Keep the glans covered is the foreskin's main function mostly only when the "male" isn't an adult...

[Rigel92]

“The foreskin, usually within adolescence, could tend to shorten with penis development and consequently the glans may no longer remain altogether covered. Therefore, the fact that without surgery a part of men can have a penis similar in appearance to who is partially or completely circumcised, could suggest that perhaps the main function of the foreskin is to protect the glans especially when the "male" is still a newborn (and thus wears diapers) and until the end of infancy. In the adult instead, after the growth, this function would slightly lose importance (also compared to past years), almost as if it was no longer so completely essential”

What do you think about this "explanation" (that I found online) ? Is it correct or is it an absurdity ?

 

[FinnCorgi]

Absolutely absurd. There is no study on the developmental difference between intact and circumcised males. Furthermore, removal of tissue does not make the penis "bigger". Many cases of circumcised males during puberty do experience painful erections, tears and scarring from restricted skin of the shaft. Soreness after masturbation from vigorous jousting also cause tears, most common actions without lubrication that the foreskin allows.
If this is some part of an old so called "study" it is nothing more than a faux-intellectual trying to create answers rather than a trial study, anatomical study with examples or analysis of fine sensory differences between intact and those who underwent genital cutting. A more modern study has found that there is a difference and loss in sensitivity, but sensation loss is more apparent as the foreskin allows more diverse sensations during sexual acts. The act of reproduction is the only non-differential element. And while there is the different sensation of a circumcised male creating tension beween the glans and shaft in the frenular remnant it can be enacted in intact males in thrust motion and scrotal tension assist. But, often the sensation is rendered with the removal of mucosal tissue with sensory receptors around the frenulum.
Wherever you found this, it is a very old and narrow minded statement without any scientific value. It is only an opinion derived from eugentics of the victorian era, most responsible for ideas such as "smoking strengthens lungs" and "women do not experience orgasms as they would have no purpose" or the ever stupid notion "masturbation is unhygentic and cause of sterility"

 

[hypolimnas]

Absurd, it is totally without logic, and reads like a poor translation.

 

[Flotiz]

It is certainly possible to have a short foreskin and then, in this case, the glans couldn't be completely covered. In fact, omitting voluntarily to write about "hygiene" for which anyway is always essential to be able to expose the glans, considered that then you start to have sex, it is in a sense less "fundamental" to have the glans covered. Not by chance it isn't important if, when the penis is flaccid, the glans is inside your foreskin or it is partially uncovered. On the contrary it is essential that, when the penis becomes erect, the foreskin can be retracted (in particular to allow sexual activity)...

 

[Hairylegs]

The purpose of the foreskin is to get sliced off, leading to innumerable complaints from gay men who post online. I'm pleased to report that my foreskin has fulfilled its purpose in life, and went happily onto becoming a skin graft for some needy person who needed it much more than I did.

 

[Jagtstein]

There are no arguments for circumcision without a medical indication.
1 and 2 With appropriate hygiene, these claims can not be maintained.
Hygiene is called the penis in the morning, evening and wash after use with retracted foreskin.
3 About the appearance can not argue. I like uncircumcised penises much better. In addition, the foreskin is provided to protect the sensitive glans. This is intended by nature so and therefore certainly not wrong.
Circumcision in different religions was ultimately made from hygienic reasons and then transfigured religiously over the years. Religions are all made in the prescribed areas where water shortage was. Religions that have emerged in other areas without water shortage, do not impose circumcision.
The US prudish Americans originally introduced to curb the circumcision for masturbation. This works not as we know. But ignorance of the circumcision was further carried out. Fortunately this bad habit can also to United States.[video=medium]1115421[/video]

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

There are no arguments for circumcision without a medical indication.
1 and 2 With appropriate hygiene, these claims can not be maintained.
Hygiene is called the penis in the morning, evening and wash after use with retracted foreskin.
3 About the appearance can not argue. I like uncircumcised penises much better. In addition, the foreskin is provided to protect the sensitive glans. This is intended by nature so and therefore certainly not wrong.
Circumcision in different religions was ultimately made from hygienic reasons and then transfigured religiously over the years. Religions are all made in the prescribed areas where water shortage was. Religions that have emerged in other areas without water shortage, do not impose circumcision.
The US prudish Americans originally introduced to curb the circumcision for masturbation. This works not as we know. But ignorance of the circumcision was further carried out. Fortunately this bad habit can also to United States.[video=medium]1115421[/video]

Nice story. But "the US prudish Americans originally introduced to curb...masturbation" is utter bullshit. That part is directly attributable to England in the early 1890's.

 

[Hairylegs]

I'm circumcised, and hell, I haven't masturbated in about 4 or 5 days, so we know the procedure works.

 

[MisterVIP]

Totally absurd.

 

[MisterVIP]

And video/photo-bombing threads is bullshit.

 

[hoodedcock]

Claims, especially block text from the internet, should list some sort of verification or citation. In addition, "could" and "may" are used so often as to render the statement nothing but conjecture without evidence.

But, you know, yay the the interweb

 

[Uncutpete]

But "the US prudish Americans originally introduced to curb...masturbation" is utter bullshit.

I love how loudly ignorance is proclaimed. In fact, several American "health" authorities between 1890 and 1900, including The Rev. Sylvester Graham (of cracker and flour fame), advocated circumcision to curb sexual desire and thus masturbation, which was thought of as a major threat to health. It was North America's first genital mutilation fad... but not its last.

 

[Uncutpete]

The purpose of the foreskin is to get sliced off, leading to innumerable complaints from gay men who post online. I'm pleased to report that my foreskin has fulfilled its purpose in life, and went happily onto becoming a skin graft for some needy person who needed it much more than I did.

One moronic idea after another.

 

[Hairylegs]

Which part was moronic?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

I love how loudly ignorance is proclaimed. In fact, several American "health" authorities between 1890 and 1900, including The Rev. Sylvester Graham (of cracker and flour fame), advocated circumcision to curb sexual desire and thus masturbation, which was thought of as a major threat to health. It was North America's first genital mutilation fad... but not its last.

In fact?

Sylvester Graham died in 1851.

Did he communicate from the grave, a séance perhaps?

To be clear, my point was that it was patently incorrect to assume it was "prudish Americans" who began the push for circumcision for health reasons, when there were examples of the same ideas in Europe. Jonathan Hutchinson, from England, pushed for circumcision as early as 1855 to curb VD, and his 1890 publication in the British Medical Journal mentioned masturbation.

 

[soundsgreat87]

Kellogg was the big circ pusher in the states, as was Dr. Sayre. Maybe it wasn't one person's fault, but it was a pretty concerted effort in several countries. It really only caught on in a big way in the English-speaking nations, and the US is really the only holdout from that era. Not really surprising, given how superstitious, ignorant, and stubborn most Americans are.

 

[deleted1124309]

And video/photo-bombing threads is bullshit.

You're more than right!
I hate when during a good conversation/interaction here, someone decides to post a huge image/video that I'm totally not interested in watching.

I tried to start a thread once, asking what people liked more: clothed or naked people.
A guy replied and posted lots of stupid gifs...

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Not really surprising, given how superstitious, ignorant, and stubborn most Americans are.

Most Americans are no different than most people anywhere else in the world.

 

[soundsgreat87]

Most Americans are no different than most people anywhere else in the world.

77% of americans believe that angels are real, and over 40% believe that evolution is bogus

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK Poll December 2011 Topline_Santa.pdf
http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

[deleted1124309]