Circumcision Variation

[RKNG]

Ok, I'd like this to be civil and thought out, rather than mindless agenda-blinded bickering... so please try to consider the issue at hand as objectively as possible.

From various reading, discussions and pictures I have seen online, it seems clear that there is a bizzarely large range of circumcision results, both in regard to how it is physically healed and what effects it has, and how that psychologically effects people.

the very fact that you can find testimonies from people who got circumcised after being sexually active as adults, on both extremes of thinking it is the best thing since sliced bread, and people thinking it was a horrible mistake that they regret every day.
this very thing demands that there is some information or some difference that is not being considered or disclosed, or SOMETHING.
personally I am not satisfied with the idea that its purely a crapshoot of how each person heals. it is my opinion that there MUST be SOME consistent difference involved.

additionally I think this extends to infant circumcision, for one reason or another, it is clear that some people heal from being circumcised as an infant, such that the scar is extremely indistinct, and it is practically as though they were born without a foreskin at all.
and others have a distinct scar and other problems.

another major variable is how much of the inner foreskin is left(how far down the shaft the scar is) I've been told that this doesn't matter. ... but that simply does not make sense to me.

is it possible that certain techniques of circumcision consistently result in a greater frequency of the negative side effects/consequences of circumcision? and that others, are less prone to failed/botched circumcisions, and fewer negative consequences in general?

I do not dispute that SOME people do react badly, and SOME do have problems do to circumcision. but I am not sure I buy that these problems, nor many of the negative consequences are the norm, rather than the vocal minority.

I do not think that Circumcision should be mandated to every male child, or anything absurd like that.
I think that Circumcision MUST be permitted, as IN LARGE it does NOT have enough negative consequences to come anywhere close to meriting the infringement on religious freedom.
I think that parents should be given information on BOTH SIDES of the circumcision debate, as well as objective-as-possible "refutations" to EACH side's arguments, AND an article or something about it from whatever religious authority (if any) applies to them.

I am of the opinion that a study... or something... should be done to try to find consistent factors between those who have medically diagnosable negative consequences from circumcision, and psychological ones, to what method was done and how they individually healed from it.
I feel that such a study would have to eventually find something that could be used to minimize negative consequences.

I am NOT against there being more regulation as to qualifications, (as I understand it there is little to no regulation now) as to attempt to minimize botched procedures.

so after all that longwindedness...

What do YOU think is the biggest distinguishing factor between people's outcomes/results? (infant and adult) do you think that it is purely psychological? do you agree with my assertion that there must be some consistent difference in technique, or SOMETHING that could be traced to which outcome is more likely? something entirely different?
what, other than abolishing circumcision entirely do you think would help minimize negative consequences for those who chose to have it done, or have it done for their offspring?


for perspective and disclosure,
My personal experience is that I was circumcised as an infant, as per Jewish Custom, as far as I know it was done by an experienced orthodox Moyle, I suspect/assume due to the position of the scar, that it was done with the traditional shield-method.
it is rather slack, in that it only barely does not go over the ridge when very flaccid. the scar is extremely indistinct, and about halfway down the shaft. the skin is very mobile. the frenulum still remains, is not tight. I am glad that I was circumcised, and do not feel that I have had any negative consequences from it.

 

[Mastur]

I think that Circumcision MUST be permitted, as IN LARGE it does NOT have enough negative consequences to come anywhere close to meriting the infringement on religious freedom.

In LARGE it does NOT have enough positive consequences to merit the infringement of any religion on personal freedom.

Being a Christian I disagree with your religion on one Major Point and in that difference I cannot condone what I believe to be an old-fashioned and outdated practise.
No modern civilised society would allow any other body modifications be done on unconsenting people, especially minors, no matter what the reason (unless medically necessary). I wonder how many Jews would still honour that dated symbolic gesture if God ordered the amputation of a finger...? If it wasn't for the fact that the Jewish people are historically God's people, the mere practise of RIC among them for the sake of their religion, would've made me believe that they were nothing more than a sect.

And then there are the Gentile idiots who have no cultural bond(age) like this, still advocating its usefulness! It boggles the mind how a supposedly intelligent species can induce this upon themselves...

I stand by what's written in my signature.

 

[2hung4u]

Do you think it is ethical to allow one person to perform body modification on someone else without consent? This is what happens in infant circumcision.

I agree with you that circumcision could be allowed. If religious people want to remove parts of their bodies, that is fine by me.

 

[Mastur]

Do you think it is ethical to allow one person to perform body modification on someone else without consent? This is what happens in infant circumcision.

I agree with you that circumcision could be allowed. If religious people want to remove parts of their bodies, that is fine by me.

Not sure I understand the intent of your comment. It seems contradicting.

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.

Oh, and my apologies for not sticking to your agenda, RKNG...

 

[RKNG]

In LARGE it does NOT have enough positive consequences to merit the infringement of any religion on personal freedom.

I disagree. I don't think its really a personal freedom thing.

Being a Christian I disagree with your religion on one Major Point and in that difference I cannot condone what I believe to be an old-fashioned and outdated practise.

well, actually as a christian you disagree with most of the major tennents of the religion regarding God's nature and the nature of life and existence, but that part is irrelevant.
it is within your prerogative to feel as you do. it is NOT within your jurisdiction to stop people of my religion from following what the religion dictates.

it is my opinion that you are wrong, in general. it is not violent, and it has nothing to do with human rights. honestly you could do far more good applying this passion to very nearly any other "infringement on human rights" in the world. the vast majority do far more harm, and are far more of a problem in general.

Do you think it is ethical to allow one person to perform body modification on someone else without consent? This is what happens in infant circumcision.

this, like many of the other arguments used against circumcision, can be applied to severing the Placenta as well. while its not perfect, many of the arguments seem similar.

it is the right, prerogative, and privelege of the parents to make medical descisions for their child when the child is too young to have an opinion on the matter. this is one of them.

Oh, and my apologies for not sticking to your agenda, RKNG...

perhaps you simply fail at the idea of looking at something objectively.

I get that you think it should be outlawed(and to hell with religious freedom) but IF YOU FOR WHATEVER REASON, FAIR, JUST OR OTHERWISE, CANNOT HAVE THAT what would in your opinion be the best way to minimize the harm that is caused by botched, and those that are sucessful, but that have a high amount of negative consequences.

you need to understand that not all circumcisions have half the negatives that the anti-circ propoganda would have you think.

 

[herkimer snow]

Since when is circumcision of a baby boy a medical decision? No health organization advocates it, and the so-called health benefits are totally questionable. It seems in your case to be a religious decision that parents are making. If they are adhering to their tenets, it is hardly a decision, it is just something that is traditionally done.
Having looked at this issue for years, I have finally concluded that parents, short of the dictates of religion, will show strong love for their baby boy by not having him circumcised. Otherwise, it looks like a mere exercise of power over a helpless human being all in the name of "helping" him. Perhaps he doesn't really wish to be helped.

 

[Sapien]

Ok, I'd like this to be civil and thought out, rather than mindless agenda-blinded bickering... so please try to consider the issue at hand as objectively as possible.

From various reading, discussions and pictures I have seen online, it seems clear that there is a bizzarely large range of circumcision results, both in regard to how it is physically healed and what effects it has, and how that psychologically effects people.

the very fact that you can find testimonies from people who got circumcised after being sexually active as adults, on both extremes of thinking it is the best thing since sliced bread, and people thinking it was a horrible mistake that they regret every day.
this very thing demands that there is some information or some difference that is not being considered or disclosed, or SOMETHING.
personally I am not satisfied with the idea that its purely a crapshoot of how each person heals. it is my opinion that there MUST be SOME consistent difference involved.

additionally I think this extends to infant circumcision, for one reason or another, it is clear that some people heal from being circumcised as an infant, such that the scar is extremely indistinct, and it is practically as though they were born without a foreskin at all.
and others have a distinct scar and other problems.


another major variable is how much of the inner foreskin is left(how far down the shaft the scar is) I've been told that this doesn't matter. ... but that simply does not make sense to me.

is it possible that certain techniques of circumcision consistently result in a greater frequency of the negative side effects/consequences of circumcision? and that others, are less prone to failed/botched circumcisions, and fewer negative consequences in general?

I do not dispute that SOME people do react badly, and SOME do have problems do to circumcision. but I am not sure I buy that these problems, nor many of the negative consequences are the norm, rather than the vocal minority.

I agree that there is likely some unknown factor(s) that affect the severity of the negative consequences that result from circumcision. The presence or absence of an obvious scar is not necessarily a factor in the severity of the affect - it may simply be a cosmetic difference. With infant circumcision I think it may be more of a crap shoot since there is less control on the circumcision style since penis of an infant is small and there is no way of knowing what the adult size will be.

The negative consequences is not necessarily due to "botched" circumcisions. I was circumcised as an infant and cosmetically my penis looks fine (slight scar but not very obvious). However, it has had a significant adverse affect on my sexual response (orgasm intensity - not ejaculation). For me, this adverse affect of circumcision worsened when I reached my mid-thirties. I know many other restorers with similar experiences.

I think that there are more people than the "vocal minority" that are significantly adversely affected. Most circumcised men don't know what they are missing and may not notice the gradual decline in response. Even those lucky ones that seem to have not have had any negative consequences - would their sexual response be even better if they hadn't been circ'd?

E.g. Short Youtube video -Brad Roberts - lead singer from the Canadian rock group - Crash Test Dummies -- describes to his audience his discovery of the truth to this social issue. He is an entertainer so it is somewhat said as a joke but the truth of his feelings is obvious. His prior ignorance is typical.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvXW7wtY64[/FONT]

I do not think that Circumcision should be mandated to every male child, or anything absurd like that.
I think that Circumcision MUST be permitted, as IN LARGE it does NOT have enough negative consequences to come anywhere close to meriting the infringement on religious freedom.
I think that parents should be given information on BOTH SIDES of the circumcision debate, as well as objective-as-possible "refutations" to EACH side's arguments, AND an article or something about it from whatever religious authority (if any) applies to them.

I understand to an extent your desire to follow your religious practices since they have been ingrained from an early age. However, these ancient practices are severely outdated. Perhaps in ancient times there was benefit for this practice but now that we know the foreskin is a erogenous functional part of the penis that is a major play in the male sexual response there is a great need to re-evaluate this.

The AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) recently re-established its policy on Female Genital Cutting. It retracted statements that they were considering allowing a slight symbolic nick to satisfy religious requirements for Female Genital Cutting. Its new policy considers FGC (even this mild form that is less extensive than male genital cutting) to be human rights issue.

Also the Royal Dutch Medical Association recently published its viewpoint on non-therapeutic male circumcision. There conclusion it is a human rights issue and would recommend banning except for their fear of driving the religious practice of circumcision underground and resulting in "botched" circumcisions and severe consequences.

http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?u...e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976

I think you really do not understand the negative consequences of circumcision. To understand fully, you need an in-depth understanding of the foreskin, its anatomical make up, purpose and function.

I am of the opinion that a study... or something... should be done to try to find consistent factors between those who have medically diagnosable negative consequences from circumcision, and psychological ones, to what method was done and how they individually healed from it.
I feel that such a study would have to eventually find something that could be used to minimize negative consequences.

I am NOT against there being more regulation as to qualifications, (as I understand it there is little to no regulation now) as to attempt to minimize botched procedures.

so after all that longwindedness...

What do YOU think is the biggest distinguishing factor between people's outcomes/results? (infant and adult) do you think that it is purely psychological? do you agree with my assertion that there must be some consistent difference in technique, or SOMETHING that could be traced to which outcome is more likely? something entirely different?
what, other than abolishing circumcision entirely do you think would help minimize negative consequences for those who chose to have it done, or have it done for their offspring?


for perspective and disclosure,
My personal experience is that I was circumcised as an infant, as per Jewish Custom, as far as I know it was done by an experienced orthodox Moyle, I suspect/assume due to the position of the scar, that it was done with the traditional shield-method.
it is rather slack, in that it only barely does not go over the ridge when very flaccid. the scar is extremely indistinct, and about halfway down the shaft. the skin is very mobile. the frenulum still remains, is not tight. I am glad that I was circumcised, and do not feel that I have had any negative consequences from it.

I do not think the negative consequences are psychological but I do think there are negative psychological consequences. I do not believe that an effective study of the full effects of circumcision on male sexual response will be possible due to the nature of the male ego and accurately defining and determining sexual response.

The foreskins is part of male sexuality, part of our sexual response system. It is highly erogenous tissue that interacts with our glans and is also better for our female partners. There can be no compromise, banning this archaic practice is the ONLY way to minimize/eliminate the negative consequences which DO OCCUR each and every circumcision. (You cannot remove erogenous tissue without a negative consequence).

Children may be born to parents that follow a certain religion but there is no guarantee that the when the child becomes an adult he or she will choose to follow that same religion. Even if they do they may not agree with this aspect of their religion - I know many Jewish restorers.

 

[SirConcis]

One problem is that there are no studies that follow a baby to adulthood, taking images of the penis at regular intervals. So it is hard for the medical community to documeht what type of baby circ yields the best result, how loose a circ can be at birth and still turn out fine post puberty (male grows out of remaining skin), and how tight a circ can be at birth and still look normal as adult (skin stretches along during puberty to yield normal results).

In terms of scaring, everyone heals differently. Even for circs done at adulthood, the scar will sometimes disapear, somethines remain disctinctly visible (but thin, not obvious).

For adults, a lot has to do with how the stitches are applied (or if using one of the klamps such as Tara/Zhenxie where there are no stitches.)

For babies, the plastibel doesn't need stitches and keeps both skin edges together until they are fused. But for gomco and mogen, after the cut is made, the skin edges are just placed one next to the other, bandage applied and hope they heal together (and evidently, they do). But I guess an erection in the first week of life could ruin the scar.

There are also variations with gomco/mogen. Because the wound is exposed, it is possible for it to heal in contact with the glans, causing adhesions (skin bridges). That would be the fault of parents who didnt apply vaseline to the rim of glans, thinking that since their baby was circumcised, it didn't require any care.

 

[RKNG]

Since when is circumcision of a baby boy a medical decision? No health organization advocates it, and the so-called health benefits are totally questionable. It seems in your case to be a religious decision that parents are making. If they are adhering to their tenets, it is hardly a decision, it is just something that is traditionally done.
Having looked at this issue for years, I have finally concluded that parents, short of the dictates of religion, will show strong love for their baby boy by not having him circumcised. Otherwise, it looks like a mere exercise of power over a helpless human being all in the name of "helping" him. Perhaps he doesn't really wish to be helped.

since always? that it is largely elective does not make it NOT a medical descision. chosing to sever the umbilical cord instead of lotus birthing is also a medical choice.

circumcision can be a strong expression of love as well. it was when it was done for me.

I agree that there is likely some unknown factor(s) that affect the severity of the negative consequences that result from circumcision. The presence or absence of an obvious scar is not necessarily a factor in the severity of the affect - it may simply be a cosmetic difference. With infant circumcision I think it may be more of a crap shoot since there is less control on the circumcision style since penis of an infant is small and there is no way of knowing what the adult size will be.

I agree that the scar's visibility or whatever is very possibly not causal at all. but it may be an indicator of some sort, if the data was there.

and at least from what I have seen regarding different methods, I am not sure if its that much of a crapshoot. I mean from what I saw the ancient "shield method" would inherently result in leaving a large amount of inner foreskin tissue, as opposed to other methods that may not inherently do so. what if the amount of inner foreskin alone, makes a big difference? who knows?

The negative consequences is not necessarily due to "botched" circumcisions. I was circumcised as an infant and cosmetically my penis looks fine (slight scar but not very obvious). However, it has had a significant adverse affect on my sexual response (orgasm intensity - not ejaculation). For me, this adverse affect of circumcision worsened when I reached my mid-thirties. I know many other restorers with similar experiences.

I agree that its not all from botched procedures. but I think there has got to be something that could be found consistent between your experience and mine. while it is true that I don't know for certain... I see no reason to think that my orgasm intensity is reduced.

and to some extent I think getting hung up on something like that, if it is short of a severe dysfunction (I know that some do have such severe dysfunction, but I am also sure there is a range of effect) IS a psychological thing. people are different. while this range of difference is not regarded to be as large in males as it is in women... why would it be all that different? some women have to work at it to orgasm once or twice. some women are phenomenally orgasmic and can orgasm at mindblowing magnitudes, for extended periods of time, unable to count how many it was. and do so repeatedly!

is it not possible that some people simply NATURALLY have different degrees of sexual response, orgasm intensity, and general sensetivity?
is it not possible that for a large portion of people, circumcision has a TINY impact, but is blamed for someone being on the short end of natural variation?

would their sexual response be even better if they hadn't been circ'd?

I don't think that is necessarily a legitimate question. you can what-if yourself into insanity. for all we know sexual response is impacted by the baby boy having an enzyme in breast milk, or in attachment to his mother from breastfeeding. or from being allowed to cry to sleep. or from walking in on their parents having sex when they were 4, who the hell knows. the individual range is SO huge, that fixating the what-if's on one particular thing like that is a bit nutty.

I understand to an extent your desire to follow your religious practices since they have been ingrained from an early age. However, these ancient practices are severely outdated. Perhaps in ancient times there was benefit for this practice but now that we know the foreskin is a erogenous functional part of the penis that is a major play in the male sexual response there is a great need to re-evaluate this.

it is A part of the sexual response in uncircumcised males.
it is not, and never has been, ANY part in MY(and many others's) sexual response.

there are STILL benefits. even if those benefits are not sufficient to make it universal, it is a legitimate choice.
and while it may sound religiously fundamental or something (really, I'm not... even if on this point it may sound like it) how far it is our place to re-evaluate this, is debatable.

I think you really do not understand the negative consequences of circumcision. To understand fully, you need an in-depth understanding of the foreskin, its anatomical make up, purpose and function.

I have read the info.
but I disagree with some of the conclusions, and personally experience that some of the consequences of not having it, are not inherent to the procedure, and other things its just a matter of "different" not better/worse/right/wrong.

I do not believe that an effective study of the full effects of circumcision on male sexual response will be possible due to the nature of the male ego and accurately defining and determining sexual response.

you may have a point. but I think its worth trying.

The foreskins is part of male sexuality, part of our sexual response system.

its not part of mine. it never has been.
I think this very distinction, IS a psychological matter.

There can be no compromise, banning this archaic practice is the ONLY way to minimize/eliminate the negative consequences which DO OCCUR each and every circumcision. (You cannot remove erogenous tissue without a negative consequence).

I disagree.
the body adapts, if it doesn't have one thing, particularly a non-critical thing, it will compensate and adjust to make up for it.
what negative consequences do you think I suffer from it?
I guess I am asserting that if MY experience were the "standard" then there would be little to no problem.

is it possible that I have some variety of sensation reduced due to being circumcised? its not impossible. ... but it is my opinion that that much difference or greater, is possible from natural variation.

women can have such a huge range of orgasmic sensetivity, intensity and response, why wouldn't men?

 

[darkbond007]

The foreskins is part of male sexuality, part of our sexual response system. It is highly erogenous tissue that interacts with our glans and is also better for our female partners. There can be no compromise, banning this archaic practice is the ONLY way to minimize/eliminate the negative consequences which DO OCCUR each and every circumcision. (You cannot remove erogenous tissue without a negative consequence).

The hundreds of millions of men will refute this claim. On top of that there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports your claim. There is evidence that sexual response is predominantly a brain function.

By your statement you would have people believe that uncut men either have better sex than cut men or they get more sensation, which I have to say, find me some proof or give up this silly argument.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

RKNG, I applaud your inquisitiveness. RIC has never been studied. I think you'll find that there are no definitive answers as people are that individual and as you correctly note, the practice of infant genital cutting varies widely. And you would come up with ethical concerns that would make it impossible to proceed or receive funding.

RIC should be regulated until the age of majority like all other cosmetic surgeries. Can you get a boob job before 18?

 

[D_Ezdras Dingledonger]

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, although I had had the occasional handjob or blowjob before that - but without the skin being pulled back. It did seem like my glans was incredibly sensitive immediately following the surgery. It hurt when it came into contact with almost anything. That phase lasted a good two or three months. Eventually it subsided to become the regular tool it is today.

It is fair to say that I did lose a bit of sensation after the circumcision as a whole, though. I noticed that it was harder for me to get an erection afterwards, because there was simply less feeling in the last part of my dick. I still enjoy everything in much the same way though, and stimulation feels more or less as it did before the surgery.

I'm not sure how I feel about circumcision as far as the whole debate is concerned though. From my standpoint I can say it didn't make that much difference (aside from making me fully functional, which I'm grateful for), so maybe this issue gets more heated than it needs to.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

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).

Something like one or two percent of boys have this problem, but can be overcome with stretching over time. Doctors do what they are trained to do. A wise doctor could make more money by teaching skin expansion techniques, but I suppose that may inadvertently come up against some kind of ethical concerns, so off with the foreskin. Sorry you lost yours Slant.

 

[RKNG]

RKNG, I applaud your inquisitiveness. RIC has never been studied. I think you'll find that there are no definitive answers as people are that individual and as you correctly note, the practice of infant genital cutting varies widely. And you would come up with ethical concerns that would make it impossible to proceed or receive funding.

I think that there has to be a way it could be done without for example, deliberately doing ones that will likely be problematic.

I think MORE of the issue is honesty and the fact that so much of the issue is subjective and only able to be perceived inside the person's head.

RIC should be regulated until the age of majority like all other cosmetic surgeries. Can you get a boob job before 18?

actually as I understand it, in the US with parental consent you can....

Something like one or two percent of boys have this problem,

... do remember that as far as such disorders go, one or two percent is pretty common....

how much of the "reduced sensetivity" that people who had been circumcised as an infant, feel that they have, may have been there even if they had not been circumcised?
why the idea that men are so consistent, when women have such variation?

 

[B_dxjnorto]

RIC is often thought of as a standardization type thing. In reality RIC makes us all more different.

Check up on how you do double blind studies. Control group vs. experimental group, randomly assigned. Would not be ethical. Couldn't be done with infants, that's for sure.

Meanwhile, RIC is considered ethical. RIC is the odd exception to so many social standards of common decency. Presumably because it is grandfathered in from so many thousands of years ago. I don't get that either. There are so many things from even the last century that are no longer considered socially acceptable. RIC will go the same way soon.

Change often makes accepted customs into crimes. ~ Mason Cooley, U.S. Aphorist

 

[SirConcis]

Slant, your experience in loss of sensitivity may not apply to everyone.

An adult whose foreksin has always been retractable, and whose glans automatically becomes exposed during erection will have senstivity levels much closer to that of a circumcised male and should he elect to get a full circumcision, would not experience much of a change in sensitivity.

But a male who has had phimosis for a very long time will still have a glans that is in "baby" configuration and not used to being exposed. This is not a measure of how sensitive your glans would be if your foreksin were easily retractable.

 

[Sapien]

since always? that it is largely elective does not make it NOT a medical descision. chosing to sever the umbilical cord instead of lotus birthing is also a medical choice.
done for me.

The significance of the consequences of these two procedures is not comparable. Circumcision is a medical decision in that involves a medical procedure but it is not a medical decision in that is done for as a medical necessity. For any other amputation of a human body part there has to be an impending medical threat.

circumcision can be a strong expression of love as well. it was when it was done for me.

I agree and would say that almost all RIC's are expressions of love. It is rare that parents would willingly harm their newborn. However, that does not necessarily make it right.

I agree that its not all from botched procedures. but I think there has got to be something that could be found consistent between your experience and mine. while it is true that I don't know for certain... I see no reason to think that my orgasm intensity is reduced.

But you do not know, and you no longer have approximately 25 square inches of highly erogenous tissue.

and to some extent I think getting hung up on something like that, if it is short of a severe dysfunction (I know that some do have such severe dysfunction, but I am also sure there is a range of effect) IS a psychological thing. people are different. while this range of difference is not regarded to be as large in males as it is in women... why would it be all that different? some women have to work at it to orgasm once or twice. some women are phenomenally orgasmic and can orgasm at mindblowing magnitudes, for extended periods of time, unable to count how many it was. and do so repeatedly!

is it not possible that some people simply NATURALLY have different degrees of sexual response, orgasm intensity, and general sensetivity?
is it not possible that for a large portion of people, circumcision has a TINY impact, but is blamed for someone being on the short end of natural variation?

I agree that there is significant natural variation in the sexual response of various people. That is one of the most significant factors making it difficult to determine the affect of circumcision. I can only speak from my own experience. I noticed a decline in orgasm intensity when I was in my mid thirties (currently in my mid-forties). I don't think there was a psychological reason for it that was linked to my circumcision because I did not even associate this with my circumcision. I thought is was a natural part of the aging process.

It wasn't until I saw television news article on surgical foreskin restoration. That lead me to investigate and become a restorer. Since restoring I have regained sensitivity of my glans and inner skin. I also have much more skin mobility. These factors have resulted in definitive improved orgasm intensity and at times I am now multi-orgasmic (have several "dry" orgasms while building to the final climax). My orgasms are now more intense then in my youth but not yet as good as my initial experiences in my sexual awakening. I feel more sensations and feel the interaction between my inner skin and glans. Because my improved sexual experiences, I have zero doubt circumcision in any form is wrong unless it is medically necessary. There is nothing anyone could say that would sway me one iota from my convictions on this subject.

Sapien said: would their sexual response be even better if they hadn't been circ'd?

I don't think that is necessarily a legitimate question. you can what-if yourself into insanity. for all we know sexual response is impacted by the baby boy having an enzyme in breast milk, or in attachment to his mother from breastfeeding. or from being allowed to cry to sleep. or from walking in on their parents having sex when they were 4, who the hell knows. the individual range is SO huge, that fixating the what-if's on one particular thing like that is a bit nutty.

I think it is a very legitimate question. We need to ask ourselves that question, especially before we decide to forever alter our male offspring. We should not be messing with other peoples sexual organs especially when we do not know the full consequences. Your examples of breastfeeding etc. are really stretching. Come on now, obviously the significance of those other activities cannot be close to the same as removing what will be 25 square inches of highly erogenous tissue that is designed to reduce friction, interact with the glans and keep the glans moist since it is intended to be an internal organ.

it is A part of the sexual response in uncircumcised males.
it is not, and never has been, ANY part in MY(and many others's) sexual response.

That is true but that doesn't make it right. That is what this whole debate is about. What gives any one the right to deny another human being the right to experience sex intact.

there are STILL benefits. even if those benefits are not sufficient to make it universal, it is a legitimate choice.
and while it may sound religiously fundamental or something (really, I'm not... even if on this point it may sound like it) how far it is our place to re-evaluate this, is debatable.

In ancient times when circumcision came about the function and purpose of the foreskin was unknown (it has only been studied the last 15 years). In ancient times it was possible that circumcision was beneficial. Now that we have ready access to water and can easily deal with minor issues those reasons no longer exist. Now that we know the full purpose of the foreskin the need to re-evaluate our legal system related to this.

I have read the info.
but I disagree with some of the conclusions, and personally experience that some of the consequences of not having it, are not inherent to the procedure, and other things its just a matter of "different" not better/worse/right/wrong.

I would be interested in the what conclusions you disagree with and why. Also, details of your personal experiences would facilitate better understanding of what you are trying to say here.


Sapien said: The foreskins is part of male sexuality, part of our sexual response system.

its not part of mine. it never has been.
I think this very distinction, IS a psychological matter.

There is no question the issue has a psychological association but it is supposed to be a physical part of our body - thus it is more physical than psychological.


Sapien said: There can be no compromise, banning this archaic practice is the ONLY way to minimize/eliminate the negative consequences which DO OCCUR each and every circumcision. (You cannot remove erogenous tissue without a negative consequence).

I disagree.
the body adapts, if it doesn't have one thing, particularly a non-critical thing, it will compensate and adjust to make up for it.
what negative consequences do you think I suffer from it?
I guess I am asserting that if MY experience were the "standard" then there would be little to no problem.

is it possible that I have some variety of sensation reduced due to being circumcised? its not impossible. ... but it is my opinion that that much difference or greater, is possible from natural variation.

women can have such a huge range of orgasmic sensetivity, intensity and response, why wouldn't men?

Sure the body adapts and there is a wide variety of natural sexual responses. Unfortunately we can never know for certain the extent of the consequences of circumcision will be for any individual. Also, there are mechanical advantages for intact sex that are denied every circumcised man. From my personal positive experience with foreskin restoration I have no doubt that circumcision can have significant negative consequences. Now that we understand this and cannot predict the outcome we should not be deciding this very personal choice for others - for religious reasons or otherwise.

 

[RKNG]

The significance of the consequences of these two procedures is not comparable. Circumcision is a medical decision in that involves a medical procedure but it is not a medical decision in that is done for as a medical necessity. For any other amputation of a human body part there has to be an impending medical threat.

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 agree and would say that almost all RIC's are expressions of love. It is rare that parents would willingly harm their newborn. However, that does not necessarily make it right.

its more that it negates the "if you really love them, you won't do it!" nonsense.

But you do not know, and you no longer have approximately 25 square inches of highly erogenous tissue.

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

and while I am sure that may be the case for some, I don't see how that is the case for me. when I am mostly flaccid, I can move the skin into a position somewhat like it would have been if I had a foreskin, and the formerly inner-foreskin tissue covers most of the head. as such, I don't see how it could be said that I am "missing" more than perhaps a square inch or so of tissue.

and the fact that cognitively, I have NEVER had a foreskin, and NEVER had that tissue or structure, I am not missing anything at all.

I think it is a very legitimate question. We need to ask ourselves that question, especially before we decide to forever alter our male offspring. We should not be messing with other peoples sexual organs especially when we do not know the full consequences. Your examples of breastfeeding etc. are really stretching. Come on now, obviously the significance of those other activities cannot be close to the same as removing what will be 25 square inches of highly erogenous tissue that is designed to reduce friction, interact with the glans and keep the glans moist since it is intended to be an internal organ.

.. you do realize that the assertion of 25 square inches, is a smidge crazy, or at very least, abnormal, right? one and a half dollar bills, is 24 square inches. *I* at least, am definitely not "missing" that much.
I disagree with the assertion that the glans is "intended" to be an internal organ. 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.

That is true but that doesn't make it right. That is what this whole debate is about. What gives any one the right to deny another human being the right to experience sex intact.

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 would be interested in the what conclusions you disagree with and why. Also, details of your personal experiences would facilitate better understanding of what you are trying to say 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.

Sapien said: The foreskins is part of male sexuality, part of our sexual response system.

and as I said. it is NOT part of mine. it never was.
if a person is born without hearing, then sound is not part of their perception. if a three year old loses a finger in an accident, their body compensates. is it the same? no. but so what?

There is no question the issue has a psychological association but it is supposed to be a physical part of our body - thus it is more physical than psychological.

it isn't supposed to be part of mine. is that a religious or spiritual belief? sure, I guess it is. and?

Also, there are mechanical advantages for intact sex that are denied every circumcised man.

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.

From my personal positive experience with foreskin restoration I have no doubt that circumcision can have significant negative consequences.

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 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.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

God, another ill-informed idiot to muddy the waters.

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

 

[darkbond007]

Something like one or two percent of boys have this problem, but can be overcome with stretching over time. Doctors do what they are trained to do. A wise doctor could make more money by teaching skin expansion techniques, but I suppose that may inadvertently come up against some kind of ethical concerns, so off with the foreskin. Sorry you lost yours Slant.

No studies have been done as to how many men have this. And even if 1% of men have it that is MILLIONS of men with the problem. Additionally, skin expansion techniques do not work in every case, so yes when it comes to that point a circumcision is a necessity.