Disturbing observation: intact vs circumcised ejaculations in porn

[powerbook06]

If I were to publish...

If I may ask, in which domain are you specialized?

To return to your points, I feel somehow that you are maybe on to something. But I am positive too that reality must be much more complicated. For example, I am inclined to believe that an intact one who cannot last for long during the intercourse because of its sensitivity, will not ejaculate in the same spectacular way. And this before considering bio-chemo-mechanical issues. But an intact one again who can last despite the sensitivity, will have the opportunity to build up much fluid and energy to produce what you have shown us. Of course this is just speculation from my part, but reasonable I hope.

 

[powerbook06]

What I have noticed is that non-intact guys pound more and more often than intact guys and sometimes have odd masturbation practices.

This is normal because they feel less.

 

[succession]

All the usual suspects on here, especially those who think their own limited experience defines everyone - cannot admit of any other experience but their own. I'll try anyway. I'll tell you what, I don't agree with you succession. I think the size or distance or force of the ejaculate has little to do with genital cutting. What I have noticed is that non-intact guys pound more and more often than intact guys and sometimes have odd masturbation practices. Wringing the penis for instance, or knocking the chicks head on the headboard while her facial expression is saying, "is this good for you?"

Most intact guys use a thumb and forefinger grip until they get close to orgasm when they use a full fist grip (or not). This natural method of pleasuring oneself is almost universal for genitally intact males, so if you want to argue about that then you're not being reasonable and should keep your misinformation to yourself.

What misinformation have I given? I have shared an observation, and speculation. Regardless of whether my speculation is sound or not, the observation still stands, until met with counter examples.

 

[succession]

Those examples would come from professional porn too. Probably, not sure but just probably, amateur porn would be a better (less biased) place to collect samples.

I've noticed this in amateur postings also: here a couple of examples:

YouPorn.com Lite (BETA) - Porn

XTube Videos


Here is a great shot from a circumcised guy, but it's hard to tell how much frenular tissue he has left as it only shows the dorsal (upper) region of his shaft. Nevertheless, it is a good counterexample to my observation

XTube Videos

 

[succession]

If I may ask, in which domain are you specialized?

I'm a grad student in cognitive neuroscience, but have a small publication in a peer reviewed journal in the area of circumcision.

To return to your points, I feel somehow that you are maybe on to something. But I am positive too that reality must be much more complicated. For example, I am inclined to believe that an intact one who cannot last for long during the intercourse because of its sensitivity, will not ejaculate in the same spectacular way. And this before considering bio-chemo-mechanical issues. But an intact one again who can last despite the sensitivity, will have the opportunity to build up much fluid and energy to produce what you have shown us. Of course this is just speculation from my part, but reasonable I hope.

I would amend your statement with one qualification. It may be that having more neural modulators allows one to actually last longer, since the threshold for orgasm is increased. In other words, with more tissue from which to derive orgasm, one can not only build up a more powerful, higher bandwidth, orgasm, but can withstand more stimulation before reaching threshold.

Of course, this is HIGHLY speculative, and the research in this area is very basic.

 

[B_retracted]

You said that men cut as adults are in a privileged position to understand the difference between being cut and not. I tried to explain that there is often a confound with this issue. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, so here goes:

As you well know, the foreskin contains a significant number of erogenous nerve endings. Circumcised males often derive pleasure and orgasm both from the glans (head of the penis), and the remnants of their foreskin (usually at the scarline). In other words, that sensitive region at the scarline contains the remnants of what is normally a full array of sexually sensitive tissue.

Many infant circumcisions are done using techniques which remove a large quantity of this tissue. Furthermore, because the tissue hasn't fully differentiated and developed, even the smallest cuts result in the loss of a massive amount of potential tissue.

The same is not true of adults, where the whole foreskin has developed fully. In these cases, the surgeons can spare larger amounts of tissue. For example, some men circumcised as adults choose to retain their sensitive frenulums. Nevertheless, it is possible that many adults will choose a high and tight circumcision leaving little to no erogenous tissue left.

The information on what styles of circumcisions are performed in these studies is hard to come by, and only one entry in the peer reviewed literature has revealed this information. In it, it was found that the thousands of males who had undergone circumcision as adults were spared almost all their frenular tissue, which is a huge confound when assessing the sexual effects.

As such, while men circumised as adults are often in a good position to assess the true differences, the above point is one possible confound. It should also be noted that there are studies which show a decrease in sexual satisfaction in adults who have undergone circumcision.



This still doesn't explain the difference to be found between intact and circumcised males in porn.

In other words, if my observation is sound (and I've described many times in this thread a very easy way to disprove my observation), then why is it that only intact males do these tricks? Afterall, that would be the only way to explain the observation, if the loss of erogenous tissue isn't the real explanation.

I love moments like this.

Sorry, bitch, but as someone who has a foreskin (as my name implies), I know for a fact that I derive ZERO pleasure from my foreskin. All the pleasure that I derive from down there is courtesy of my frenelum and the bare head.

It's amusing how the anti-circ brigade loves nothing more than to pretend that those who are circumcised are somehow "missing out" on pleasure that doesn't even exist and that those with foreskins have Disneyland in their pants.

You are a troll.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Sorry, bitch, but as someone who has a foreskin (as my name implies), I know for a fact that I derive ZERO pleasure from my foreskin. All the pleasure that I derive from down there is courtesy of my frenelum and the bare head.

Dude, you make a ridiculous and unsound assertion that having your foreskin amputated is the same as wearing it retracted. Generalizing your experience to genital cutting where flesh, veins and nerves are thrown in the biowaste bin shows you don't understand how your own penis works.

 

[B_retracted]

Dude, you make a ridiculous and unsound assertion that having your foreskin amputated is the same as wearing it retracted. Generalizing your experience to genital cutting where flesh, veins and nerves are thrown in the biowaste bin shows you don't understand how your own penis works.

Like a moth to a flame.

What assertion was I allegedy making, shithead? I denied the OP's lies that a man gets off on their foreskin when, in actual fact (let's deal with them for a change shall we?), it's the frenelum and bare head that are what gives a man pleasure during sex.

Of course the anti-circ brigade like yourself love to make cut guys think they're missing out on something and they're not. After all, when you're having sex uncircumcised, you're usually retracted anyway (unless you want to risk tearing your foreskin) so your foreskin isn't actually giving you pleasure during sex when it's tucked behind your head is it?

The answer is of course: NO.

So quit spreading misinformation for five minutes and find another topic to respond to for a change.

And don't get me started on how a certain notorious anti-circ brigade member here profits from a foreskin restoration thing. Yeah, that's real unbiased shti from that shit stain.

As an added FYI, I'm retracted until I get cirumcised. And I wouldn't call it being "amputated" and neither would the millions of other men who have had it done as adults. All this "amputation" and "mutilation" talk just shows what a fucking drama queen shit stain you are and why the ignore feature was created.

Meanwhile, the OP (who admits to being a porn addict with a preference for foreskin fetish videos) hilariously continues to claim "scientific findings" from these hardly-random pornos.

So many douchebags, so little time.

 

[succession]

Sorry, bitch, but as someone who has a foreskin (as my name implies), I know for a fact that I derive ZERO pleasure from my foreskin. All the pleasure that I derive from down there is courtesy of my frenelum and the bare head.

Are you aware that the frenulum is an integral part of the foreskin? The frenular region is precisely the area of the foreskin where all the erogenous tissue is to be found. Most circumcisions remove the entire frenulum. If you are keen on getting cut, I recommend you do yourself a favour and ask the surgeon to spare it.

Not all of us were lucky enough to be able to choose which parts we lost.

 

[No_Strings]

it's the frenelum and bare head that are what gives a man pleasure during sex.

This generalisation is largely incorrect.
You are either deliberately perpetuating something false for your own argument and are therefore lying, or don't actually know any better and are simply not aware of certain biological and physiological facts.

Liar or ignorant - which is it? There can be no other logical reason for your statement.

I derive ZERO pleasure from my foreskin. All the pleasure that I derive from down there is courtesy of my frenelum and the bare head.

Then you are most definitely the anomaly - not everyone else.

You are a troll.

Yes, you clearly. are.

 

[succession]

Of course the anti-circ brigade like yourself love to make cut guys think they're missing out on something and they're not. After all, when you're having sex uncircumcised, you're usually retracted anyway (unless you want to risk tearing your foreskin) so your foreskin isn't actually giving you pleasure during sex when it's tucked behind your head is it?

The answer is of course: NO.

I just re-read this and either you are trolling/lying, are simply unaware of what the foreskin actually comprises, or do not pay close attention to the sensory topography of your penis and the way it is stimulated during sex.

There is also the possibility that I have misunderstood you. I am going to assume you are sincere in your post, and are a decent and rational person.

When the foreskin is retracted, it most certainly does receive stimulation during sex, unless you are thrusting only the length of your glans, in which case only the glans would be stimulated. Assuming you go into the orifice beyond the glans, the exposed inner foreskin (it's exposed now because it's retracted), receives stimulation in at least two distinct ways.

1) it rubs directly against the inner walls of the orifice

2) if the skin stretches, this stretching force stimulates the nerve endings, causing them to fire. These nerve endings are meissner corpuscles, which when deformed due to minute forces either by direct stimulation or stretching, send off nerve impulses.

I think you are perhaps unaware of what circumcision actually removes. You readily claim that your frenulum is sensitive, and that you derive pleasure from its stimulation.

yet you claim that the foreskin isn't sexually important.

But the frenulum is a major structure of the foreskin.

The anatomy of the foreskin is sometimes hard to visualize due to the fact that there are inner and outer structures which move and change configuration depending upon state of retraction.

I found this video, which outlines the anatomy and physiology of the foreskin based on peer reviewed literature, to be very helpful:

The Prepuce: A D.O.C video.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

The foreskin might have a purpose, but the enjoyment of orgasm and sex is not VITAL to the foreskin or there would have been a trend against cutting due to the negative effects that men were reporting. The foreskin is not necessary to enjoy orgasm or sexual stimulation......obviously. You guys talk about the foreskin like its a glans. All of our skin has tactile responsiveness, the foreskin is no different. But to compare it to the important of the glans is just silly.

 

[succession]

The foreskin might have a purpose, but the enjoyment of orgasm and sex is not VITAL to the foreskin or there would have been a trend against cutting due to the negative effects that men were reporting. The foreskin is not necessary to enjoy orgasm or sexual stimulation......obviously. You guys talk about the foreskin like its a glans. All of our skin has tactile responsiveness, the foreskin is no different. But to compare it to the important of the glans is just silly.

The foreskin actually houses many more erogenous nerve endings than the glans. Personally I can easily derive orgasm through stimulation of my frenular remnants (at my scarline) alone without any glans stimulation.

The sensations are rather different, and the orgasms produced have a different physiological flavour to them (at least in myself).

The frenular remnants produce a more sugary sensation, and I can edge very nicely by stimulating this area.

The glans produce more body-tickle type sensations, and the orgasms feel a bit more sharper but less pleasurable.

My best orgasms are those which are derived from stimulation of both regions.

Your assertions about the relative unimportance of the foreskin are not well founded, and do not hold up to the academic literature. And you show an unawareness of the medical and religious history of this procedure. It was relatively recently that circumcision was introduced into the western world as a means of exerting control over male sexuality.

I recommend David Gollaher's "From Ritual to Science: The Medical Transformation of Circumcision in America". It's from the Journal of Social History, volume 28 (1994).

The full text of this peer reviewed article can be found here:

From Ritual to Science: The Medical Transformation of Circumcision in America

As for the anatomy and physiology of the prepuce, I recommend the video I linked to previously:

The Prepuce: A D.O.C video.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

yet you claim that the foreskin isn't sexually important.

But the frenulum is a major structure of the foreskin.

The anatomy of the foreskin is sometimes hard to visualize due to the fact that there are inner and outer structures which move and change configuration depending upon state of retraction.

fer crying out loud... why don't you try and be a rational person.

I know 2 men who were cut as adults... one felt no difference in sensation... the other would claim up and down that the sensation after being cut is TWICE as intense.

Sure, its SKIN... you can feel it like any other skin...
But your argument that its import6ant to sexual stimulation is spurous and unfounded.

Study the genetic legacy... where did the silly thing COME from?
Its a vestigial evolutionary remnant of the SHEATH from which it originated...
It has become vestigial BECAUSE it no longer serves any genetically useful function...

Sorry, pal... that's what Darwin has to say about your precious...

The reason it retracts during sex is the same reason the horse's cock comes out of its sheath... the same reason that the identical structure that originally evolved was simply a PROTECTIVE feature, that was SUPPOSED to get out of the way for sexual stimulation.

When your dick is hanging down where the saw grass whips at it... yeah... a sheath is a good idea...


So- based upon evolutionary trends alone... it is clear that the foreskin is entirely superfluous and no longer serves any function. The high incidence of foreskin related problems is identical in nature to the high incidence of complications from WISDOM teeth... due to the fact that our jaws have evolved to be smaller since we started cooking our food.

And the number of folks who are born without ever developing wisdom teeth
is similar to the number born without a full foreskin.

Once more... a trait we no longer need.... very gradually drifting away because we no longer derive any material benefit from it.


You guys argue JUST LIKE CREATIONISTS.... you ignore actual evidence and refuse to follow the evidence to your conclusion.... rather you start with your conclusion, and then try like hell to contort and misrepresent evidence to fit your conclusion.

But the freaky thing is the evangelical zeal you feel over something so utterly insignificant.

Driving your belief system down other's throats is fascist.
You Mussolini-weenies should start wearing armbands...

 

[succession]

phil, I have remained calm and respectul throughout this entire discussion, and have done my best to respond thoughtfully to all posts, even in the face of aggressiveness.

I'd appreciate it if you could at least try and reciprocate this level of respect.

As to your points, you've made it clear that you believe the foreskin to be vestigial.

The only thing I can do is urge you to educate yourself and reflect carefully.

I have provided an excellent video which you are free to watch in your own time. It is 20 minutes long and is very well researched. If you'd like, I can also provide you with peer reviewed articles which present the same information in a more wordy form.

Here it is again:

The Prepuce: A D.O.C video.

By the way, I'm assuming you're circumcised. Is your scarline at all sensitive (in a sexual way)?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS- you have more nerve endings in your FOOT than your entire dick...
That doesn't make your foot critical in sexual response.

Its not how many nerves there are... its what part of the brain and spine they are connected to...

And the fact that the foreskin is adjacent to the glans does not carry ANY implication as to its importance in sexual stimulation.

In fact, large areas of the glans itself are not even critical to sexual stimulation.
The most critical nerve endings really rather confined to a sweet spot just under the head...

the same spot I put a piercing lance thru... without the slightest negative effect on my ability to orgasm.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

phil, I have remained calm and respectul throughout this entire discussion, and have done my best to respond thoughtfully to all posts, even in the face of aggressiveness.

Bullshit... your entire campaign of misinformation and ridiculously biased sources is utterly aggressive.

I don't have to remain respectful of malarky. I don't have to remain respectful of lies... I confront them whenever I find them thrust at me.
As has been pointed out by many others... this relentless campaign to force your views on others is offensive, tiring, and sad.

Men who are cut have as much sex as those who are not... they enjoy it... they father as many children.

Your arguments are baseless and predicated on ignorance and misdirection.


get over it...

 

[succession]

PS- you have more nerve endings in your FOOT than your entire dick...
That doesn't make your foot critical in sexual response.

Its not how many nerves there are... its what part of the brain and spine they are connected to...

You are absolutely correct (although I'm not sure about the quantitative comparison you make between the foot and the penis, since I have not compared histological research on the two areas).

However, stimulation of the foreskin absolutely does contribute to the derivation of orgasm. It is not merely sensitive, but sexually sensitive.

The most critical nerve endings really rather confined to a sweet spot just under the head...

You're talking about the area beneath the glans, on the underside of the shaft, correct?

This sweet spot is the remnant of your foreskin.

As a circumcised male, your sweet spot is rather smaller than what it would have been if you were left intact.

 

[succession]

I'm off to bed, so if you post again, I'll do my best to reply by tomorrow evening.

 

[B_The Greek Dude]

Succession: I'm tried of you claiming that circumcised men are incapable of blowing big loads. If you were to go on ANY porn site, you'd see this obviously wasn't the case. In fact, i'll try to use more realistic examples from Xtube:

XTube Videos


I happen to hate jerk off videos, so i'll show you where you can view some Peter North videos:

peter north cumshot - Google Search

(It's called "Google")

I'm pretty sure you're going to say that those examples aren't good enough for you, but either way i'm tried of you being a biased jerk.

If you haven't already, RESTORE YOUR FORESKIN and get it over with, Succession.