Circumcision Variation

[Sapien]

actually from what I have read, severing the umbilical cord is actually NOT a medical necessity. look up "Lotus Birthing" its a movement that asserts that it is harmful to sever the cord, and that it is preferable to wrap up the placenta, and allow it to unload the blood it contains, dry up and detach on its own schedule.

I admit I am not knowledgeable on Lotus Birthing. I did look it up prior to posting and do understand that it is not a medical necessity to cut the umbilical cord and there are benefits from letting it detach on its on schedule. However, my point is still valid that this is not comparable to circumcision which is a life altering surgery since it physically changes the child forever.

I'm going to assume you MEAN 2.5 square inches... because 25 square inches sounds rather silly.

No I did mean 25 square inches. However I was relying on memory and I was mistaken. The average is actually 15 squares. This is not the amount of skin removed in the infant but the amount that is not present in the adult due to infant circumcision. See link below.

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm


There are also a lot of very good links on this page for information on the foreskin. I was looking for another website that shows this via a marked up foreskin of an intact man. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. It is a significant amount of erogenous tissue.

I disagree with the assertion that the glans is "intended" to be an internal organ.

Perhaps you should research a little more - read the medical studies performed by doctors. This is not my opinion, it is fact.

and I don't see the appeal in reduced friction like that anyway. from what I have read, it sounds like it is a wash, lower sensitivity, more friction, less friction, higher sensitivity, same difference.

Perhaps in younger life cycle stages the lubrication/friction thing is less important. As a couple ages the amount of natural lubrication from both diminishes. The gliding action and less loss of lubrication during coitus becomes much more important.

the idea of circumcision making it less-intact, is at best, subjective, and at worst, dishonest. I am "Intact" and whole. as far as I am concerned, there is no difference between my being circumcised and if I had been born without a foreskin.

I hope you are kidding here!!

I guess the short of it is that I find assertions as to consequences of circumcision that can occur within natural human variation. such as one I read that asserted that without a foreskin, the coronal ridge pulls out lubrication, and irritates the walls of the vagina.
is it hypothetically possible that my sexual response and such could be better than it is? sure its possible. but I do know that what I have, is at least as good, if not likely better than many people. I would be greedy to complain on something like that.

Try reading Dr. John Taylor's study - he was the doctor that pioneered the study of foreskins to determine whether or not to circumcise his children. He performed detailed autopsies on the foreskins of cadavers. There is no controversy on his findings - determined the true cellular make up of the foreskin proving that it is highly erogenous tissue. It is linked on the page for which I provide a link to above.

Perhaps your sexual response was not adversely affected by your circumcision as others, perhaps you have just not yet reached the stage of your life that is is noticeable. However, the debate is not about you. It is about the infants that have not yet been cut. Polls on this site have shown that 60-70% of circumcised LPSG members prefer to have not been cut. Look at the number of young people posting anti-circumcision videos on youtube. Generally, the youth of today are rejecting the notion that parents have the right to circumcise them.

isn't it a bit subjective that they are advantages? I dispute that they are advantages. I am asserting, that its different. neither right nor wrong, just different.

Fact - foreskin is erogenous tissue
Fact - loss of erogenous tissue is a disadvantage
Fact - age results in the reduction of natural lubrication available for coitus
Fact - the foreskin facilitates gliding motion that requires less lubrication

can you admit that it is possible that your experience is 100% placebo? that you felt that something was wrong, and you did something, and because you did something, it resolved the problem. the power of placebos has been utilized and known for thousands of years in various forms. its being discovered now in modern medicine.

It is quite possible that there a percentage of my experience is placebo. However, I physically experience feelings/sensations in my penis that I have never experienced before. Since my skin is now more mobile I can experience gliding motion to at least an extent and definitely prefer it to having my skin tight. This definitely contributes to some of the new sensations that I have experienced.

it is my opinion that the Anti-Circ movement is doing great harm, by convincing people who had no problem at all, that something was wrong to them and inflicted upon them. it gives their insecurity a shape, it allows them to blame someone else, rather than accept that they got unlucky, have other issues, or are doing something wrong that they can fix.

I do not doubt that there are some people who DO have problems due to circumcision. but I think that those are the minority.

I think there are more people than you think that have reduce sexual response due to circumcision. It is true that a lot of people are happy because they are blissfully ignorant. The anti-circ movement may upset people because they learn the truth but there is no way around that. RIC has to be stopped someway and it can't be done by sticking our heads in the sand and saying it is not an issue.

As circ numbers drop those that are cut are going to be in the minority and the psychological trauma from being in minority will be worse. Our kids are learning about this whether we like it or not - the information is out there. They are speaking out - they don't agree with having this important choice made for them.

Why not be pro-active and not do it, let them decide for themselves.

!!!! This for our future generations - Not us !!!!
​

 

[RKNG]

There is no reason for RIC. Never has been. A normal penis is not a birth defect.

well theres that whole "its part of a religion, and we have freedom of religion" part... for people who like their constitutional freedoms thats kinda important.
mine is "normal" and "healthy" just as it would have been if it were not circumcised.

However, my point is still valid that this is not comparable to circumcision which is a life altering surgery since it physically changes the child forever.

many choices the parents make, impact the child for the rest of their lives. I am asserting that it is a choice that is legitimate.

No I did mean 25 square inches. However I was relying on memory and I was mistaken. The average is actually 15 squares. This is not the amount of skin removed in the infant but the amount that is not present in the adult due to infant circumcision. See link below.


The Foreskin Advantage: Benefits Enjoyed by Males who are Intact (not circumcised)


There are also a lot of very good links on this page for information on the foreskin. I was looking for another website that shows this via a marked up foreskin of an intact man. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. It is a significant amount of erogenous tissue.

well 15 is quite a bit more realistic than 25, but I still am not entirely convinced.
now lets look at what that link says.

point 1) is that counting the outer layer of skin on the foreskin as well? if so isn't that rather excessively fluffing the number?
and its illustration, thats not how it works for all methods. I would agree that the method in question, is not as good. and is it really reasonable to include the external skin? really? be honest. seriously thats just not a fair account.
this difference APPARENTLY impacts the issue of circumfrence as well. while I've seen what they are talking about in pictures, I can assure you that it is not always the case. mine is certainly not like that.

second point, well personally I'm glad that I don't have a clit on a stick.

third point, sure. great. I don't see the big deal but I never had a "ridged band" so whichever.

fourth, the mechanic it asserts for pulling out lubrication, well another site I've seen arguing that, made a point of it being connected to the coronal ridge, rather than the excess skin "plugging" the entrance. and I think its a bit exaggerated to attribute this problem to circumcision.
also, friction is stimulation. if its less sensetive, but gets more stimulation, seems like that sorta evens out to more sensetive and less stimulation(from excessive lubrication)

5th, is it different? sure, very likely. but that doesn't inherently mean different is bad.

6th... well I have my frenulum... and I am not certain of the natural variation of frenulums, so I am not sure how different it would have been. ... but its DEFINITELY there, and its indeed quite sensetive. might it be more sensetive? possible. but its as it always has for me.
7, well I see no reason to think thats the case with me. mine is very well shaped and developed, and at least one major visible blood vessel crosses the scar with only a very slight kink in its direction. my body adapted to it very well. perhaps that is due to the technique as well.
8, 9, 10. seriously? saying it like that makes it sound like theres a huge vulnerability. pick your argument. the tissue adapts.
11, 12, 13, complaining about things that are possibly of no consequence, or are not needed without the thing that is not there when they are lost... fluff up the numbers much?

14, well mine certainly has the predictable and proper responses to temperature. so while this may be true in some cases, it is not inherent to the procedure.

15, seriously? seriously? we are people, not frogs, or something. I would bet that at least in the US, the LEARNED taste of appearance far outweighs any biological trigger from appearance. my woman becomes more aroused simply at seeing it at all, even flaccid, if shes already a little aroused. and seeing it hard will get her going, WITHOUT any funny coloring. personally I'm glad mine looks like it does.

16) "often" be honest. its phenomenally rare. rarer than things like phimosis that cause major problems for many people who aren't circumcised, but are entirely prevented by circumcision.

17, ... the miniscule risk of death is so out there to be absurd to count it like that.

18. thats just nonsense. that or a result of bad techniques. every story I've heard of circumcisions like mine, an hour later the baby does not even seem to notice or remember anything happened.

19, seriously? more nonsense.

20, factually untrue, biased and dishonest.

can't you find something better than that?

Polls on this site have shown that 60-70% of circumcised LPSG members prefer to have not been cut. Look at the number of young people posting anti-circumcision videos on youtube. Generally, the youth of today are rejecting the notion that parents have the right to circumcise them.

anti-circ propoganda preying on sexual insecurity of young people, is supposed to be convincing? I am packing 8+ inches and I was insecure about my size until my 20's, and it was never really ENTIRELY settled until I actually had sex and the first week I couldn't even bottom out when fully hard, because it was too big. (later, relatively quickly really, she came to be able to take it, but at first it was a notable difference)

I'm glad that I was reasonably secure with myself when I came across the anti-circ propoganda. but I've always known a large part of it was BS, or didn't apply to me.

oh right, theres more,

Fact - foreskin is erogenous tissue
Fact - loss of erogenous tissue is a disadvantage
Fact - age results in the reduction of natural lubrication available for coitus
Fact - the foreskin facilitates gliding motion that requires less lubrication

erogenous tissue? sure. but not all methods remove all that much.
not neccessarily. and only a little bit, may be worth it.
the lubrication thing... aren't you getting a bit hung up on that? particularly when its not even that direct of a thing.

However, I physically experience feelings/sensations in my penis that I have never experienced before. Since my skin is now more mobile I can experience gliding motion to at least an extent and definitely prefer it to having my skin tight. This definitely contributes to some of the new sensations that I have experienced.

well my skin is already very mobile, so I don't know to compare on what you experienced. good for you that you have a better experience.
just understand that its not neccessarily a PROBLEM to begin with, for everyone.

he anti-circ movement may upset people because they learn the truth but there is no way around that. RIC has to be stopped someway and it can't be done by sticking our heads in the sand and saying it is not an issue.

I'm sorry you have so little respect for the freedom and culture of others.
but really it ISN'T an issue. not when its done right.

part of the ENTIRE POINT OF MY POST was an idea that perhaps they should try doing surveys or something to correlate technique and results and such to avoid methods that result in more problems, so more people who get circumcised, would be more likely to get a result like mine, or a good result in general.

I didn't get to decide to be born into a jewish family. and part of that is that I was circumcised. my having been circumcised gave me a connection to thousands of years of ancestors. it did me no harm. it would be harmful to deprive a jewish child of that connection.

your way isn't necessarily right. "future generations" of jews deserve to have the connection and the religious tradition that is important to the culture they were born into.

the psychological trauma from being in minority will be worse.

being in the minority does not neccessarily result in psychological trauma. being the only jewish kid at school was and would be infinitely more psychologically impacting than being the only kid at school(if that were the case) without a foreskin.
are you going to try to outlaw being a minority too, or just try to get rid of that annoying freedom of religion?
I would think that in cases where the not-having-a-foreskin would be noticed, natural variation of size, would be FAR more noticable and impacting than foreskin state.

 

[gymfresh]

I had phimosis as a teen, meaning my foreskin wasn't retractable, which in turn meant I had to get a circumcision (at age 20). Sex wasn't possible for me until that age

??

Phimosis isn't an urgent condition. It is the normal state of boys up to about the age of 10 years, so it's a phony diagnosis in childhood. The term phimosis when applied to a child has about as much pejorative meaning as "shorter than his parents". In other words, it is a description of a normal condition, not a medical problem. In most boys, hormonal changes near puberty and exploration during masturbation easily help the foreskin become looser and retractable.

The preferred term after puberty for a foreskin that will not retract when the penis is erect, and sometimes flaccid, is preputial stenosis, or narrowing of the preputial sphincter. The standard "treatment" for this is gentle stretching, sometimes combined with a light steroidal cream to inhibit scarring. It is effective in 95% of cases. I say "treatment" in quotes because it is entirely an elective intervention. Plenty of men live from cradle to grave with foreskins that don't retract, and they have perfectly healthy, comfortable and satisfying sex lives.

A number of guys in their late teens have some degree of preputial stenosis, enough that the Sorbonne in Paris was sufficiently intrigued to have Dr Michel Beaugé run a study of incoming first-years to determine prevalence, and come up with an effective way to address the condition -- if the student wished. Beaugé discovered that the most frequent reason for preputial stenosis past the age of 18 was failure to experiment with retraction during masturbation when much younger. Many of the young men had come from religious homes that discouraged "onanism", and therefore they didn't give their foreskins a regular, beneficial workout starting at 10 or 11. Virtually none of the boys who had experimented with regular masturbation had preputial stenosis. So, Beaugé recommended a course of changed masturbation technique, which was sufficient for most to experience the physical changes they desired. If you google "Beaugé method" you'll find numerous entries, including an informative former blog.

Circumcision is a valid option for any adult, particularly one who feels his foreskin is painful and won't respond to more conservative options. If there is no pain or discomfort from preputial stenosis, there is also nothing wrong with simply living a happy life with it.

 

[darkbond007]

??

Phimosis isn't an urgent condition. It is the normal state of boys up to about the age of 10 years, so it's a phony diagnosis in childhood. The term phimosis when applied to a child has about as much pejorative meaning as "shorter than his parents". In other words, it is a description of a normal condition, not a medical problem. In most boys, hormonal changes near puberty and exploration during masturbation easily help the foreskin become looser and retractable.

The preferred term after puberty for a foreskin that will not retract when the penis is erect, and sometimes flaccid, is preputial stenosis, or narrowing of the preputial sphincter. The standard "treatment" for this is gentle stretching, sometimes combined with a light steroidal cream to inhibit scarring. It is effective in 95% of cases. I say "treatment" in quotes because it is entirely an elective intervention. Plenty of men live from cradle to grave with foreskins that don't retract, and they have perfectly healthy, comfortable and satisfying sex lives.

A number of guys in their late teens have some degree of preputial stenosis, enough that the Sorbonne in Paris was sufficiently intrigued to have Dr Michel Beaugé run a study of incoming first-years to determine prevalence, and come up with an effective way to address the condition -- if the student wished. Beaugé discovered that the most frequent reason for preputial stenosis past the age of 18 was failure to experiment with retraction during masturbation when much younger. Many of the young men had come from religious homes that discouraged "onanism", and therefore they didn't give their foreskins a regular, beneficial workout starting at 10 or 11. Virtually none of the boys who had experimented with regular masturbation had preputial stenosis. So, Beaugé recommended a course of changed masturbation technique, which was sufficient for most to experience the physical changes they desired. If you google "Beaugé method" you'll find numerous entries, including an informative former blog.

Circumcision is a valid option for any adult, particularly one who feels his foreskin is painful and won't respond to more conservative options. If there is no pain or discomfort from preputial stenosis, there is also nothing wrong with simply living a happy life with it.

I disagree. Until you have had it you can't say its not an urgent condition. Discomfort after sex, tearing, bleeding and frenulum pain is not something someone should have to live with. Furthermore I started wanking from I was 12 so yeah that didnt help much. Sure mild phimosis I am sure people can live with it, but the experience is different from man to man and no one post/paragraph or idea will resolve this issue for all.

 

[gymfresh]

The point of my post was that phimosis, the biologically standard condition of a 6-year-old (who is not having sex), is a normal condition.

Preputial stenosis and extreme frenulum breve may or may not be an urgent condition, depending on presence of inflammation, infection or scar tissue - or the anatomical consequences of them.

 

[The_Judge]

I was circumcised as an infant, and I don't think I've suffered an ill effects as a result. However, I'm opposed to routine circumcision, particularly of infants, for all the reasons stated above. OTOH, I find uncircumcised cocks to be unattractive. Go figure!

 

[gymfresh]

People can modify their own bodies for whatever reason, even religion, as long as they are able and capable to consent to it. Babies can't.

Yup, especially religion and dicks.