no one said anyone was better
its simple science/ common sense about the sensitivity part..
if you take a sensitive part of your body - which is naturally covered with a protective layer of skin, and expose it to the elements , rubbing on your underwear etc, all day, every step, its GOING to lose sensitivity over time. there is no way around that. no room for argument. thats how it works in this universe. its such a simple concept to understand, usually the only ones who cant grasp it are those who refuse to!
i dont want to make you feel like shit at all, i want you to tell the truth.
its easy to read someones post and take it for face value, the real message is usually found between the lines..
you are extremely defensive and you have the victim mentality.
you are 100% coming off like a dude who had NO CHOICE in the matter, because he was cut as an infant, so you are on this crusade to convince everyone you love it, its better than being uncut, etc etc..
look im just going by past experiences, LOTS of cut guys do the exact same thing youre doing right now. and of course they all claim they got cut at "18" by their own choice, therefore making them the absolute end-all-be-all of authority on which (uncut or cut) is better.
sorry for trying to psychoanalyze you, but thats my opinion.
Actually this is incorrect on several levels, not to burst your bubble. A lot of "broscience" has been thrown around regarding this issue and I want to break a lot of it up, not to say you're to blame for perpetuating it.
#1 You're right in saying that sensitivity is lost when overused however, you didn't mention that nervous system sensitivity bounces back dramatically when a stimulus is removed for a long enough amount of time. Loss of sensitivity is never permanent under most, if not all, circumstances (to a degree and excluding the natural aging process). Such sensitivity rebound as it's called is essential to survival for humans, which used to be a nomadic species, and had to quickly adapt to new environments.
#2 Those that have been cut are FAR from the "therefore making them the absolute end-all-be-all of authority on which (uncut or cut) is better." All Mechanoreceptors and most of the neural nervous system in general undergo something called "neural plasticity". It's an incredibly complex and spectacular process in which, lost/damaged neurons have their signal destination actually "rewired" to intact neuronal channels. It's quite an incredible neurological process actually. The funny thing is, plasticity in babies, children, etc is almost super-human - way beyond the limits of what we thought was possible in any animal for evolutionary reasons one could argue for eternity. Plasticity as you age however, drops off in an incredible fashion. By age 18, you have average neural plasticity that is nothing special (still incredible though). It's one of the reasons why a stroke is so much less damaging early in life than later in life, parts of the brain can actually TAKE OVER function that damaged parts of the brain lost.
In fact, it's likely (although it can never be proven), that both cut and uncut (at birth only) feel about the same amount of pleasure in manual stim. of the penis albeit among different circuits and in different ways! It's REALLY cool stuff.
As for being cut as an adult or even a child it's likely that one has lost a good amount of sensitivity that cannot be rebuilt through plasticity - however. It's important to realize that circumscision as an adult is usually for a good reason, and I'd do the process over not being able to use my penis anyday.
This wasn't common knowledge when circumcision started nor is it common knowledge today. In fact, it's still a highly discussed and researched topic in the neuroscience and neurobiology field so most GPs and Gynocologists don't know about it either.
Most people won't read this, but when you do you'll rethink a lot of your arguments on circumcision. Not only that but you'll have a wealth of information that as of now only the most up-to-date Neurologists and neuroscientists have a command of.
One of the things this new research does is really confound the argument of which side - cut or uncut - is better than the other. It throws it back from a black and white issue into a gray area.
R = OP was cut as an infant and is trolling us with stories of being cut as an adult and how much better it is - its been done 100 times before.
