Sensitivity study

[Tonkatoy]

Do you think that if you come quickly that having a circumscision would slow you down or do you just think that is psycholigical...I am not talking prematgure ejac....just coming within about 3-5 mins?

 

[B_lickMYnuts]

forgive me if i sound ignorant, but what the hell is "frenulum"???

 

[D_Garmanswait Glassnads]

Its the membrane like slip of skin at the back of the penis running from between the glans to the foreskin.

 

[HotBulge]

Isn't this view a little overstated? Most men who are circumcised just after birth probably have no recollection of the experience, therefore you can't really miss what you never really rememberd. Yes?

Lordpendragon quoted:

Of course. It's an antisexual cultural practice constantly in search of a medical rationale. Men who were cut as infants sometimes defend it because they need to psychologically defend themselves from accepting that something that was theirs was taken form them without consent and don't want to experience resentment or loss.

 

[B_josiah852]

Well I am not cut. Wouldn't want it any other way. I don't seem to have a problem with mine getting dirty or stinky. I clean my penis twice a day in the shower. When I piss I pull the foreskin all the way back behind the head so there is no urine for the foreskin to catch which would make it smell. Actually hard my foreskin almost covers the head but not quite. Soft there is not hardly any overhang either. I do not have a real sensitive head as I wear the foreskin pulled back sometimes and it seems to have helped with that. I use any regular bath soap in the shower and haven't found one to be better than the other. I think (and it's just my opinion) that some guys cut or uncut are more sensitive than others.

 

[Dave NoCal]

HotBulge wrote:

Isn't this view a little overstated? Most men who are circumcised just after birth probably have no recollection of the experience, therefore you can't really miss what you never really rememberd. Yes?

Alright, let's use an analogy. Lets' say someone has the misfortune to be born to parents who are part of a religious cult that holds that ears are ugly, tend to get dirty, and their prompt removal is part of teh parents' covenenat with God. Therefore they have them removed from their children shortly after birth. Let's say they even have the good grace to insist on anesthesia (which is often not the case with circumcision). The child may not remember but will have his/her hearing affected. Out of loyalty to parents and/or reluctance to face the emotional implications of that permament change done to him or her, the individual may rationalize:

1. Ears are ugly
2. Ears are dirty
3. Having hearing that is too sensitive will cause sleep to be disrupted
4. You can't miss what you never knew

And such an individual may REALLY TAKE OFFENSE at any suggestion that there is an injustice at play here. Read any of the circumcision threads here and you will see this played out over and over.

I call this denial.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I read an article in a mens health type mag years ago. The circumsized penis does develop a slight callous on the glans. You can work on resensitizing it but you might not last as long in sex. Soooo this could be a winning situation.

 

[Snozzle]

Perhaps so, but that may be a result of the circumcised penis having more exposure to chaffing over time.

Does it really matter why? The study also shows that the glans of both kinds is the least sensitive part of the penis.

The penis is more than just the glans,

....and even more so when it hasn't had anything cut off. Go to the second link, look at the graph, see the lonely red (intact penis) short (sensitive) bars for the parts that the circumcised man doesn't have.

and the millions of circumcised men in the world have hardly diminished their sexual activity

Fucking more, but enjoying it less?

nor are complaining about issues of tactile sensitivity.

Does a colourblind person complain about not being able to see colour?

Let's introduce another recent study that finds that circumcision significantly reduces the rate of HIV infection.

Introduce? Where have you been? It's been debated to death here.

It's been conventional, though debatable, wisdom that circumcision helps to reduce disease. I would much rather deal with a minor

hard to put a figure on it, but it's certainly significant.

loss of sensitivity in the glans than be put at greater risk for sexual complications.

IE, let's talk about something else. OK, let's: All those claims of disease prevention have proved to be exaggerated or totally bogus. Just look how circumcision goes from disease to disease, looking for the most frightening of the day ( like a child in a party shop before Halloween). In the late 19th century when people worried about retaining their bodily essences, it was "moral hygiene" (ie masturbation). Then after WW1 when men were coming back from the brothels of France with syphilis it was "VD". Then when people (especially women) took up smoking, and cancer was the great terror, it was cancer. After WW2 it was "in case he has to fight in the desert" and (because most men were now circumcised) "to look like dad". Then when those were flagging, Urinary Tract Infections were wheeled up (which had the advantage of happening to babies, and so justifying doing it to babies - never mind that 4 times as many girls as boys get UTIs). So it was inevitable that HIV should take its turn. (Maybe, just maybe, circumcision does cause a measurable reduction in woman-to-man heterosexual transmission of HIV, but that's a poor reason to do it to babies in the US.) And each time a new disease comes along, the others are pretty much forgotten. It's as though appendicectomy were touted as being good for stomach ulcers, then rectal cancer, then brain tumours, then carpal tunnel syndrome.

 

[IdahoTom]

Do you think that if you come quickly that having a circumscision would slow you down or do you just think that is psycholigical...I am not talking prematgure ejac....just coming within about 3-5 mins?

I don't doubt that getting cut could slow things down - but I would not recommend that method.

I've had concern (and read the same concern from others) that restoring might bring problems with premature ejaculation. But it turns out that it doesn't. I find that with restoring (re-sensitizing), pleasure is more intense but instead of making me go off quicker, it has given me more control. I can go quicker if I want or take a lot of time. It makes things easier if that makes sense. Others report similar.

If your getting ahead of yourself, start thinking of unpleasant things - paying taxes, going to work, ...

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I have little doubt that circ is implicated in premature ejaculation. With less sensation, there's less control. Not to mention unwanted boners just from walking down the street with our internal bits artificially surgically exposed. Since restoring I don't have these nuisance boners that start from chafing uncomfortably in underclothing.