some scary stories about it in this thread and now have decided to leave well enough alone. 
Personally, however, I have no preference. They both seem to have their own 'style' and 'personality'. | |
|
| Circumcised vs Un-Circumcised...
Posted: 7/30/2007 5:50:31 PM |
multiple studies over mulitple years have shown that getting cut prevents HIV infection,
These studies were done mostly in Africa where there is practically no sex education and rampant HIV and AIDS where the disease originated.
I will try to backup with links later.
Most educated people USE CONDOMS, so the spread of disease shouldn't be an issue. | |
|
Home
login 
