Circumcised Guys: Are you ever jealous or resentful towards Uncut guys?

[Philly swords]

FUCK NO!!! The uncut ones are flat out hideous in my opinion

 

[GoingOnABoeing]

I don't care about your penis, never have and never will. I care that you are allowed to have a "cut club" on LPSG in which you post your sexual fetish for cutting children.

You claim "we" want "hardcore control over every male's penis" but that is the exact opposite of what "we" want. We want every male to have control over THEIR penis.

Just post your real name, phone number, email and this will all be over. I don't hide so why do you? Don't want your family or co-workers to know what you like?

I seriously doubt anyone would care. Like it or not, circumcision is the norm in the US. If you want to give an infant immediate adult rights then you have your work cut out for you. If you want to forbid parents from circumcision then that leads to many more restrictions on parents. If circumcised dicks worked as poorly as you claimed then US would have a serious birth deficit. That isn't the case.

 

[chris bell]

I seriously doubt anyone would care. Like it or not, circumcision is the norm in the US. If you want to give an infant immediate adult rights then you have your work cut out for you. If you want to forbid parents from circumcision then that leads to many more restrictions on parents. If circumcised dicks worked as poorly as you claimed then US would have a serious birth deficit. That isn't the case.

Who said anything about circumcised dicks working poorly? and if the intact penis was such a disease riddled organ as the American medical community portrays then 70% of males on this planet would have massive health problems and we know that is not true.

You do know female infants have immediate rights when it comes to their genitals? Shouldn't boys?

Again, what is the negative for letting each male make the decision that is best for HIS penis on HIS body?

You are correct forced circumcision is the norm in the US but not for long. The data is clear, if circumcision rates continue to fall at the current rate intact males will be the majority by 2035.

 

[jaybejoe]

Hell no. I am happy with mine , circumcised as an adult later in life. It should have been done as an infant.

 

[pp_ryder]

Who said anything about circumcised dicks working poorly? and if the intact penis was such a disease riddled organ as the American medical community portrays then 70% of males on this planet would have massive health problems and we know that is not true.

You do know female infants have immediate rights when it comes to their genitals? Shouldn't boys?

Again, what is the negative for letting each male make the decision that is best for HIS penis on HIS body?

You are correct forced circumcision is the norm in the US but not for long. The data is clear, if circumcision rates continue to fall at the current rate intact males will be the majority by 2035.

Bullcrap. There are definite advantages to being circumcised as an infant as stated before. Mainly, being taken out of commission (in many more ways than one) and the memory of it. If I hadn't had it done as an infant, I would probably be in turmoil as an adult. I would HATE to have it done, and yet I would have to!

I thank God this was taken out of my hands EARLY!

 

[GoingOnABoeing]

Bullcrap. There are definite advantages to being circumcised as an infant as stated before. Mainly, being taken out of commission (in many more ways than one) and the memory of it. If I hadn't had it done as an infant, I would probably be in turmoil as an adult. I would HATE to have it done, and yet I would have to!

I thank God this was taken out of my hands EARLY!

I wish I had been done at birth but I had it done at 19. It was a painless experience. No pain during or after.

 

[pp_ryder]

I wish I had been done at birth but I had it done at 19. It was a painless experience. No pain during or after.

Thanks for the information. No one has mentioned that to me before. Congratulations!

 

[Walktheplank]

Y’all keep focusing on sensitivity...but that’s not all there is...the foreskin has its own feeling aside form the glans which creates new sensations when the two are rubbing against one another...y’all keep focusing on the glans becuase that’s all we have...sensitivity is more than just the tip. Everyone should just leave it alone unless there are abnormalities, circumcision is a medical practice that should only be done when those reasons arise, it’s strange that people are just cutting just because...

 

[GoingOnABoeing]

Y’all keep focusing on sensitivity...but that’s not all there is...the foreskin has its own feeling aside form the glans which creates new sensations when the two are rubbing against one another...y’all keep focusing on the glans becuase that’s all we have...sensitivity is more than just the tip. Everyone should just leave it alone unless there are abnormalities, circumcision is a medical practice that should only be done when those reasons arise, it’s strange that people are just cutting just because...

That's like telling women makeup should only be worn to cover abnormalities. Some of us had no issues and just highly prefer the look of being circumcised.

 

[Mcuthigh]

That's like telling women makeup should only be worn to cover abnormalities. Some of us had no issues and just highly prefer the look of being circumcised.

It was the uncut fanatics who pushed the sensitivity non-issue in an effort to counterbalance scientific and/or medical evidence that circumcision could provide various levels of UTI or STI protection, etc. At present, you have an uncut radical posting color coded maps of the male genitalia which shows sensitivity contours as if it were developed tor mountain climbers. (Upon observation, it also appears as if this penis sensitivity map has been developed for adaptation to the paint-by-number market.)

Now, it is asserted that "..the foreskin has its own feeling aside form (sic) the glans which creates new sensations when the two are rubbing against one another....y’all keep focusing on the glans becuase (sic) that’s all we have...sensitivity is more than just the tip." Are y'all alleging that it is analogous to using a tongue tasting map as we adjust the optimum level of ingredients in an iced creme mixture? Also, I suppose that it could be comparable to a cricket rubbing it's back legs together thus creating perfect mixture of tones for a perfect harmony. In each instance, the reality is that with all of that worry over the measurement of isolated sensory data, iced creme is still just a dessert, what ever sound the cricket makes is lost in the mixture of all of the evening noise and the multi-sensory mixture resulting in what we call an orgasm is just as intense for a "high and tight" cut male as it is for an uncut male with a short prepuce. As to uncut's with "elephant trunk" foreskins and "low and tight" cut males, any presumed variance in sensitivity is more than offset by other negative aspects.

If all of that does not "tickle your fancy", ".....Some of us had no issues and just highly prefer the look of being circumcised."

How true!

 

[cedarizzo]

Nope, not at all. Although they are fun to play with, I'm cool with being cut.

I'm the same way. I love playing with uncut guys, but I love my dick just the way it is. No need to cry over spilled milk, I accept it was cut without my permission and I enjoy what I have.

 

[Mcuthigh]

I'm the same way. I love playing with uncut guys, but I love my dick just the way it is. No need to cry over spilled milk, I accept it was cut without my permission and I enjoy what I have.

"....I love my dick just the way it is. No need to cry over spilled milk, I accept it was cut without my permission and I enjoy what I have", That is one of the best and most mature summaries of how most cut dudes feel. None of my friends or relatives campaign, march or picket for foreskins. None of them are trying to 'restore' their foreskin.

It seems that we are doomed to have people who are pissed off because they have life-long premature ejaculation issues caused by excessive prepuce, which is an organic risk factor for premature ejaculation. Many uncut males have to pay for their own circumcision and possibly a 'recirc' or two each costing over $3,000 and also with the need for sedation, sutures and a much longer recovery The parent(s) responsible for the circumcision decision simply chose to abdicate (Weenie out of) the subject or they succumbed to the science of Pop Culture and left their 18 year old son(s) with a solo decision that he must make when he is relegated to information most often provided by Intactivist radicals who will claim to be unbiased but are totally driven by personal or psychological issues or agenda and are seeking a personal resolution which will never suffice and, therefore, they will seek retribution on those of us who had great outcomes. Circumcisions performed in the first week of life provides the only simple,"straight up" cost for the procedure. (2019 Total Cost = $313). By comparison, 2019 young teenager or adult circumcision costs = $3,000+ depending upon the underlying condition to be corrected (e.g phimosis, etc.) , office visits or pre/post operative consultations, prescribed medications, inpatient or outpatient surgery, local or general anesthesia, sutures or adhesives, etc. For comparisons, problems unique to the foreskin stop once a circumcision is performed and healed. Once performed, the entire issue of circumcision would have be over and done for the rest of your life!!! But parents today rely on "group think" with "facts, "truth" and "data" all provided via the internet with graphic depictions of circumcisions (Duh, you ought to watch a lung removal or a Caesarean section.) Intactivists will try to gross you out by showing a new born boy crying more because he must not move if the procedure is provide the great result that is expected and they will search until they can find a one -in-a-million botched circumcision and to represent it to be the standard outcome. They will tell you that there are ways to restore foreskins but they know that too is false. The Foreskin restoration is primarily accomplished by stretching residual skin of the penis. However, restoration creates a facsimile of the foreskin. But it cannot actually be regrown. The covering resulting from stretching techniques is usually looser than that of a natural foreskin. The constant stretching of residual skin of the penis may actually do damage to the very nerve endings that they wish to recover or enhance. In the end, a male with a "high and tight" circumcision may still be more sensitive than the "pseudo uncut male" so created by residual foreskin stretching. Bottom line is that , "it is incumbent for parent's ensure that a medical professional does 'the right circumcision in the right patient using the correct surgical technique’.

 

[Mcuthigh]

Some uncut dudes like to claim that we cut guys have lost sensitivity due to our circumcisions. With all of the interconnected physiological, hormonal, psychological, neurological, cardiovascular, environmental, and relational components etc. that makeup the total human sexual experience (e.g. sensitivity, orgasm,)., the partial loss of a small flap of a penile skin may or may not require technique modifications but, barring psychological or physiological problems, there is plenty of recorded anecdotal evidence that most men are quite pleased after their circumcision and that there is no perceptible overall degradation in sexual experience. Even when using a scientific tool that measures touch sensitivity, the resulting maps of circumcised and uncircumcised penis sensitivity provides stand alone information of but one sexual ingredient . No human male is sexually aroused in the same fashion, masturbates the same way, is totally at ease when naked for the first time with a new "friend" or partner, etc., etc. We all strive for the same climax and any foreskin sensitivity allegedly lost through circumcision is imperceptible given the concomitant components that make up the human sexual milieu.

Sorrels et al, BJU International (2007) A previous poster, provided the referenced study alleging it to be 100% evidentiary proof "that the intact penis is more sensitive than the circumcised penis" Further it is alleged that " in the world of science you need 100% proof through evidence that something is true or false." As presented, the study focused sensitivity levels of the uncircumcised and circumcised penises. Specifically, the uncircumcised penises (referred to as "intact") were evaluated in two primary states: (1) foreskin forward and (2) foreskin retracted and were depicted from above and below. Data got an uncircumcised penis with an "elephant trunk-like overhang" was not provided by the poster as the redundant prepuce may well have been sufficiently sensitive but functionally limited due to the excess foreskin, The uncircumcised penis with a "short" foreskin was also not provided by the poster. Although, data might be extrapolated from the retracted foreskin model.

The only data and depictions provided by the poster was for a low circumcision, It appears to be a low and tight circumcision in which the maximum possible amount of inner foreskin is removed along with the whole of the outer foreskin plus a considerable portion of shaft skin. It is presumed that if the frenulum is removed the nerves are lost. However, the nerves are not in the frenulum, they reside in the glans below it. The sensitivity remains after removal of the frenulum. and comparisons using the frenulum is moot. By this data, it appears that the authors of this study have chosen the circumcision style that would put circumcision in its worst case comparison with the uncircumcised penis. Ironically, it is the circumcision style most often used for an uncircumcised patient suffering with Premature Ejaculation.

Not provided by the poster:

1. Low and Loose - Almost all the inner foreskin has been removed along with an equal amount of outer foreskin. No tension has been placed in the shaft skin,

2. High and Loose - Much of the of inner foreskin has been retained, folded back on itself to face outwards and assume the role of shaft skin. The outer foreskin has been removed along with some shaft skin, but not enough to place the residue under tension. Thus some surplus skin will bunch up in the sulcus.

3. High and Tight - Much of the of inner foreskin has been retained, folded back on itself to face outwards and assume the role of shaft skin. The outer foreskin has been removed as has a considerable amount of shaft skin. This tightens the residual shaft skin so that the sulcus is fully exposed.

As presented by the poster, this is NOT definitive proof nor is evidence of a 100% proof of truth or falsity. Much of this whole issue is anecdotal, biased, contradicted and partially proven by observation. It is amazing how much time is spent on issues of the penis. There are some in the world who make a the penis a lifetime job.

 

[Mcuthigh]

Upon further analysis, I have reviewed the Study upon which the anti-circumcision poster relied in re the subject of penis sensitivity and circumcision. Below are excerpts from that "Study":

"The glans has virtually no fine‐touch neuroreceptors [11-14]. Second, when determining the aggregate sensory impact of circumcision, the sensory effects of circumcision on the glans are of secondary significance, because the glans is not removed during circumcision. Instead of measuring changes in the glans after circumcision, it is more important to measure the sensory investment of the parts of the penis removed by circumcision. i.e.Take your fine‐touch neuroreceptor measurements from areas of the penis removed by circumcision. Let's see uncircumcision all plus' and circumcision...Sorry!! Only test fine‐touch neuroreceptors and not the glans which has virtually no fine‐touch neuroreceptors!!! I guess that is a tie only!!

"Patients are highly susceptible to suggestions or inferences that surgery or treatments used to correct a problem will, in fact, correct that problem. Also, otherwise healthy men who seek circumcision for other than medical reasons are predisposed to reporting a favourable outcome. Furthermore, surveys with subjective measures are dependent on the respondent’s state of health. When asked to rate quality of life of various impaired health states, healthy individuals will rate the quality lower than will a person in that particular health state. In these studies, it would be expected that the men rate their genital performance higher when in the genitally impaired condition than if they were not genitally impaired." So, I guess what this psycho-babble this trying to say is that a truly healthy male, even one with perfectly normal phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, UTI's, STI's, etc, to which a good, foreskinned man is entitled, can still fall prey to the Forces of Evil for the uncircumcised are highly susceptible to suggestions or inferences that age-old surgeries or treatments that have a positive outcome. These men who are so easily influenced must not, however, be susceptible to the influences of founder of NOCIRC, Marilyn F. Milos, who "contributed to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, the interpretation of the data, obtained funding, revision of the manuscript, and approved the final version."

"Younger men might have been less willing to participate in the study due to their increased modesty. As there are many more circumcised than uncircumcised men in the USA, recruiting equal numbers of subjects from each group was challenging. The measurement of fine touch using pressure thresholds might be limited. Fine touch transmitted through Meissner’s corpuscles might be dynamic, using a network of nerve endings. The differences in age, based on circumcision status, were expected. In their study, Bleustein etal.[7] found that uncircumcised men were a mean of 7 years older. Based on the fluctuations of circumcision rates over the past century, we expected genital integrity (i.e. they still had foreskins) to be more prominent among older men and among men in their twenties. Because the confidence, sufficient to volunteer for mapping of genitalia, might not come until the later twenties, this population might have been under‐represented in our study." (i.e. They could have stacked the deck even further!!)

"Additional study with vibratory, hot and cold thresholds on a wider variety of positions on the penis is needed. Furthermore, development of a reliable method of measuring dynamic sensation is needed to identify, elucidate and quantify the sensory capacity of the various nerve endings in all parts of the penis, and to provide a greater understanding of the dynamic sensory interplay between the various parts of the uncircumcised penis during sexual activity.' ( What about data for the circumcised penis? One ought at least appear to be unbiased!)

Marilyn F. Milos, RN contributed to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, the interpretation of the data, obtained funding, revision of the manuscript, and approved the final version. Milos started campaigning against circumcision with nurses and parents in 1979.... In the same year, she founded NOCIRC. According to Michael and David Benatar, "[Milos's] argument begs the question. It assumes that circumcision disfigures and injures. Yet this is exactly what is in dispute in debates about whether circumcision constitutes mutilation." Louis J. Kern feels her view of sexual matters is "angry, confrontational, emotionally exploitative, and sensationalist."

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared. Source of funding: National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. The director of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Centers (MFM) was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection and interpretation of the data; and review, or approval of the manuscript.

 

[Nimajnev]

My favorite part is that all of this focuses on the science (which is ultimately secondary - we don't do preventative surgery for anything else, like pulling wisdom teeth before they've erupted, removing the appendix / tonsils before they show signs of problems, etc.) and not the concept of bodily autonomy.

That's the part I don't understand. Again, if someone is happy with the fact that they're cut, that's awesome, more power to them. But since it's a one-way process, it shouldn't be done before someone can make the choice themselves, unless there's a medical necessity (phimosis - even though this can often be solved naturally without surgery -, etc.) I'm not arguing against circumcision as a practice, just circumcision on infants who have no say in the matter.

 

[cornfedcock]

If we had other preventative procedures that were as quick and easy as circumcision, we likely would do them

 

[Uncutsouthernboy]

If we had other preventative procedures that were as quick and easy as circumcision, we likely would do them

Circumcision does not prevent anything but phimosis and phimosis is rare.

 

[notN2pussy]

Not sure about rare, I know of two personally

 

[Mcuthigh]

Circumcision does not prevent anything but phimosis and phimosis is rare.

Better look up paraphimosls and balanitis....pretty much require a foreskin for those too.

 

[James Bell]

Circumcision does not prevent anything but phimosis and phimosis is rare

I had two good friends at school who got cirumcised the same year for medical issues.