Reversing Circumcision

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
Nomad said:
What's the best way to get started?

The simplest and least expensive is to tape the loose skin over the glans. One way to do it is to use fabric bandaids. They stretch and the pad prevents the tape from sticking to your glans. Micropore tape is the most commonly used brand of tape and can be found at most drugstores. Give it a shot, there's no guarantee you'll notice a difference in two weeks but simply not having your glans rubbing against your clothing makes all the difference.

It's one of those things that's easy to start but you don't have to finish if you don't like it. A little extra skin will give you even more of that different sensation when masturbating.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
wellymannz said:
I would love to do this.
For an overview and what to expect see: http://www.norm.org/ ... if you're serious then continue reading ...
Nomad said:
What's the best way to get started?
What Chico8 advised is a covering method sometimes called crosstaping. It's good for improving sensitivity when you're in a decision phase but it doesn't tension the skin unless you have frequent erections.:smile: If you've already decided to go for it, you'll need to use something that tensions the skin, which leads back to the question above, and there's no pat answer. You'll have to find out by trying different methods. Many or most guys change methods before they settle one that works best for them.

Take a look at: http://www.x-mail.net/restore/compare.htm ... it's a table of the widely used methods. The table is difficult to read at first, so allow yourself some time. It helps to press F11 to fullscreenize your browser window. Since you're a beginner, pay close attention to "skin needed" which is shaded in lavender or violet. Lighter shades means less skin needed for the method.

Stay away from methods not on the comparison chart above or not on www.norm.org site.
 

baseball99

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Posts
871
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ed69 said:
I did not take it serious untill I was 30 years old and could not get erect anymore.Now things work great,but not till I got full coverage when flaccid.I'm still working on it,if you look at my pics when I'm erect you realy can't see any extra skin.I'll say it again if you're cut" you will have a problem or you already have had a problem"Just give it time.:redface:

i know that eating fast food every day will give you a problem, or you already have one.....but im still waiting to see the direct evidence that circumcision causes impotence :rolleyes:
to make a statement like that you are really uninformed about how an erection occurs.....i posted it in another thread a while ago, read up
 

ajay38

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
46
Media
8
Likes
5
Points
228
Location
Maryland, DC
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I have to say that I never really cared about the fact that I was circumcised until I started having sex with guys who weren't. At first I had that ignorant kneejerk American reaction of "ugh" that is nasty! That soon changed though and I also soon realized that I liked the esthetic look and feel of the uncut dick. I also love how it feels in my mouth and ass.

I am not a fanatic who thinks that circumcision should be banned. However I am in the Medical field and my experience in obstetrics and the many circumcisions I have seen have made me more insistent about educating new fathers and mothers. The whole rationale that says my boy should look like me or he will be emotionally scarred is not logical and a lousy reason for cutting the end of a childs penis off. Also it is not a painless procedure....even infiltrating the foreskin with local anesthetic before the procedure is very painful, try sticking a needle in the skin of your dick and moving it around and see how that feels. I've witnessed many a circumcision and the child screams bloody murder! Sure it heals but there also can be and are complications as in any surgery. This is an elective surgery that the child does not elect to have.

That said I'm going to start restoring again simply for the thrill of body modification.....sure I love cut dick and uncut dick. I've lived with it cut....now I want to see if I can have my foreskin back. There is however some new data from a study about the incidence of HIV in men with foreskins. Yes it seems like there is a slightly heightened risk for those uncircumcised males who bareback. However life is not without risk.....just being born has it's risks, someone might cut your foreskin off for instance.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
205
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
ajay38 said:
However I am in the Medical field and my experience in obstetrics and the many circumcisions I have seen have made me more insistent about educating new fathers and mothers.... Also it is not a painless procedure....I've witnessed many a circumcision and the child screams bloody murder!... This is an elective surgery that the child does not elect to have.
Ajay, I have a question. Can you opt out of assisting in procedures in which you find a moral conflict? I am wondering what the professional consequences of doing this are for someone in your position.

Your comments on non-elective elective surgery may betray your true feelings. I understand that banning circumcision would be a big change, but I would be interested if you would kindly explain why it would be fanatic. It is becoming painfully obvious that circ is an insupportable social relic. But people keep looking for some reason and keep coming up short, no pun intended. So it goes.

Medicine's involvement in RIC is the least supportable. It is like being in the company of an acquaintance who spews racist remarks. It makes everyone look ignorant.

If you will, I believe the shoe is on the other foot. Why are adults fixated on the normal genitals of newborn babies? It's time for all of us to see what we can do for change.
 

Ed69

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
2,890
Media
0
Likes
1,279
Points
258
Location
Oregon (United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
baseball99 said:
i know that eating fast food every day will give you a problem, or you already have one.....but im still waiting to see the direct evidence that circumcision causes impotence :rolleyes:
to make a statement like that you are really uninformed about how an erection occurs.....i posted it in another thread a while ago, read up

I don't need to read anything I've lived it and so have hundreds of my online friends.
 

baseball99

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Posts
871
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ed69 said:
I don't need to read anything I've lived it and so have hundreds of my online friends.

i would associate the temporary impotence to stress (possibly associated with painful erection or stress in general) but there is no way a circumcision makes you impotent......erection is chemically mediated and removal of foreskin can not prevent the nitric oxide release, no way no how.....i would attribute it to stress, which like i said could be due to your issues with circumcision but its not the actual circumcision
 

Dave NoCal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Posts
2,719
Media
1
Likes
2,576
Points
333
Location
Sacramento (California, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I've been dabbling in restoration for several years but have never used enough tension long enough to achieve any real coverage. However, some lengthening of the skin has occurred and the result is that my penis is now almost one inch longer when soft. It's still quite average. Also keeping taped during the day for a week or two has definitely resulted in increased sensitivity. I've never had much sensitivity and, for example, I always could barely feel blow jobs. As I have gotten older, I've had the same problem of not having enough sensation to maintain arousal. When I keep it taped, sex changes from "I wonder if I can get there" to "I CAN'T STOP!" The difference is really incredible.

I'm thinking about getting serious about it and basically am trying to figure out what method has the best combination of promise for growth and is tolerable in terms of convenience and potential embarrassment.

I was cut as a neonate over fifty years ago. Back then it was not even really discussed. Doctors advised parents and they agreed. I am angry about not having been allowed to make such a personal choice but I'm not angry at my parents. They were duped. However, if I knew my parents made the same decision despite the controversy and information that exists now, I would be furious! People who currently determined to have parts of their babies' genitals amputated need to be aware that by the time those boys are adults they will be in the minority and will definitely know the were altered to suits their parents' tastes.
 

unhappilycut

1st Like
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
18
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
223
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
ajay38 said:
There is however some new data from a study about the incidence of HIV in men with foreskins. Yes it seems like there is a slightly heightened risk for those uncircumcised males who bareback.

I hate to get too off-topic, but I must point out that there are far more effective ways to prevent HIV than circumcision (assuming you believe the study). For instance, use protection unless: a) You KNOW your partner is STD-free, b) You don't mind the risk of pregnancy (assuming this is hetrosexual).

HIV has a unique distinction. It is almost always the victim's fault that they got it. Circ wouldn't be needed as protection if everybody would just protect themselves.
 

baseball99

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Posts
871
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
unhappilycut said:
I hate to get too off-topic, but I must point out that there are far more effective ways to prevent HIV than circumcision (assuming you believe the study). For instance, use protection unless: a) You KNOW your partner is STD-free, b) You don't mind the risk of pregnancy (assuming this is hetrosexual).

HIV has a unique distinction. It is almost always the victim's fault that they got it. Circ wouldn't be needed as protection if everybody would just protect themselves.

i believe the fastest rate of transmission is in subsaharan africa where men rape girls
 

stetree

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Posts
227
Media
3
Likes
11
Points
163
Location
Dover, Kent, England
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I was circumcised thru no choice of my own or my parents due to a medical condition that meant i couldn't retract it. By the age of five the doctor informed my parents that i would have to be circumcised, therefor i can remember being un-cut (just) and also the pain that came with cleaning.

Though i would not mind either way about "restoring"my foreskin the memories of that pain would probably stop me. Do any other cut guys remember having a foreskin?? Would u ever consider "restoration"?? Would be fascinating to know
 

unhappilycut

1st Like
Joined
May 20, 2006
Posts
18
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
223
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Matthew said:

If you have unprotected sex, you have to understand that there is a risk of STDs, including HIV. It is extremely dangerous to think otherwise. If you do it anyway and get any STD, you knew the risk you were taking.

I also wasn't referring to Africa; I was referring to the U.S., the most cut nation in the civilized world with the highest HIV rate in the civilized world.
 

baseball99

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Posts
871
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
unhappilycut said:
If you have unprotected sex, you have to understand that there is a risk of STDs, including HIV. It is extremely dangerous to think otherwise. If you do it anyway and get any STD, you knew the risk you were taking.

I also wasn't referring to Africa; I was referring to the U.S., the most cut nation in the civilized world with the highest HIV rate in the civilized world.

thats debatable.....US also has one of the highest number of tests performed also.....thereby increasing the prevalence.....if you dont test for something it wont be diagnosed. People are blowing that study out of proportion. It was found that circumcised men were less likely, thats not debatable.....whats being blown out of proportion is you are still highly likely to become infected from multiple times unprotected sex
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
baseball99 said:
thats debatable.....US also has one of the highest number of tests performed also.....thereby increasing the prevalence.....if you dont test for something it wont be diagnosed. People are blowing that study out of proportion. It was found that circumcised men were less likely, thats not debatable.....whats being blown out of proportion is you are still highly likely to become infected from multiple times unprotected sex

I believe Europe has an equal amount of testing going on, with the notable exception of the perenially strapped NHS in the UK, which incidentally has the highest HIV rate in Europe.

Half of all new infections in the US are in the African-American community. Part of the reason for that is religion; black churches have condemned those with HIV and gays in a way that makes the Catholic Inquisition look tame in comparison. Anyway, since black Americans are much less likely to be tested voluntarily, there's a big chance that HIV is very much undercounted in the US.

Also, another segment of the population that is infected at a higher rate than whites is the Latino community. Probably due in part to a lack of Spanish language outreach programs.

For info on the above, see the table at the bottom of this page.


You're right in stating that HIV is not prevented through circumcision. The idea that circ actually prevents HIV is a very, very dangerous proposition, and those who are advocating it certainly must realize that HIV infections will only rise in the long run if safe sex is abandoned in favor of circ.
 

MattBrick

Expert Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
917
Media
15
Likes
146
Points
263
Location
NJ
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
To Unhappilly and others

Interesting post. HIV infection rates for a given nation are considered to be affected by large number of factors, including circumcision status of the population, but also, the availablitly of information, testing, condoms, and health care in that country, social mores and others. It's not just one thing we can point to.
In any case circumcision decreases the rate of HIV infection. It is believed that the circumcised penis 1)is "tougher" skinned, less prone to minute lasserations which can open the way for infection 2) is dryer which is a less hospitiable environment for viruses 3) possibly eaiser to clean, especially as compared to tighter forskins 4) has less foreskin. The inside fold of the foreskin acts as a special receptor site for the virus. Yes, foreskin is natural, and HIV apparently knows what it is doing so to speak.
With that said, we know that circumcized men contract and spread the HIV virus too. "Somewhat less likely" is no excuse. Even if you were lucky in the past, don't expect it in the future. Practice safer sex.

.....

We need to be careful about how we use civilised. I think what you are trying to to say is that the US has one of the higher rates among the industrialized nations. I'm not sure if you would consider South Africa or Brazil civilized, but they do have hight HIV rates than the USA. In any case, Brazil, and South Africa, are industrialized nations too. Why I am urging care in using civilized, is that, when you say it like that, it implies that other countries, where HIV is more prevalent are uncivilized.

Matt
 

MattBrick

Expert Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
917
Media
15
Likes
146
Points
263
Location
NJ
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Here are are a few thoughts to ponder, in no particular order :

It is very well to say, wait until the baby can decide on his own if he wants to be circumcised. If he decides to be circumcised later, it is a much serious matter though. It is more of a major surgery, more expensive, more dangerous, longer recovery time. There is the period of abstainance to consider in an adult too. Leaving a baby uncircumcised leaves him very little more choice than circumcising him.

The adult penis is very different from the infant's. The glans is one of the last parts of the body to fully develop. The penis as a whole does not grow in proportion with the rest of the body either - mine doubled in length, and tripled in circumference at least. The foreskin also goes through a process of development, beginning with seperation from the glans, later the development of the sebaceus glands, ect,and even sometimes l of little hairs. Sexual pleasure increases through development. We might consider that some of the negative effects eperienced after adult circumcision, are caused precisly because it was an adult who was cirumcised. When such a small amount of skin is removed on an infant, perhaps it has comparitively little effect on how the penis grows and developes. On the other hand, many men report positive results after adult circumcision.

It is often mentioned that circumcised men sometimes have sex or masturbate more "violently". Here is the other side of the story: It may be that, with a glans less easy to abrade and perhaps less sesitive, (and perhaps a less sensitive penis over all), circumcised men are able to engage in rougher stimulation, and do, because they like it. It's not necesarily true that they need this kind of strong stimulation to experience sexual pleasure, or reach orgasm. For me a gentle caress around the urinary opening, the corona, or underside of the glans can drive me crazy - especially from the right person. I usually like to jerk off with some good force, but like to thrust much more gently during sex. (It feels better- I don't know) On some ocasions (in my very limited experience :) my sex partner has requested something a little harder. I had no insignificant degree of pleasure comlying with that either though.
Now, no doubt sex is a little easier when you have some skin to help you out, especially for the "bigger" guys when we are getting used to somebody new. On the other hand, many women express a preference for a circumcised penis. Along with many other factors (familiarity, asthetics, ect), that "violence" I was just describing may just be part of it.

I very much resent the term "mutilated penis" and those like it. Now, I am not trying to minimize what some of you feel about your own penises or about circumcision on the whole. If you want to try out foreskin restoration, that's cool, and in fact, learning of it first here, I think it is fascinating. There is nothing wrong with mine though. It works just great :) There is nothing wrong with anybody elses either. If it's ok to be uncircumcised, it's ok to be circumcised. And, it's ok to feel however you do, about whatever your circumcision status is. There is no "normal" in the question. Along this line of thinking, while some consider circumcision "abnormal", others would certainly consider foreskin restoration even more "abnormal", just as there are diverse opinions on ear piercing, or body art.
I realize that some of you feel very strongly about infant circumcision, just as, for example others feel about vegetarianism. I'm in fact in general inclined to think favorably on the all natural aproach to foreskin. These kind of tems, mutilated, normal, abnormal, though are a type of polarizing rehtoric. They don't do anything to help anyone, or either side's cause.

As I was hinting at before, infant circumcision doesn't necesarily in result a lesser degree of sexual pleasure later. There is simply no way to gage it.
There are, less nerve endings, less skin, less moisture on the glands, ect in the case of the circumcised penis, yes. Let's not forget though to what degree sexual pleasure is based on mental and visual stimulation, on who we are with, on novelty, mood, and what I would describe as certain other intangeble factors. Gentlemen, Imagine for a moment that Sen. Hilary Clinton is rubbing your penis. Circumcised or Uncircumcised, nothing is happening!
It's possible that the body and the penis, and the brain, ect. adapt, and compensate. Saying that being uncircumcised is "better" than being circumcised may be akin to saying writing with the right hand is better than writing with the left (which many societies do), when in fact, they are just different. The circumcised penis does not necesarily provide any lesser degree, or inferior quality of stimulation to it's owner. I'm circumcised*, and I enjoy my sexuality a great deal. I have nothing bad to say about it. Circumcision doesn't always equal less pleasure. One thing that surely does though, is constantly feeling bad about yourself, or your penis, or worrying that you "should" be be uncircumcised/circumcised.

It seemed to me, reading through posts relating to this topic, that a disproportionate number of gay guys feel robbed, or loss now, being circumcised as infants. I'm not sure if you would atribute this to the natural double focus of interest/disccusion on the penis there is in a relationship with two guys, or whether it is part of a larger ubrella of negative self esteem that affects so many gays and lesbians in this country. Gay life looks a lot like constant strife to be leaner, have better hair, snazzier clothes, fancier eybrows, cooler friends, and to gossip more about them, than they do about you. Most of this is pretty foreign to most straight guys. Here is my thinking. Loss is real, but less relavent than possibility and action. Whatever your penis is, or you wish it was like, or whatever stage of foreskin who-knows-what you are in, you're penis is great. He is your best friend :) If you are having trouble finding: a partner from a limited pool of suitable applicants, with a limited number of ways of meeting them, a family, acceptance from your family/circle, or are just stressed out by a predjudiced world (it's not easy, I know) feeling better (accepting) yourself, and your penis _now_ is something that is always going to help you.


Hey, there are pros and cons to both sides of circumcision status. There are loads of posts on it on this board alone. I and most people think a penis is a pretty cool thing, circumcised or uncircumcised, a large one being of course in no way less so by the wa :). I think this is all very interesting, but personally that there are more important matters to ignite our activism.
Thanks.

Mat
 

Dave NoCal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Posts
2,719
Media
1
Likes
2,576
Points
333
Location
Sacramento (California, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
To me it's fundamentally a human rights issue.

There s an inherent moral problem with deciding that a part of another person's body isn't going to be important to him and therefore removing it. It could just as well be the outer ear (cleaner ears), the nipples (supposedly breast cancer iin men is more common than cancer of the penis), or toes (no more ingrown toenails). If we removed just the little toes, who really needs them anyway, we could reduce the incidence on ingrown toenails by 20%!

Then there is the issue of equal protection under the law. There are strict laws against altering the genitalia of girls to suit personal or cultural preferences. In recent years there has been a trend for women to have cosmetic surgery to reduce and reshape their labia. That is not going to translate over to altering the labia in infants under the rationalization that this way they won't have to go through it later.

Young men have begun suing their circumcisers claiming, correctly, that they did not give consent. It is my understanding that at least one case has been settled. Also, it doesn't cost a dime to file a complaint against the physician, on the same grounds. The complaintant probably would not be able to get sanctions placed on the physician, at least not at first. But dealing with complaints is a hassle and an embarrassment. It wouldn't take very much of this to get physicians thinking that circumscision of infants isn't really all that beneficial after all.

There is a group of attorneys engaged in a nationwide project to pursue such cases, pro bono. They have also been fairly successful at getting states to stop funding it through medicaid. In addition, they have been lobbying the insurance companies. When NHS in England stopped covering this pointless procedure, circumcision rates dropped by 90% practically overnight. Apparently having to actually pay for it got most parents to reconsider.

This is going to end. The question is when.
 

ajay38

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
46
Media
8
Likes
5
Points
228
Location
Maryland, DC
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I certainly hope that no one believes that I am stating that HIV is prevented by circumcision. That is not at all what I said, one study does not make a hypothesis correct. Knowing my physiology I can definitely understand why an uncircumsized male might be slightly more at risk. But I can't confirm that until I see more evidence....to use that however to justify circumcision would be a huge error. We might as well sew up a womans vagina because we all know that women are more at risk from unprotected sex by the nature of their anatomy.

I believe that circumcision is on it's way out. At least in the states....and I for one am glad to see it go. However whenever I have tried to educate parents and prospective parents about the dark side of circumcision I'm still shouted down and hushed by my own hospital administration. Funny how there is a world wide movement to ban and outlaw female circumcision (which is horrible I agree) but it's still acceptable to perform and be a proponent of male genital mutilation in all of the hospitals here in the states and abroad.
 

ajay38

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
46
Media
8
Likes
5
Points
228
Location
Maryland, DC
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
MattBrick said:
Here are are a few thoughts to ponder, in no particular order :

It is very well to say, wait until the baby can decide on his own if he wants to be circumcised. If he decides to be circumcised later, it is a much serious matter though. It is more of a major surgery, more expensive, more dangerous, longer recovery time. There is the period of abstainance to consider in an adult too. Leaving a baby uncircumcised leaves him very little more choice than circumcising him.

The adult penis is very different from the infant's. The glans is one of the last parts of the body to fully develop. The penis as a whole does not grow in proportion with the rest of the body either - mine doubled in length, and tripled in circumference at least. The foreskin also goes through a process of development, beginning with seperation from the glans, later the development of the sebaceus glands, ect,and even sometimes l of little hairs. Sexual pleasure increases through development. We might consider that some of the negative effects eperienced after adult circumcision, are caused precisly because it was an adult who was cirumcised. When such a small amount of skin is removed on an infant, perhaps it has comparitively little effect on how the penis grows and developes. On the other hand, many men report positive results after adult circumcision.

It is often mentioned that circumcised men sometimes have sex or masturbate more "violently". Here is the other side of the story: It may be that, with a glans less easy to abrade and perhaps less sesitive, (and perhaps a less sensitive penis over all), circumcised men are able to engage in rougher stimulation, and do, because they like it. It's not necesarily true that they need this kind of strong stimulation to experience sexual pleasure, or reach orgasm. For me a gentle caress around the urinary opening, the corona, or underside of the glans can drive me crazy - especially from the right person. I usually like to jerk off with some good force, but like to thrust much more gently during sex. (It feels better- I don't know) On some ocasions (in my very limited experience :) my sex partner has requested something a little harder. I had no insignificant degree of pleasure comlying with that either though.
Now, no doubt sex is a little easier when you have some skin to help you out, especially for the "bigger" guys when we are getting used to somebody new. On the other hand, many women express a preference for a circumcised penis. Along with many other factors (familiarity, asthetics, ect), that "violence" I was just describing may just be part of it.

I very much resent the term "mutilated penis" and those like it. Now, I am not trying to minimize what some of you feel about your own penises or about circumcision on the whole. If you want to try out foreskin restoration, that's cool, and in fact, learning of it first here, I think it is fascinating. There is nothing wrong with mine though. It works just great :) There is nothing wrong with anybody elses either. If it's ok to be uncircumcised, it's ok to be circumcised. And, it's ok to feel however you do, about whatever your circumcision status is. There is no "normal" in the question. Along this line of thinking, while some consider circumcision "abnormal", others would certainly consider foreskin restoration even more "abnormal", just as there are diverse opinions on ear piercing, or body art.
I realize that some of you feel very strongly about infant circumcision, just as, for example others feel about vegetarianism. I'm in fact in general inclined to think favorably on the all natural aproach to foreskin. These kind of tems, mutilated, normal, abnormal, though are a type of polarizing rehtoric. They don't do anything to help anyone, or either side's cause.

As I was hinting at before, infant circumcision doesn't necesarily in result a lesser degree of sexual pleasure later. There is simply no way to gage it.
There are, less nerve endings, less skin, less moisture on the glands, ect in the case of the circumcised penis, yes. Let's not forget though to what degree sexual pleasure is based on mental and visual stimulation, on who we are with, on novelty, mood, and what I would describe as certain other intangeble factors. Gentlemen, Imagine for a moment that Sen. Hilary Clinton is rubbing your penis. Circumcised or Uncircumcised, nothing is happening!
It's possible that the body and the penis, and the brain, ect. adapt, and compensate. Saying that being uncircumcised is "better" than being circumcised may be akin to saying writing with the right hand is better than writing with the left (which many societies do), when in fact, they are just different. The circumcised penis does not necesarily provide any lesser degree, or inferior quality of stimulation to it's owner. I'm circumcised*, and I enjoy my sexuality a great deal. I have nothing bad to say about it. Circumcision doesn't always equal less pleasure. One thing that surely does though, is constantly feeling bad about yourself, or your penis, or worrying that you "should" be be uncircumcised/circumcised.

It seemed to me, reading through posts relating to this topic, that a disproportionate number of gay guys feel robbed, or loss now, being circumcised as infants. I'm not sure if you would atribute this to the natural double focus of interest/disccusion on the penis there is in a relationship with two guys, or whether it is part of a larger ubrella of negative self esteem that affects so many gays and lesbians in this country. Gay life looks a lot like constant strife to be leaner, have better hair, snazzier clothes, fancier eybrows, cooler friends, and to gossip more about them, than they do about you. Most of this is pretty foreign to most straight guys. Here is my thinking. Loss is real, but less relavent than possibility and action. Whatever your penis is, or you wish it was like, or whatever stage of foreskin who-knows-what you are in, you're penis is great. He is your best friend :) If you are having trouble finding: a partner from a limited pool of suitable applicants, with a limited number of ways of meeting them, a family, acceptance from your family/circle, or are just stressed out by a predjudiced world (it's not easy, I know) feeling better (accepting) yourself, and your penis _now_ is something that is always going to help you.


Hey, there are pros and cons to both sides of circumcision status. There are loads of posts on it on this board alone. I and most people think a penis is a pretty cool thing, circumcised or uncircumcised, a large one being of course in no way less so by the wa :). I think this is all very interesting, but personally that there are more important matters to ignite our activism.
Thanks.

Mat


Mat,
I love my penis....I take him wherever I go! Sometimes I let him out to roam. He is my best friend mutilated or not. The fact that men who are cut are perfectly happy that way is fantastic, it proves that human beings are a very adaptable species. As to gay men and restoration I find that the men on restoration websites in the process of foreskin restoration are split pretty evenly between straight and gay. Whether you agree with the term mutilation or not it still is an accurate description, yes my penis was mutilated at birth, no that doesn't mean that I can't love him as he is and be damn proud and want to share him with others. I like the way my penis looks and have been comfortable with it for 44 years....however I do feel a bit robbed of not being able to make a decision about my body that I should have been allowed to make at sometime later in my adult life. I am going to restore my foreskin simply because I think it is cool that I can. In my opinion adult circumcision would not even be thought of in this country if circumcision was not the "norm".

As for your statement about gay men being dispraportionately upset about circumcision you might be accurate. One reason for that is simply because we like dick......the touch, the feel, the taste, and the fact that our partners have them! It's all well and good to encourage people to accept each other cut or uncut for the sake of harmony. But I think it's not a good thing to downplay the affects of circumcision just so us cut guys can feel good about our penis. Being uncut or cut is not the same as being left or right handed, maybe if you had your left hand cut off and had to use your right it might be. By all means feel good about your penis especially if it's huge, average, curved cut or uncut....isn't that what we are on this site for. I have never though connected my penis to my self esteem.

Yes I guess I feel somewhat passionate about the subject. I see circumcision performed on a daily basis and I've seen the complications and infections that can occur. Would you do liposuction on your baby because you didn't like how fat he was? No! In my opinion it's really almost that simple. We should no less be surgically altering a normal uncut penis on an infant then we should be giving him a PA at birth. Can you imagine the uproar if a father told his OB doctor that he wanted junior to look like him in the shower so he was going to get the boys penis pierced and a nice ring put in it. Sounds pretty silly but it's the logic a lot of fathers use when deciding to cut the boys foreskin off.

By all means guys be happy with your penis.....cut or uncut. But at the same time I think that we should be questioning the practice of circumcising our baby boys. Maybe even talking about banning the procedure.