Is circumcision really that big of a deal?

[SteveHd]

...
You will find that most of the opinions posted here and elsewhere are from people who have never experienced both. That doesn't stop them from claiming to know exactly how it feels. ...

Most? So a restored or party restored foreskin counts for nothing? Chico, Jerry/dx, myself, and others doing F/R have no "experience" with both? Oh and take a look at dhagelin3 who in fact did have an adult circumcision and benefitted from an out-of-court settlement because of it. He doesn't post much here but he's more active in F/R forums.

 

[SteveHd]

... It is my understanding that most American men were uncut up until and for a while after WWII. ...

Actually "routine infant circumcision" largely got started well before WW-II. It isn't really known why it started. Some of the USA roots go back to the late 1800s specifically Lewis Sayre who claimed to have "cured" a boy of epilepsy by circumcising him!

Is this because of the Holocaust?

No.

In America you would be hard pressed to tell Jewish men from anybody else if you were only going to go by the circumcised penis. Perhaps this is a reason it was done routinely for so many years.

I've read of that reason being a reason it was started but I don't give much credence to it. It might be what underpinned the intensity of Jewish advocates such as Abraham Wolbarst and Edgar Schoen.

Oh God, Dr. Kellogg, say no more. I am familiar with the teachings of him and Ellen G. White. I love Kelloggs cereals but the man was a bit of a Fruit Loop.

To clarify the Kellogg brothers: J.H. Kellogg was the nutcase, W.K. Kellogg was the cereal marketer.

 

[B_625girth]

I was circumsized after birth in 1952 and have never had a problem having sex. I understand it was done for cleanlliness and there is now a push for circumcision to help control AIDS.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I was circumsized after birth in 1952 and have never had a problem having sex. I understand it was done for cleanlliness and there is now a push for circumcision to help control AIDS.

<sigh>
It never dies, does it?

 

[SteveHd]

...
But some guys were cut to the point that their shaft was smaller than their erect length, so erections would be painful, part of their shaft healed to the glans, they have over-drying, etc.

We need to separate two distinct problems. One is tight shaft skin which during adolescent erections can cause skin fissures. The other is "part of their shaft healed to the glans" which is medically known as a skin bridge and forms in infancy shortly after circumcision. Two different things but both are complications of a useless surgery.

It is because of these botched guys that it should be stopped, things like that should not be risked simply because of tradition and superstition.

The pro-cutter viewpoint might be that such complications are "the cost of doing business".

To 625girth: It didn't cure epilepsy, it didn't cure "consumption", it didn't curtail masturbation, so you did think it might "control" AIDS? Maybe you need to take a look at history!

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

Most? So a restored or party restored foreskin counts for nothing? Chico, Jerry/dx, myself, and others doing F/R have no "experience" with both? Oh and take a look at dhagelin3 who in fact did have an adult circumcision and benefitted from an out-of-court settlement because of it. He doesn't post much here but he's more active in F/R forums.

It doesn't count for nothing, but it shouldn't have any more weight either.
I've received several private messages over the past two weeks from guys who are very happy with the sensation after getting circ'd. But they don't dare post because they fear a verbal crucifixion.

Anyway this is my observation on restored foreskins.

About 2 years ago I actually met up with someone who had restored his foreskin and I have to say that after I saw it, I was skeptical. The glans and inner foreskin simply did not have the look of an uncircumcised penis.
There were 3 (actually 4) characteristics that I felt were lacking.

1, the glans and inner foreskin lacked the darker pink pigment that I remembered (Not sure how important this is)

2, the glans and inner foreskin did not have the slightly moist appearance that I was familiar with. (I think this is important)

3, it lacked the very subtle but unique scent. (And I don't mean a bad scent here.)

4, (optional) he admitted that he had never seen a trace of smegma yet (even after trying from time to time). I said this was optional because I never really saw any on myself either, but then I never let it go long enough. Or it could be that some uncut guys don't produce much.

I would think that you would need to have at least 2 or 3 of the above to claim a restored, fully functioning, foreskin and glans, though you can correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm sure you will)

In truth, it looked like a circumcised penis with extra skin on it. He also claimed an increase in sensation, though nothing dramatic. But I should also point out that he had trouble getting it up. Not that this was due to the restoration, mind you. I only mention it to show that a foreskin is not the sexual panacea that it's made out to be.

Now, before you guys pop a collective blood vessel, I'm admitting that this one experience is anecdotal and his results shouldn't be extrapolated to predict the outcome of all. There is a lot of information that is missing. Perhaps it may have required a lot more time, and I really don't know how long it had been in it's restored state. You may not believe me, but if it's what you want, I really do hope your outcomes are more successful. I'd be interested to hear if your results were better than what I observed.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I've received several private messages over the past two weeks from guys who are very happy with the sensation after getting circ'd. But they don't dare post because they fear a verbal crucifixion.

Just a few pro-intact comments that need to be clarified here:

1. An adult male will not be "crucified" by the pro-choice goup if he makes an informed choice, of his own free will, to have his foreskin removed.

2. If an adult male WANTS to have his foreskin removed, that's his CHOICE and none of us have major issues with that.

3. None of us argue against medically-necessary circumcision.

4. Most of us agree that it is not ethical for any person (even a parent) to make that decision for another person (even an infant) without medical necessity.

5. Most of us want the pro-routine-infant-circumcision propaganda to stop.

6. An adult male will not be "crucified" pro-choice goup if he makes an informed choice, of his own free will, to have his foreskin removed.

7. If an adult male WANTS to have his foreskin removed, that's his CHOICE and none of us have major issues with that.

8. None of us argue against medically-necessary circumcision.

9. Most of us agree that it is not ethical for any person (even a parent) to make that decision for another person (even an infant) without medical necessity.

10. Most of us want the pro-routine-infant-circumcision propaganda to stop.

11. An adult male will not be "crucified" pro-choice goup if he makes an informed choice, of his own free will, to have his foreskin removed.

12. If an adult male WANTS to have his foreskin removed, that's his CHOICE and none of us have major issues with that.

13. None of us argue against medically-necessary circumcision.

14. Most of us agree that it is not ethical for any person (even a parent) to make that decision for another person (even an infant) without medical necessity.

15. Most of us want the pro-routine-infant-circumcision propaganda to stop.

 

[chico8]

It doesn't count for nothing, but it shouldn't have any more we
About 2 years ago I actually met up with someone who had restored his foreskin and I have to say that after I saw it, I was skeptical. The glans and inner foreskin simply did not have the look of an uncircumcised penis.

During RIC, the foreskin is literally ripped from the glans. This ends up scarring the glans itself. The inner foreskin is also mostly removed during RIC. So of course, it will be impossible to restore it. As far as the scent goes, I do have one but I've met intact men with less of a scent than I do so it's probably one of those unique characteristics.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. But having a foreskin has changed my sex life. I was cut so tight that sex was unenjoyable for the most part. Having loose skin, a moist glans and not having my glans rubbed raw by my clothing is unbelievably enjoyable.

 

[SteveHd]

... I've received several private messages over the past two weeks from guys who are very happy with the sensation after getting circ'd. But they don't dare post because they fear a verbal crucifixion.

I don't believe that, sorry. Me and other Intactivists have made it clear that we have no problem with adult circs. I've stated that a number of times. Have you been verbally crucified? You've been challenged but that's that character of LPSG. It seems 625girth wasn't inhibited from mentioning "cleanlliness" [sic] even though that does get my side agitated. These secret guys can safely comment if they don't mention smell, smegma, or in some way praise infant circumcision.

Anyway this is my observation on restored foreskins. ...

You commented on an "observation" two years ago? And you want to contrast that with the first-hand experiences of Chico, Jerry, myself, and others? No 'ka oi. Of your four points only one, #2 moisture, could be indicative of feeling or sensation.

Let me talk about sensation: I jerked off last evening and it's still fresh in my memory. I grabbed my dick about mid-shaft and I moved the skin up-and-down, on the out-stroke the skin would "jump" over the corona and I could "feel" that. I reached climax without touching my glans, corona, nor frenuluar delta with my hand or fingers. Before I started F/R I had to rub one of those areas to reach climax. It's a neat experience to reach climax using just one hand and not touching the areas I just mentioned.

I would think that you would need to have at least 2 or 3 of the above to claim a restored, fully functioning, foreskin and glans, though you can correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm sure you will)

The advocates of foreskin restoration have never claimed the a restored foreskin is "fully functioning" as an original. There's too much which is cut and gone forever. The NORM website makes that clear on their lost list. Here's a selection of the non-restorable parts from that list: Frenar Band a/k/a Ridged Band, Meissner's Corpuscles, Frenulum, Dartos Fascia, Sebaceous Glands, Langerhans Cells, Blood Vessels, and Dorsal Nerves. Even without all those, I've found the sensation to be better.

Now, before you guys pop a collective blood vessel, ...

Puh...leeze!

... I'm admitting that this one experience is anecdotal and his results shouldn't be extrapolated to predict the outcome of all.

What I described about my jerk off was first-hand, first-person, and the real deal.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Did I mention that none of us "Intactivists" have a problem with an adult making the decision, for himself, to have himself circumcised? Or that our objection is against having a surgery performed on an infant who cannot give informed consent?

 

[benderten2001]

I'm convinced that circumcision HAS become very much a big deal over the last twenty years or so. And NOT for the reasons it "traditionally" proved so controversial. For centuries, being "cut" or "marked" was a matter of "marking" one's spiritual faith. And for that reason, through the ages, it's caused division, seperation, and conflict. Following that period of history, circumcision "cooled" in its controversial overtones to some extent, becoming a more accepted HYGIENE practice for many, many years. No one complained about it. (Or, dared talk about it, let alone "own up" to personally hating it). I can't recall hearing anyone debating circumcision in the 1950's and 1960's !

But, today? It's much more an issue over what a man has been "physically denied" by this surgical procedure. There is so much discussion on this angle of the subject. We never knew (or even thought about) mentioning this aspect of circumcision...until of late. This topic makes some men boiling mad, apparently. And, I've been close myself--on this forum!

I'll confess I resent my circumcision And, I've posted about it SEVERAL times.

I'll confess too, that I really hadn't thought all that much ABOUT despising my circumcision until..... (doggone it) I started reading on the 'net about six years ago....AND seeing all those pix of the "uncuts" out there.

I've concluded it's a matter of attitude. We can be mad about our status (and fret) or....just accept "things" and move on. After all, there are millions upon millions of men who are "cut" and life remains good for them! I'll acknowledge though: For me? There's (now) that little nagging feeling inside... always suggesting that I've truly missed out on some optimum sensational pleasure from my not having a foreskin. Oh well. Could be! I'll never know.

The one strong resolution I've personally made is to advocate that (informed) adult men decide for themselves on this matter. And NOT ever put an infant through such surgery. (And, I truly mean that, too.)

I've also vowed to "educate" any man, in forums like this, to KNOW there are different kinds of circumcision procedures available (some which would allow some foreskin to remain!) and just BE SURE he tells the MD exactly what he wants done BEFORE it's done.

Accepting a partial circumcision, for say comfort and hygiene purposes (when absolutely required) would be much much better (I would think) than having to totally lose all of the foreskin...which is what was done to me.

Oh sure, my parents meant well. I don't blame them necessarily. After all, as if some fad or something--- EVERYONE had their little boy "cut" back then! No one seemed to give it a thought. Or---question it! I blended in with all my fellow males in grade school. We ALL had "that look" and it was the "uncuts" who stood out. (And, whom we snickered at.)

But honestly, something this personal and so life-affecting later on? NO. It should be an older guy's choice...at HIS timing and when HE'S ready.

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

These secret guys can safely comment if they don't mention smell, smegma, or in some way praise infant circumcision.

"safely comment?" I think this illustrates the reason for their concern. Maybe they are glad that they were circumcised at birth. (It would have saved me a lot of grief.) Are they not allowed to express that because it displeases you? Why do you get to declare what is safe and legitimate what is not? It's a forum. I would think any comment should be safe.

The advocates of foreskin restoration have never claimed the a restored foreskin is "fully functioning" as an original. There's too much which is cut and gone forever.
Here's a selection of the non-restorable parts from that list: Frenar Band a/k/a Ridged Band, Meissner's Corpuscles, Frenulum, Dartos Fascia, Sebaceous Glands, Langerhans Cells, Blood Vessels, and Dorsal Nerves. Even without all those, I've found the sensation to be better.

So all these things are gone forever, but somehow lost sensitivity can be magically restored?
Most tissue becomes weaker as it is stretched. Have you thought about the possibility that all that stretching may be more damaging to the tissue cells and nerve endings that you have left?

Also consider that in your excitement in having a foreskin again, your belief that it is more sensitive, causes it to be so. Just like the average circumcised guy (who was doing just fine up until this point) now feels a lack of sensation and inferiority because the intactivists insist that he should have less sensation.

 

[Mr._dB]

To 625girth: It didn't cure epilepsy, it didn't cure "consumption", it didn't curtail masturbation, so you did think it might "control" AIDS? Maybe you need to take a look at history!

I'd love to see the circ stats for all the male AIDS deaths in America since the late 1970s. I dare speculate that 90%+ of AIDS fatalities in the US are circumcised men. Or, rather, the circ stats for these unfortunate men are probably exactly the same as for the US population at large.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Circumcised men are at greater risk of HIV infection
World Health Organization data from 1995
Table 1. First world countries: circumcision rates, AIDS prevalence, and population
Japan 1 0.2 123,638 Finland 1 0.9 4,984 Norway 1 1.5 4,247 Sweden 1 2.0 8,527 Germany 1 2.2 63,237 France 1 3.5 56,367 Mexico 1 4.2 88,598 Denmark 1.6 4.4 5,135 Italy 1 8.9 57,664 Spain 1 14.2 39,405 UK 7 2.4 57,410 Canada 30 3.8 26,560 New Zealand 40 1.2 3,296 Australia 40 4.5 17,083 USA 85 16.0 251,398 Israel 95 0.5 4,586oh bloody hell that was in a table when I posted it, anyway it consistently shows that there's a correlation between the amount of circumcision and the amount of AIDS.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Semendemon I think you generalize too much from your personal experience and perhaps I do the same. Last month in a thread about smoking being made illegal in England (and other places) I was explaining to SpoiledPrincess that the default condition of air is clean.

The default condition of men, women and the intersexed is with complete genitalia. You'll have difficulty convincing many of us that your experience can be universalized. Anyway, with world population pushing past 6.6 billion, won't you agree that surgeons have better things to do than try to cut off parts of all those babies' genitals because they may want to get part of it cut off in their thirties, like you did? The best we could say is this is a prehistoric standard of medical care.

Can we please agree that circ mileage may vary? I could barely orgasm by the time I was 37. Restoration has helped a lot. I believe the gliding effect is important. It will never be the dick I was born with, but when you put it back the way that nature intended insofar as it is possible, nature reasserts itself insofar as it is possible.

World Population Clock

 

[DC_DEEP]

I've received several private messages over the past two weeks from guys who are very happy with the sensation after getting circ'd. But they don't dare post because they fear a verbal crucifixion.

Have you been verbally crucified? You've been challenged but that's that character of LPSG.

Did I mention that none of us "Intactivists" have a problem with an adult making the decision, for himself, to have himself circumcised? Or that our objection is against having a surgery performed on an infant who cannot give informed consent?

"safely comment?" I think this illustrates the reason for their concern. Why do you get to declare what is safe and legitimate what is not? It's a forum. I would think any comment should be safe.

semendemon, I'm curious why you claim the guys fear for their "online lives", SteveHD says they are perfectly safe, then you claim his "safety" statement is proof of why the guys fear posting. It just does not make any sense, and doesn't help your position, it hurts it. Perhaps the guys who have sent you PMs because they are terrified of me and Steve and dxj ARE happy that they were snipped at birth; the big problem is that, if they AREN'T happy with it, there's NO WAY TO UNDO IT. You really are not listening to the guys who want a "restored" foreskin. They are not saying it magically returns to its original, intact state. They are saying that having the restoration done is better than not having it done. It's a bit like having a leg amputated, and choosing to have a prosthetic leg replacement. It's not the same as having the original leg, but it's better than no leg at all.

And you still have not commented on my assertion that with something as personal as one's own cock, a man should have the right to choose whether or not a piece of it gets cut off.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I see it exactly as DC_DEEP describes. It's rehabilitation, just like with any injury. We could make a pun and call it recovery.

 

[benderten2001]

Understanding restoration requires a study of the original structure of the human uncut penis. I didn't realize myself until I carefully looked at pictures, especially videos, that there is sliding inner foreskin IN ADDITION to the outer prepuce (foreskin). Hence, there are actually TWO layers of skin there on an uncut penis! No wonder then, about all that extra pleasureable sensation when it's in use.

When one factors in too, that the very sensitive frenulum is tampered with as well in circumcision, and yes, all those sensitive nerve endings, etc., well, I have to concur that restoration won't ever be quite as good as the original. --I don't believe anyone can logically argue with that.

IMO, "rehabilitation" might not be such a bad word association to this restoration subject because THAT term implies (at least some) psychological adjustment and acceptance.

From the success photos I've seen on the net of restoration, the results are often quite impressive. For some of us guy hating our circs so badly, ANY sliding skin would be welcomed and appreciated.

We circumcised men just have to know though, (and accept somehow ) that restoration won't EVER equal EXACTLY how things were BEFORE the knife.

 

[danerain]

Just like the average circumcised guy (who was doing just fine up until this point) now feels a lack of sensation and inferiority because the intactivists insist that he should have less sensation.

So, basically you are pissed because you feel like you were doing just fine until you read a bunch of crazy ideas and that made you feel bad about yourself.

Intaactivists aren't trying to make circumcised guys feel bad about themselves. If you feel bad after reading anti-circ post it might be because you feel like you have been violated by being cut and you didn't think you had these feelings until you read the post.

It's not Intactivists making you feel bad, you feel bad because you learned something you didn't want to and you don't know how to deal with it.

 

[ripley_m]

In reply to the original poster, I was circumcised as an adult, and have had sex with and without a foreskin. In my opinion, it's not that big of a deal.

You and your body will adapt to whatever situation it finds itself in. True, there are some sensations you feel when you have a foreskin (sliding etc.) that you don't get when you are cut, but at the same time you also discover new sensations during sex when you are cut.

Basically, once you know how to use what you have well to get the maximum amount of pleasure out of sex, then it really doesn't make that much of a difference, IMO.