Thread: Circumcision and Restoration

I'm circumcised. I've heard about how uncircumcised men have more sensitive penis' and therefore a better orgasm which kind of sucks for me. It's totally unnecessary and actually bad for the sexual experience.

If I ever have kids I wouldn't circumcise them.

I've been with guys who are and aren't. Most guys in the U.S. my age are circumcised. I prefer uncircumcised..but it's not really that big of a deal to me either way. I don't plan on having it done to my children if I ever have any. The rates in the U.S. are going down considerably, which I think is a good trend.

Some say circumcised men are actually more capable of satisfying their women due to the decreased sensitivity. Some say uncircumcised men enjoy sex more. But who knows if either side's anecdotes are true. I'd like to see scientific studies on the issue.

I challenge the notion that uncircumcised men have better orgasms because the pleasure of an orgasm comes more from the contraction of muscles. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not exactly an expert on male orgasms.

Edit: Take a look at this page. You see anecdotes supporting both sides.

Edit 2:I'm honestly not sure how to feel about circumcision. Since circumcision and reverse circumcision are both possible at a later age, it seems like the issue of whether or not you get circumcised is irrelevant.

Edit 3: Here's one I didn't expect

First of all, it is a myth created by uncircumsized men in the age of circumsision that sex is less pleasurable when you're un-circumsized. That's just something invented to help the feel better about the fact that the majority of North AMerican girls don't like it when guys are wearing a turtle neck. The penis is, in fact, more sensitive during sex for circumsized men. Secondly, the difference isn't so huge that you should worry about it. Thirdly, when a man gets circumsized after he's full grown it is, of course, very painful, and, worse, half of the penis is a a darker colour than the other half, and that doesn't look so hot... you'll find this look sometimes in porn, since all that skin doesn't go over so well in adult films. Finally, don't worry about what that girl said. It's true that most women don't like the skin... it is cumbersome to deal with, and tastes and smells get trapped under there, making it less pleasant to perform oral sex on a man. Also, it isn't as pleasing to the eye. HOWEVER, women get used to it, and if they care about the man at all, they forget about it, and it becomes attractive, at least on an individual basis. Also, statistics say that there is a renaissance in non-circumsision (which i know i'm spelling wrong!!), and now only about 30% of babies are being given the procedure routinely. So don't worry about it. To each their own... you just need to find a chick who doesn't mind... take it from a girl who has had plenty of experience with both. It used to repluse me, and i still prefer it bare, but the man that I love has a hat, and all i want to do is make love with him, piggy in a blanket or not!

Makes ya wonder.

I think it's clear that you can have great sex either way. As long as you don't masturbate TMS style, you're fine.

I had a bad case of fimosis, so I actually had it done later in life. I'm much happier now that I'm cut.

what on earth is masturbating tms style?

Click the link...I can't say I've ever done it that way LOL

Ouch.

Seriously though, guys. If a woman has a problem with a natural penis, kick her to the curb. There's plenty of women out there who love it ..

wow, i actually did TMS at one time. for like once or twice. I read it on the internet but i didn't know it was called tms. Glad i didn't stick with it.

So what should i do. i want to do restoration but i don't want to regret it when i am oder.

I don't know much about restoration but it would seem that once that mucous membrane has callused over, restoration won't bring it back and it would be pretty much just for aesthetic reasons. I could be wrong about that, but bottom line is that it's never going to really be an uncirc'd peen..
It just seems like a long process that isn't going to make a lot of difference one way or the other to your sex life. If sex is decent and you're happy with it the way it is, why go through another unnecessary process/procedure? You've already had one.

Of course, if you really want to do it, then I say go for it..just make sure you're positive that you want to go through the hassle.

Mutilating a child like this should be outlawed in any decent civilized society. If adults chose to have plastic surgery on their genitals, so be it. For a child who has no say in the matter, it is abuse.

Go to:
http://www.nocirc.org/

Unfortunately, the restoration is not really worthwhile. Just do what you can to protect future generations.

Originally Posted by sheogorath

so, most people in the world (except the US obviously) don't circumcise their children. SO what makes people do it here in America? To me it is pointless. Saying that not circumcision could lead to infection if not kept clean, so lets cut it off makes no more sense to me than saying "well, you can get ingrown fingernails and toenails so lets remove them on birth. The kid will never know any different."

So what is your opinion on it? I was circumcised at birth and live in the US where most people are. I was reading and apparently there is a "sort of uncircumcision" method. What do you think of that? personally i have thought about it before, but never decided rather to do it or not.... leading to the next question

for females, would you flat out be offended by a guy that was not circumcised? It is a very awkward subject. What is your opinion on circumcision? I mean, i don't want to go through uncircumcision and then find that no girl will do me just because i am uncircumcised.

About cleanliness;

- Do you really think it's hard to ask a boy to soap up and play with his dink in the shower?

About the popularity;

- Fads and trends. Porn industry is dominated by uncircumcised - mostly just for show.

About regrowth;

- Works but very tedious and probably not worth the effort in the end. Just live with it *Shrugs*

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Some say circumcised men are actually more capable of satisfying their women due to the decreased sensitivity. Some say uncircumcised men enjoy sex more. But who knows if either side's anecdotes are true. I'd like to see scientific studies on the issue.

I can provide the evidence but let us consider;

The idea of circumcised penises pleasuring more is mostly in relation to oral sex. There are many that consider it much better and easier without the foreskin. Also, there's an argument that the revealed head makes the stimulation better.

However, consider that, with the foreskin rolled down, there is more stimulation from the rolled foreskin itself. Furthermore, the foreskin functions to let the guy know how erect he is (the further back the skin, the larger erection - learning this really helps those with sexual problems whereas circumcised men cannot).

I challenge the notion that uncircumcised men have better orgasms because the pleasure of an orgasm comes more from the contraction of muscles. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not exactly an expert on male orgasms.

Edit: Take a look at this page. You see anecdotes supporting both sides.

Edit 2:I'm honestly not sure how to feel about circumcision. Since circumcision and reverse circumcision are both possible at a later age, it seems like the issue of whether or not you get circumcised is irrelevant.

Edit 3: Here's one I didn't expect

Makes ya wonder.

Consider;

Warning! This is not work safe!




Furthermore, uncircumcised men have "better" orgasms due to the fact that they simply have more stimulating neurons involved. I say "better" because, of course, it is a very relative thing. The best we can argue is that more neurons=more stimulation=better stimulation.

~

That is just horrifying. I would cut a bitch that did that to my child. *SHUDDER*

I was circumsized as a child because my father was. My brother was meant to be, but the parents never got around to it after his condition was stablised (born nearly 3 months premature).

We have a gay friend in America that was uncircumsized until he turned 25. He made the switch because out of the 40 or so partners he'd had, he was the only uncut one. He's regretted it ever since, describing loss of sensation as the number one reason for his regrets.

Get down to basics - it's legalised genital mutilation. Just because we don't do it with sharp rocks anymore doesn't make it any less barbaric. I won't have this done to my child, and I will be the advocate of reason to my friends when they have children in the future.

yeah, this is a very controversial topic. There are pros and cons to both sides. The biggest argument for circumcision is that it can prevent infections/phimosis/other nasty stuff. The biggest argument against it is that the boy doesn't get to chose, as it is usually done shortly after birth.

I'm personally for it, as I am a circumcised male and wouldn't want change that if I could, and would circumcise my boys.
Barbaric? Seriously? It's not like you're cutting the kids whole organ off, just a piece of skin. Would you guys honestly be so against it, if you didn't hear so much garbage/bashing about it on the internet from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by sheogorath

so, most people in the world (except the US obviously) don't circumcise their children.

Although it is true the majority of the males in the world aren't circumcised. The numbers are highly exaggerated. It isn't just the USA that does it. It is also done (actually more) in all Middle Eastern countries, a huge chunk of Africa, and South East Asia. I looked this up, I am not just making up false info like "some people" do.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I'm circumcised. I've heard about how uncircumcised men have more sensitive penis' and therefore a better orgasm which kind of sucks for me. It's totally unnecessary and actually bad for the sexual experience.

If I ever have kids I wouldn't circumcise them.

True but increased sensitivity also means premature-ejaculation.

Increased sensitivity does harm ones chances of lasting longer.

Increased sensitivity vs. bedroom endurance

Hm..

Originally Posted by Bizarre Jester

yeah, this is a very controversial topic. There are pros and cons to both sides. The biggest argument for circumcision is that it can prevent infections/phimosis/other nasty stuff. The biggest argument against it is that the boy doesn't get to chose, as it is usually done shortly after birth.

Let us allow the journals do some talking;


"There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses."

+ http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/74/5/368

If you want my opinion, though, I would say that it ought not to be hard to say;

"Hey little Johnny, please go soap up in the shower and wash your penis"

Barbaric? Seriously? It's not like you're cutting the kids whole organ off, just a piece of skin. Would you guys honestly be so against it, if you didn't hear so much garbage/bashing about it on the internet from people who don't know what they are talking about.

It is, without a doubt, a painful experience for the child. This is undeniable and you can see it for yourself in the videos. This is a major reason for many people to not have the procedure done.

Although it is true the majority of the males in the world aren't circumcised. The numbers are highly exaggerated. It isn't just the USA that does it. It is also done (actually more) in all Middle Eastern countries, a huge chunk of Africa, and South East Asia. I looked this up, I am not just making up false info like "some people" do.

The prevalence, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) is 30% with 70% of them being Muslim.
+ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...596169_eng.pdf


"Eighty-five percent of the infants in the study population were circumcised. White and African-American male infants were much more likely to be circumcised than those of other races (odds ratios [ORs], 7.3 and 7.1, respectively, P < .001). Compared with self-pay patients, those covered by private insurance were 2.5 times more likely to be circumcised (P < .001). Logistic regression showed that rates for obstetricians and family physicians were not significantly different. Increased odds of circumcision were found if the mother received an episiotomy (OR = 1.9, P < .001) or cesarean section (OR = 2.1, P < .001). Circumcised infants stayed in the hospital an average of one fourth of a day longer than did those who were not circumcised (mean difference, 0.26 days; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.36). "

+ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7561711
- "...3703 male infants born during 1990 and 1991 at four US sites..."

True but increased sensitivity also means premature-ejaculation.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Increased sensitivity does harm ones chances of lasting longer.

Increased sensitivity vs. bedroom endurance

Hm..

This is not true. At all.

First of all, with foreskin, the male can actually feel how erect he is during intercourse. The more erect you are=the more further back the skin is. You obviously cannot do this if you do not have the foreskin. In this sense, a male with foreskin could easily control their erection more effectively.

Also, consider the evidence;


"The distribution of the IELT in all the five countries was positively skewed, with a median IELT of 5.4 minutes (range, 0.55–44.1 minutes). The median IELT decreased significantly with age, from 6.5 minutes in the 18–30 years group, to 4.3 minutes in the group older than 51 years (P < 0.0001). The median IELT varied between countries, with the median value for Turkey being the lowest, i.e., 3.7 minutes (0.9–30.4 minutes), which was significantly different from each of the other countries. Comparison of circumcised (N = 98) and not-circumcised (N = 261) men in countries excluding Turkey resulted in median IELT values of 6.7 minutes (0.7–44.1 minutes) in circumcised compared with 6.0 minutes (0.5–37.4 minutes) in not-circumcised men (not significant). The median IELT value was not affected by condom use."

+ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0


"All 15 men who participated in the study between September 1999 and October 2000 were available for followup. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation was 36.9 ± 12.0 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the BMFSI composite scores of reported sexual drive (p >0.68), erection (p >0.96), ejaculation (p >0.48), problem assessment (p >0.53) or overall satisfaction (p >0.72).
...
Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function in sexually active adults who undergo the procedure.

+ http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...22534705650975

~

I know people who have restored(from forums) and they all said it works. The penis head became very sensitive again.

Originally Posted by BossBadger

I've been with guys who are and aren't. Most guys in the U.S. my age are circumcised. I prefer uncircumcised.

Why do you like it more? I heard it feels better for the female inside her and that uncirc'd ones are more fun to play with..

Both reasons, Meepo. I think it feels better and it's more fun to play with.

As for not lasting as long due to sensitivity, I have found that not to be the case at all.

As far as the research showing that it's healthier or that the infection/STD risk is higher:
1. Wash it. Teach the kid to wash it. It's not that difficult.
2. Use condoms. Teach your kids to use condoms.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Increased sensitivity does harm ones chances of lasting longer.

Increased sensitivity vs. bedroom endurance

Hm..

I LOL'd.

Being English, and going to an English school, no one had the chop, that we knew of - I think the ones who showered with their underwear on might have been the chopped ones.

I have to say I've never had a complaint - although I've only been with English girls and one Slovak. Cannot comment on sensitivity since I've never been snipped. I don't think I could ever subject my children to this, and don't think I would be too pleased with having this decision made for me by my parents.

So restoration really works? Wouldn't the nerve endings be permanently damaged/desensitized...especially after such a long period?

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

So restoration really works? Wouldn't the nerve endings be permanently damaged/desensitized...especially after such a long period?

Nah it's like how your palms can become calloused after lifting heavy weight for a year, but when you stop the skin returns to normal.

First of all, with foreskin, the male can actually feel how erect he is during intercourse. The more erect you are=the more further back the skin is. You obviously cannot do this if you do not have the foreskin. In this sense, a male with foreskin could easily control their erection more effectively.

I don't understand why you keep saying this. It doesn't make sense because one can easily tell how erect they are from the shape and feeling of the penis, even without foreskin. Personally, I can feel perfectly fine how erect I am looking or without looking at my penis. Clearly, you are either circumcised or are circumcised but have a very straight, regularly full-sized, numbed penis or are just playing devil's advocate, else you would know this.

It is, without a doubt, a painful experience for the child. This is undeniable and you can see it for yourself in the videos. This is a major reason for many people to not have the procedure done.

That's ridiculous. Anti-circumcision folks bring this up all the time, but never seem to factor no circumcised male who has the procedure done within a year of life remembers the experience. It is not painful for the child because arguably the child cannot even be considered conscious at such an early stage of life. And if I'm wrong about that, then doctors could just start using anesthetics.

Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function in sexually active adults who undergo the procedure.

Who's side are you on?

Consider.

-

Anyway, I'll be getting my kid circumcised on the grounds that it simplifies things a little bit. I can see no reason not to, as I am circumcised and satisfied with my orgasms.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I don't understand why you keep saying this. It doesn't make sense because one can easily tell how erect they are from the shape and feeling of the penis, even without foreskin. Personally, I can feel perfectly fine how erect I am looking or without looking at my penis. Clearly, you are either circumcised or are circumcised but have a very straight, regularly full-sized, numbed penis or are just playing devil's advocate, else you would know this.

You are right, you can feel the shape and feeling of the penis without foreskin. You can also feel it with foreskin.

Furthermore, you can feel the foreskin peeling back with the more erect you are. It is an addition to erection control that circumcised men cannot utilize.

I am debating the truth and I have already provided actual evidence. Have you considered it?

That's ridiculous. Anti-circumcision folks bring this up all the time, but never seem to factor no circumcised male who has the procedure done within a year of life remembers the experience. It is not painful for the child because arguably the child cannot even be considered conscious at such an early stage of life. And if I'm wrong about that, then doctors could just start using anesthetics.

I have already provided, not only a video of, but evidence that it does cause permanent damage and pain. It is undeniable.

Who's side are you on?

Consider.

Why did you quote me this?


"So – what’s the story about circumcision? There appear to be some benefits of circumcision, but they’re probably small IF uncircumcised men are careful and consistent in their daily hygiene. And if you’re circumcised, the data suggests that you don’t have to worry about pleasure – you’ve lost nothing from being circumcised, in your sexual pleasure, and you may have gained a few strokes. And that’s the end of this month’s myth.

+ Your Link

Anyway, I'll be getting my kid circumcised on the grounds that it simplifies things a little bit. I can see no reason not to, as I am circumcised and satisfied with my orgasms.

You may be, but there is actually no reason, aside from religious, to get a child circumcised. Personally, I would be angry if I were you.

Also, if you are going to debate this any further, please review the evidence I have already provided before continuing. I would find it rude if you debated the benefits if I have already provided evidence that you willfully neglect.

~

I was cut. My kids won't be.