Well...
Printable View
Well...
Nope, and proud of it to. :pimp:
indeedQuote:
Originally Posted by cannabis campbell
yup
fuck cleaning dick cheese
un-circumsized pride
i like it
you need less lube
which is pretty cool
yea, im circumsized. and very glad. no offence
this thread makes me laugh uncontrolably
ya man i cut
yeah I'm snipped...but if i wasnt i would say what the french guy on duece bigalow said "It's like a torpedo" and then.. i would wink and smile:)
There is no medical reason to do this mutilation to infants. The foreskin is packed with nerve endings that cannot be replaced once amputated. Some botched operations actually KILL the child, or leave the baby horribly injured. The procedure is done without anesthesia, and the pain leaves psychological scars that may remain for life.
The heath insurance companies in Europe stopped paying for circumcisions, so the practice has dropped drastically. The rate of circumcisions would go down in the U.S. as well, if people really knew how bad it is, and the insurance companies followed the lead of their European counterparts.
The men who were cut as infants, and say that they prefer it, can not validate this opinion because they donā??t know any better - itā??s as ridiculous as having any organ removed in infancy and saying that itā??s better this way.
Nature provides foreskins for a reason, and it is extremely stupid to just hack it off. It also provides for better sex with women, a sort of "gliding" effect that they prefer to the circumcised penis.
Most Americans have a dislike of the foreskin because of the culture. Most of the world, fortunately, does not think this way.
Nope, I like my ant eatter. :)
No Im not!
Thats part of my dick! Why the fuck would I cut it off!? I know how to wash my cock!
Breukelen Advocaat, I don't like havin this circumcision argument because its pretty pointless to argue who's penis is better, but a couple things...
First of all, its not MUTILATION and it isnt BAD. I don't know where you got the information of trauma being caused by it, for infant nerves are very weak and circumcision really isnt that much pain to them, or else they would use anesthetics.
Where did you get info stating women prefer uncircumsized? I just did a search, all i find are women prefering circumsized penises because they look better/cleaner/dont smell as bad/feel better(this makes sense since theres more surface area rubbing in the vaginal walls with a circumsized penis for theres no foreskin acting as a sleeve. I don't know where you got that "gliding" thing from)
And as for hygene, studies have shown that uncircumcized penises are much less hygenic and succeptible to urinary tract defection, penile cancer, unretractable foreskin etc.
Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just clearing up some statements you made such as circumcision being bad, a form of genital mutilation, traumatizing, and something women dislike when compared to uncircumcized.
Don't even think about taking a knife and going anywhere near there!!!!
I've heard both those arguements before. Personally I'm uncircumsized, but as for it being uncleanly, take 15 seconds in the shower to pull it back and wash it and your set, and if you don't shower daily... well, to each his own.:p
And I dunno about you guys, but me, and anyone else I've talked about it to, retracts upon erection... so this buisness about it being better? Isn't it the same thing?
Well, unless it's too tight, but you grow out of that in most cases. I've talked to chicks who both prefer one or the other, but if your using a condom, once again... same diff?
The only thing about circumcision I don't like is the actual cutting... *cringe* Other than that, I'd be happy either way, sex is sex.
I have three little boys, all are circumsized....I would never cause intentional harm, or mutilate my babies...i just know what all the girls say about the uncircumsized guys.... calling them rumpleforeskin, dick cheese, etc...sorry to all the guys rocking the turtle neckQuote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
youre right, it is a culture thing, why would I want to subject my boys to being teased because they dont look like all the other little boys....penises for boys can be as much a source of pain, as weight is for girls. one of the most important things you can do for your child is to give them a sense of acceptance and normalcy...as for trauma....well, I would say the pain of being born would be more traumatic then the circumcision...that is, if you actually believe it causes trauma...
The good news is that the rate of circumcisions in the U.S. has gone down dramatically in the past two decades.
Basically, a boy (or girl) should be allowed to have his body as nature intended, until they reach the legal age of consent and are able to decide for them selves. NOBODY has the right to mutilate them before that time.
This started as a sacrifice to god, and has also been used, among other things, to stop masturbation, prevent insanity, and other false claims.
These websites should answer all of the questions as to why it should be banned:
http://www.nocirc.org/
http://www.icgi.org/
Nearly Half of American Boys Escape the Knife
published on Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:51:32 -0500
Today's Parents Say "No" to Circumcision -- The U.S. circumcision rate declined 11.4% over two years, according to figures just released by the National Center for Health Statistics, from 63.1% in 2001 to 55.9% in 2003, following a steady, twenty-five year decline. At this rate, in just 12 years, the US will join other English-speaking countries in abandoning circumcision. Medicalized, mass circumcision of infants is a uniquely English-speaking phenomenon. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom formerly circumcised the majority of infant boys, but have either abandoned the practice, or reduced the rate to about 1 in 10. The United States medical community stands alone is profiting from a non-therapeutic, unnecessary procedure performed on non-consenting minors. The largest decline was in western states where the rate dropped 23%; and seven out of ten boys remained genitally intact. In 2003, 45% of American newborn males left the hospital intact, up from 37% in 2001. Since 1996, it has been illegal to circumcise girls in the US, but thousands are still at risk every year. The law itself is legally questionable because it lacks equal protection, which the Constitution makes mandatory.
Declaration of the First International
Symposium on Circumcision
Adopted March 3, 1989
Anaheim, California
We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right.
We recognize that the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts.
Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's normal genitalia.
Physicians and other health*care providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts.
The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure.
We categorically state that circumcision has unrecognized victims.
In view of the serious physical and psychological consequences that we have witnessed in victims of circumcision, we hereby oppose the performance of a single additional unnecessary foreskin, clitoral, or labial amputation procedure.
We oppose any further studies which involve the performance of the circumcision procedure upon unconsenting minors. We support any further studies which involve identification of the effects of circumcision.
Physicians and other health*care providers do have a responsibility to teach hygiene and the care of normal body parts and explain their normal anatomical and physiological development and function throughout life.
We place the medical community on notice that it is being held accountable for misconstruing the scientific database available on human circumcision in the world today.
Physicians who practice routine circumcisions are violating the first maxim of medical practice, "Primum Non Nocere," "First, Do No Harm," and anyone practicing genital mutilation is violating Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment..."
Do you belong to a nudist club? If not, I cannot picture little boys pulling their penis' out in front of little girls. Unless, of course, you are talking about "adult" women - many of whom have no idea of what they are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by muncheemama
With almost half of American boys now escaping the knife, I'd certainly think that the uncircomsized ones will feel more than "normal" to be intact. Then, these women and girls that hate foreskins will have little choice when it comes to their preference for men that have had their penis' chopped up.
im uncut and i wouldnt change it ever
Damn you! who are you to advocate stopping a practice that gives women good penises!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
seriously, you have shit to talk about everything on here...and as the old saying goes....opinions are like assholes, everyones got one, and they all stink....except for mine of course
all i know is that my children are happy, well adjusted and they have not asked where their foreskin went.... as a matter of fact....my husband wanted it to be done for our boys... and as a man, i guess he would know better than you...
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Your hatred of foreskins is going the way of the horse and buggy. It's OLD - and your grandchildren, if you have any, will likely not be cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by muncheemama
I don't care what you did, it's important that this barbaric practice be stopped. Your opinion is in the very small minority, and becoming less and less prevalent every day.
BTW, "Damn you!" is not a very nice way to start a conversation, Fatso. :dance:
I'm all here...
Would you circumcise your daughters too? There is no difference, just a societal double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by muncheemama
Breukelen Advocaat, maybe you're putting female circumcision with male circumcision, I would agree that female circumcision is mutilation. Like in your second article which put male and female circumcision together, that is totally invalid for female circumcision is done in some tribal cultures as a way to control women from having sex with other men. What they do is cut the labia and clitoris out and sew the hole shut, only to open it for sex with their husband, and sew it shut again after they are done. This female circumcision is usually done when the girl is a young child, not an infant, without anesthetics, therefore making it extremely painful.
Its safe to say that female circumcision is mutilation for it makes their genitals disfunctional, but in the case of male circumcision the functionality isn't altered, therefore its not MUTILATION. So will you stop using that word, get more reliable sources, and just relax about this issue? This post is about who is circumsized and who is not, not an argument about which is better than the other.
muĀ·tiĀ·late (myūt'l-āt')
tr.v., -latĀ·ed, -latĀ·ing, -lates.
To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See synonyms at batter1.
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
[Latin mutilāre, mutilāt-, from mutilus, maimed.]
mutilation mu'tiĀ·la'tion n.
mutilative mu'tiĀ·la'tive adj.
mutilator mu'tiĀ·la'tor n.
You can dress up the term with an acceptable word, such as circumcise, but to cut off, make imperfect, or damage any body part is mutilation.
There are various types of female circumcision. Not all are as extreme as the ones that you describe.
You are supporting something that is going to become obsolete very soon, for good reason.
Children have to brush their teeth - should we pull them all out? You see how stupid this is?
This practice destroys the most sensitive part of the male body - and DOES have severe repercussions in many cases.
this thread made me laugh loads...
Both sides of the argument are valid...in their own ways
Im un-cut, and im glad I wasn't given the snip at birth...I guess if I wanted to I could get it cut off later in life....or if my g/f wanted me to....which I don't think she would....she seems to like it lol
I guess I just like having the choice....
But I dont agree with circumcision...it isn't natural imo
where did you get this idea?^^ its false by the way..... you keep talking about this like its an accesory.... my kids bodies aren't purses or shoes, I didn't do it because it was trendy and I wont feel bad if it goes out of "style"....I did it becasue my husband and I were brought up to believe it is better for my kids...the doctors told us it was better for them... I have never encountered an uncut weiner, so I suppose my view comes form one of ignorance....as i'm sure your view does as well...keep on trying to save all the foreskin of the world one weed website at a time....good luck, but if I have another boy I will do it again, no questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
are there any guys on here who were cut and now regret it...? People have body parts removed all the time, there are alot of pieces that are uneccesary, the apendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth, hair, why dont you work on those parts too? Sounds like you have a strange obsession with penises... why dont you stick one in your mouth and quit bitchin
And if I had a daughter, no I wouldnt circumsize her, why? because its not part of my culture....call it a double standard if you like, just make sure you add it to society's long list of double standards....the facts are that the world is imperfect, and people have the ability to make decisions, and just because some people dont agree, it doesn't make me wrong...
AHHAHAAAHAHAHAAAA
:D:D:D
oh that made me laugh so hard :D:D
what really counts is where ya stick it
ever hear about the boy that was born without any eyelids...? so when he was circumcised, the doctors took the foreskin and made him some eyelids... now they say he's cock-eyed
I'm a chick, so I don't really have a say in the poll.. but I don't see the point of getting boys circumsized except for the cultural thing.. and well, the cleanliness of it. But an uncut penis can stay just as clean as a cut one if you take the 20 seconds in the shower. All of the guys I have been with have been circumsized, except for one, which was an ex-boyfriend.
And coming from a girl's point of view, I preferred the uncut penis to the cut ones.
Nope, not cut. I have the hood and all. :p
DETROIT (CNN) -- Just a few months ago, 10-year-old Louis was in critical condition with burns on more than 40 percent of his body. Once nearly immobile, a new technology has allowed Louis to once again be able to play and run.
Louis was playing with lighter fluid near a barbecue when he caught on fire. Doctors were able to cover Louis' burned skin with a new artificial skin called Dermagraph-TC.
Before Dermagraph-TC, the typical cover for burn wounds was cadaver skin, known as allografts. The skin grafts, however, didn't always have the desired effects. They sometimes introduced disease to the burn victim or are rejected by the body, prompting further painful surgery.
"(We needed a way to bridge the gap for patients) with massive burn injuries in which we have insufficient amounts of their own skin to provide skin graphs," explains Dr. Marc Cullen of the Children's Hospital of Michigan. "We need something that will serve as an active skin while we are waiting for their own skin to become available."
Dermagraph is the only artificial skin product on the market made from human tissue. Made from human foreskin, Dermagraph-TC can make enough skin to cover six to eight football fields from one male sample.
The artificial skin acts like real skin, but with no side effects. The negative characteristics of cadaver skin do not come into play.
"It allows them emotional relief from having to have repeat surgery and some pain relief," Cullen explains. "(It also allows) an improvement in their condition and it's very visible in the patient as their heart rate returns to normal and their desire to participate in rehabilitation is enhanced.
The drawback to Dermagraph-TC is its cost. The skin grafts costs about $3,600 a square foot compared to $600 to $800 for cadaver skin. But the extra expense of the Dermagraph can sometimes, as with Louis, be compensated for by the lower expense of shorter hospital stays, made possible by the artificial skin's better performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE=muncheemama]where did you get this idea?^^ its false by the way..... you keep talking about this like its an accesory.... my kids bodies aren't purses or shoes, I didn't do it because it was trendy and I wont feel bad if it goes out of "style"....I did it becasue my husband and I were brought up to believe it is better for my kids...the doctors told us it was better for them... I have never encountered an uncut weiner, so I suppose my view comes form one of ignorance....as i'm sure your view does as well...keep on trying to save all the foreskin of the world one weed website at a time....good luck, but if I have another boy I will do it again, no question
are there any guys on here who were cut and now regret it...? People have body parts removed all the time, there are alot of pieces that are uneccesary, the apendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth, hair, why dont you work on those parts too? Sounds like you have a strange obsession with penises... why dont you stick one in your mouth and quit bitchin
And if I had a daughter, no I wouldnt circumsize her, why? because its not part of my culture....call it a double standard if you like, just make sure you add it to society's long list of double standards....the facts are that the world is imperfect, and people have the ability to make decisions, and just because some people dont agree, it doesn't make me wrong...[/QUOTE]
Your "culture" is going to do away with circumcision, with or without my help. It's happening right now, but you're just finding out now.
You can not make a good argument for this butchery, so you insult the people that are against it. YOU, and other people that favor the mutilation of baby boys, have a "strange obsession with penises" - you destroy the most sensitive part of them, and swear that it's a good thing without one valid reason why other than "culture". Well, your culture is rotten. Those foreskins are rarely used for skin grafting - they are often sold to the beauty companies to test makeup and other shit that bimbos use to paint themselves with. It's a rotten, corrupt, business and as soon as the medical companies stop paying for it, the cutting will stop, like it did in Europe.
The only people that KNOW that it is worse than being naturally endowed are ADULT males that did it - usually because of bad medical advice. I've heard guys say that their sensitivity went from a "10" down to about a "3" after the procedure. Of course, in the very rare instances of cancer of the foreskin, surgical circumcision is necessary, and the men are not concerned with their loss of foreskin. And for people that convert to Islam, or Judaism, they just grin and bear it. Otherwise, the verdict is usually that it is much worse. Men that were mutilated as babies don't know any different, including your family members.
As I said before, your future grandchildren will probably escape the knife, because it's becoming less and less popular. All we have to do is convince the insurance companies not to pay for it anymore, and it's pretty much over.
P.S. I didnt' start the topic, and you, as a woman, have less knowledge than any man does about the male anatomy. You probably have deep seated resentments against men, as well, judging from your hostility.
[QUOTE=Breukelen advocaat]like youre one to talk....you dont have a penis eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by muncheemama
[QUOTE=muncheemama]If you are trying to goad me into insulting you, forget it - it's too easy, and I'd rather trade barbs with people that have some class. I'd rather not waste my time with ignorant, hostile people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
You're going to be out of here soon. I can tell.
MothersAgainstCircumcision
"I believe the time has come to acknowledge that the practice of routine circumcision rests on the absurd premise that the only mammal in creation born in the condition that requires immediate surgical correction is the human male." Thomas Szasz, M.D.
The Circumcision Decision: An Overview
by Mary G. Ray,Ā©1998
Quite a number of famous child care experts and doctors recommend against circumcision in their books. Dr. Dean Edell has expressed oposition against infant cirumcision for at least 15 years now. Sheila Kitzinger very emphatically recommends that parents leave their sons intact. Dr. Lendon Smith goes into detail explaining the foreskinā??s purposes and giving all the reasons why circumcision should not be performed. Dr. Spock, in his most recent book, stated ā??I feel that thereā??s no solid medical evidence at this time to support routine circumcision.ā? He recommends ā??leaving the foreskin the way Nature meant it to be.ā? Penelope Leach also recommends against routine circumcision
What exactly is circumcision and what is it not?
by Francisco Garcia
Infant circumcision is made more acceptable by believing the notion that there is a flap of skin at the end of the penis called the foreskin which hangs over the glans and circumcision simply removes that flap. This is factually incorrect. By thinking that the foreskin is separate or "extra" tissue it is easier to believe that its removal does little to impact or change the rest of the skin of the penis.
There is really no separate anatomical structure called the foreskin. Rather there is one single continuous skin sheath of the penis which is called the skin system. This single, uninterrupted skin sheath may, at any given time, fold to varying degrees over the glans or retract to reveal it. The amount of the skin system that is folded over can be referred to as the forefold of the skin system. Its extent changes often to accommodate degrees of erection, and it is never a separate structure from the skin of the shaft.
What the operation called circumcision actually does then is to interrupt and significantly reduce the skin system of the penis to a fraction of its normal anatomical and functional extent.
The skin system of the penis
The intact penis is covered by one single continuous skin sheath or skin system. The skin sheath is partly folded at different times. This folded part of the skin system is called the foreskin or prepuce.
The fold of skin is often mistaken as a single layer, or a flap of skin. This is wrong. Instead, it is a free, two-layer fold that forms when the skin coming down the penis from the shaft folds underneath itself somewhere near the tip of the penis then travels back to an attachment point behind the glans (see figures 6 and 4). The two sides of the fold do not adhere to each other even though they lie flat against each other appearing to form a single flap of skin.
Also, in the adult the skin system does not adhere to the glans so it can unfold back off of the glans, leaving it fully exposed. When we speak of this skin sheath we are not talking about the surface of the glans itself in the same way that we talk about the surface of the shaft, because the glans has no real skin. When we talk about the skin covering of the glans, this can only mean the foreskin. The foreskin is its skin covering.
The fictitious foreskin
A significant anatomical error has been made historically and continues today in describing the penis by delineating the "foreskin" as a separate anatomical structure from the shaft skin. People talk about the "foreskin" separately from the shaft skin. This is a mistake. It is not correct.
The foreskin is not a separate anatomical structure from the rest of the skin of the penis. This is actually an artificial separation. When the word foreskin is used, rather than referring to a separate part of the penis, it means the part of the continuous skin system which happens to be folded over the glans at any given time. So there is no real anatomical border to the "foreskin." Since the proportion of the skin system that is folded over the glans
increases and decreases by folding and unfolding to various degrees all the time, we realize that "foreskin" is a poor way of describing the anatomy of the penis. Instead, more accurate terminology might be to describe that part of the skin system which covers the glans as the "forefold of the skin system."
Unlike the false border between "foreskin" and shaft skin, there is a real anatomical border which exists in the skin system. It is between the mucosal, or non-keratinized, part of the skin system (which consists of the inner lining of the foreskin along with the surface of the glans) and the keratinized part (which is the outer penile skin, including the outer foreskin). That border is at the most distal part, or tip, of the skin system - it is the tip of the forefold (see figures 6 and 7).
The mobility of the skin system
The entire skin system moves freely. In the intact (uncircumcised) male, the penis has a low friction gliding plane immediately beneath the surface of the skin which is like no other body structure. This means that the skin of the penis does not adhere to the underlying tissue the way that skin adheres to other parts of the body. This unique quality allows the entire skin of the penis to move as a unit back and forth longitudinally or around the shaft circumferentially making it the most mobile skin in the intact male.
The skin system covers the head of the penis to varying degrees depending on moment-to-moment factors such as the state of erection and temperature. The free fold of the skin system which we call "foreskin" unfolds and re-folds constantly to varying degrees, adjusting to the current state of the penis. It is a very dynamic system. The foreskin, among other functions, provides the penis with a reservoir of skin which is needed during erection. The skin of the erect, intact penis is still mobile and loose, allowing the mucosal inner foreskin to roll back and forth over the glans (see figure 7).
Thus, the dividing line between what we call the skin of the shaft and foreskin is regularly crossed by the "shaft skin" or "foreskin." The delineated "foreskin" may become entirely "shaft skin" when the penis becomes more erect because it is now around the shaft. And if the penis shrinks momentarily beyond its usual flaccid state, perhaps due to a cold swim at the beach, some of the "shaft skin" is now "foreskin" because it covers the glans. The skin system is a dynamic, mobile and flexible skin sheath that moves and adjusts to the momentary needs of the penis (see figure 7). Such a system is not normally observed in the circumcised male.
Another anatomical error is committed in describing the foreskin as a flap of skin protruding from the shaft skin (figure 6a). This notion presumes that the foreskin is a single layer of skin, like the skin of the shaft, which grows from the shaft to cover the glans. In describing the foreskin this way it is easier to see it as redundant or "extra skin" and it is more difficult to see how removing it might impact the rest of the penis. This description of the foreskin is inaccurate. The foreskin is not "extra" skin which protrudes from the shaft.
There is no extra skin on the body - this is a silly notion. Instead, it is a free, double-layered fold - an integral part of the skin system. The foreskin extends from a point on the shaft behind the glans to cover the glans then folds back underneath itself to the same attachment point on the shaft, usually near the glans (see figure 6). The eyelid works much the same way. The eye lid is not a single flap of skin, but rather two freely moving layers of a fold of skin, so that both the foreskin and the eyelid have two layers.
That's why it is more appropriate to refer to the "foreskin" as the forefold of the skin system.
In reality then, infant circumcision does not remove the "tip of the penis" or "redundant skin" nor does it remove a separate structure called "the foreskin." Rather, infant circumcision deletes a significant percentage of the skin system of the penis, rendering the skin system relatively dysfunctional and rendering the penis less dynamic.
The "triple whammy"
The circumcised penis loses sensitivity in three ways:
1. Loss of the foreskin nerves themselves. As has been demonstrated by studies such as the one by Dr. Taylor and by the testimonials of the majority of intact men, the inner foreskin possesses a greater density of nerve endings. It is thought to be more erogenous than even the glans. The is no question that the foreskin is a highly erogenous tissue. This tremendous amount of sensitivity is lost completely when the forefold of the skin system is amputated. In addition to this, the most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum of the foreskin, is either partially or totally removed in most infant circumcisions. The frenulum is the continuation of the inner foreskin which attaches to the underside (ventral part) of the glans. Thus, a significant percentage, if not the majority, of erogenous nerve supply to the penis is removed in circumcision at birth.
2. Damage to the glans. The erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. This is further reduced by removal of the protective foreskin which leaves the glans permanently exposed. Unlike the shaft of the penis, and most of the rest of the body, the head of the penis, does not posses its own attached skin. This structure, like the eye ball and the gums of the mouth, is a somewhat naked structure. Its surface is non-keratinized, like that of the gums, the eye ball, and the clitoris in women. That means that it does not posses a protective thick layer like the keratinized skin of the outer penile skin system. Like the gums and the eye ball, the glans of the intact penis has a retractible skin covering. The skin covering of the glans is the foreskin. The eyelid is very similar in architecture to the foreskin. If the eyelid were removed and the eyeball were to become keratinized, you'd have a much harder time seeing. The same is true of the glans. It becomes artificially keratinized (dry, ha rdened, discolored, and wrinkled) as a result of permanent exposure, and thus less sensitive. Because most American men are circumcised and have a glans of this nature, it is harder to notice the abnormality. But just compare the glans of an intact man with that of a circumcised man next to each other and you'll notice a big difference. Thus, in addition to removing lots of erogenous nerve endings in the inner foreskin and frenulum, circumcision further desensitizes the remaining sensitivity of the glans by leaving it exposed.
3. Loss of skin mobility. The nerve endings in the glans are predominantly complex touch receptors also known as mechanoreceptors. This is different from the light touch receptors of the skin which detect surface friction. The mechanorecptors are best stimulated by massage action rather than surface friction. Thus, the glans is best stimulated to feel pleasure by a rolling massage action. With an ample and highly mobile skin system that rolls over the glans with pressure from the opposing surface, this optimal stimulation of the glans is achieved while avoiding direct friction of the delicate glans surface. Direct friction tends to fire off pain receptors causing irritation and also causes further keratinization of the glans. With the skin system of the penis significantly reduced by circumcision, the mobility is essentially gone and now the penis is a static mass with no dynamic self stimulation mechanism. Now, it must be rubbed. Direct friction is now the primary form of stimulation. So then circumcision further reduces erogenous sensitivity in the penis by reducing skin mobility and thus the ability to use the foreskin to massage the glans. The combination of foreskin and glans in concert results in an even higher level of stimulation which is unknown to the circumcised male.
Conclusion
Circumcision of an infant male significantly reduces erogenous pleasure potential in his penis when he becomes sexually active and continues to be reduced as he ages until, in many cases, he is left with relatively little sensation.
Adult Circumcision vs. Infant Circumcision
A common misperception is that infant circumcision is preferable to adult circumcision because it spares a man pain and trauma. Many physicians however say the opposite and critics admit that most of their objections to infant circumcision cannot be applied to the adult procedure. Here's why:
1. More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.
2. Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.
3. Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.
4. Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.
5. Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.
Even though the facts do not support the claim that adult circumcision is "worse" than infant circumcision, some pro-circumcision advocates contend that adult circumcision is painful, traumatic and dangerous, and that for this reason most adult men who are intact choose to remain uncircumcised. But when intact men are asked about the idea of being circumcised, most say that they have no desire to give up this part of their body - there is no reason to even consider it. Their foreskin gives them no more trouble than their eyelids, lips or testicles. Instead it affords them pleasure and comfort. Anti-circumcision advocates say that it is ridiculous to presume that the idea would even cross an uncircumcised man's mind. To them, it is the same as asking why intact women don't think about having the clitoral foreskin removed.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/
ive said it once and ill say it again if a girl wont date you cause your penis has some skin on it that you were born with kick her to the curb shes no good anyway a real women would love you regardless of your penis size shape or if its cut or not
Uncut, I'll rip da unfortunate soul dat tries.
I <3 my foreskin
Breukelen advoacaat, do you like arguing just for the hell of it? like shut the fuck up!!, cannabis campbell asked a simple question that required a simple answer, you worry about your dick and leave everyone elses the hell alone.
You keep coming back with all these articles and shit but NO ONE CARES, you think what some random person on a cannabis website says is going to effect what they do to there childs penis at birth?
Go smoke a joint and play with your fore skin, the people of cannabis.com have had enough of your negative nelly ways.