Is anyone else turned on by the extra effort that some circumcised men have to put into masturbating in order to feel good? They often have to clench their toes, tense up, and masturbate their dick very hard.
pic related: a tightly cut dude
A University of Sydney study looked into the affects of circumcision. There were 36 individual studies that researched 40,473 men. Half of them were circumcised and half were not.
Guess what? Circumcision "had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, duration of intercourse, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration."
Included in the study was a trial of 3000 men given questionnaires at 6 month intervals after circumcision. 19% of men said sensitivity remained the same. A whopping 72% said sensitivity had increased.
Personally, I think it's wrong for parents to choose to have their child circumcised. That's a decision for the person to make on their own accord. Also, tensing up is a sign of pleasure. 2/10 made me cite research.
Clenching toes is actually generally considered an involuntarily reaction to pleasure. It means it feels good lol.
I'll think you'll find that most cut guys don't use lube to jack off. I actually hate using lube because it doesn't feel as good as without lube. My boyfriend doesn't use lube and he tends to edge himself for hours at times.
I do like guys who are cut tight enough to require lube. There's that feeling of tension
However i'm uncertain as to whether it has any effect on sensitivity
From the guys i've spoken to I think it's actually penis size which is the biggest factor in how long it takes to cum
A lot of large guys tend to take longer to cum and smaller guys cum faster but even then there's some who break that trend
In the end I think penis sensitivity is like pain-threshold, it just varies from person-to-person
One of my favourite dick gifs
That seems really suspect to me. They must be high cuts. I can't imagine a guys sensitivity to go up after all his inner skin gets removed like this
I've known a couple guys who got cut as "adults" 15+. All of them agreed that they had increased sensitivity after being cut. All of them still say it feels better. One of them got cut 7 years ago now and still says it feels better than before. he was cut because he didn't like the way it looked. It functioned fine prior.
In my experience there's more misinformation on the anticircumcision side. Most circumcised guys really don't give a shit either way. They're happy with their dicks.
The problem, in my experience, is the anticircumcision websites. Many of them contain exaggerations or outright lies. I've seen anything from claiming that sex changes are a common result of botched circumcision (only happened once as far as I've ever found) to saying that ~30k nerves are removed in circumcision (no study has even found 30k nerves in an entire uncut dick). The sites have an agenda (a good one imo) and are not afraid of lying to get what they want. When you have the moral highground you shouldn't lie.
Notice that I said the anticircumsion people have the moral high ground. Mutilation is mutilation. But lying because you think it will win an argument isn't right. In my experience it turns people off the argument and makes the person look like an idiot.
Hm, I doubt that the level of sensitivity is the same though. I can't imagine walking around with the uncovered tip of your head constantly coming in contact with your underwear without it being the most uncomfortable thing ever, while people who are cut apparently has no problem with it... unless they're all secretly suffering from discomfort all day without telling anyone.
I never use lube when i jerk and I'm cut. I don't like how it feels, it takes away some of the sensation, it's like it adds a layer of something between my hand and my cock and it just takes away from it a bit. I don't think it's an uncut/cut thing. I think it's just cut guys that have smaller dicks that need lube.
It's not actually "tight". The skin of the shaft is still relatively loose and elastic and moves a lot. Or maybe I was just not cut as much as other guys are. I dunno. But even when I'm hard, I can pull some of my shaft up over my head almost like foreskin.
>Most circumcised guys really don't give a shit either way. They're happy with their dicks.
The problem with the "anti-circumcision" people on here is that they think that anyone cut is automatically "pro-circumcision" when it doesn't really matter because it has already happened and we can't turn back time. Even if we agree that it's wrong to do it, it's drown out by the "YOU WERE MUTILATED AND YOU DON"T HAVE A REAL COCK" kind of shit that just makes them look insane
Apathy about it leads to more fathers deciding to get their sons cut at birth so they 'fit it' or 'look like their fathers', which really aren't good reasons for medical procedures. By educating them we can cut down on unnecessary medical procedures.
Cut, but restoring.
Excessive masturbation, or sunburn, or just injuries in general.
Well I jerk off at least once a day, which some consider excessive and I've never had this issue
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I've never been in a situation where my dick has been in danger of sunburn
>just injuries in general
You got me on this one. My dick was mangled in a chainsaw incident. I guess my foreskin would have saved me...
>Apathy about it leads to more fathers deciding to get their sons cut at birth so they 'fit it' or 'look like their fathers'
That's not apathy. Getting their sons cut because they want their sons to look like them is a lot more proactive than apathy would suggest.
Multiple reasons: I like the aesthetics of uncut more than cut, I want more glans sensitivity and the gliding action, and I think I'd be more secure about nudity if I had a foreskin to cover my glans. In fact the Greeks didn't consider a man naked if his glans were covered, which is why unclothed guys at sports events wasn't considered lewd.
No, but I thought we were having a conversation, so I was trying to continue doing so.
>No, but I thought we were having a conversation, so I was trying to continue doing so.
It's just that this is the sole issue I have with people arguing about it on this board. What are you trying to accomplish here? Not in general. But on /hm, what are you trying to accomplish?
I agree with you. I think foreskin should be left as it is and it should be the decision of the boy/man to remove it. I just don't see the point in arguing about it on this website. Do you?
>Multiple reasons: I like the aesthetics of uncut more than cut, I want more glans sensitivity and the gliding action, and I think I'd be more secure about nudity if I had a foreskin to cover my glans. In fact the Greeks didn't consider a man naked if his glans were covered, which is why unclothed guys at sports events wasn't considered lewd.
Your response to that question says a lot.
What I meant is that it says a lot about why people on /hm argue about it so much. When asked, you don't realize that all you mention is the fact that you like how it looks, you like how it would feel and you want other people to see it.
Well, the guy who asked originally asked why I was restoring MY skin, and those are the reasons I want it back. But yes, bodily integrity/consent and the fact that it's medically unnecessary and actually costs the parents of the child more (in both money and effort to keep the wound free of infection) are also reasons not to do it.
Decently, I haven't been as regular about it as I'd like. Not much flaccid coverage, but I can definitely feel and see a difference in my glans- it's shinier and redder when aroused, which is pretty hot to see.
I use this device. You put the skin you're restoring in between the white cone and the clear one, then push the blue bit down slightly to get both inner and outer tension (so that both the inner and outer skin stretch), then attach a medical strap thing to the loop at the end, and wrap it around one of your legs to create tension. And when not doing that I just wear the clear skin over my skin so it stays covering the head.
You're just stretching skin. You can opt to get the tip tucked after you're finished for a better taped, but the skin should settle down well enough itself after a prolonged period of no longer being under tension.
The only adults who choose circumcision are guys who have a medical condition that requires it e.g. unretractible foreskin. So, it's not surprising that they say it's more sensitive than before, because they never retracted the foreskin. It doesn't follow than proper functioning foreskins should be removed. Routine infant circumcision is nothing more than profitable business for those who provide the unnecessary and painful mutilation and certain expensive wrinkle cream companies that buy the skin to use it in their formulations. (It's true) Hopefully, this torture will become a thing of the past.
Yeah, sometimes it'll make the device pop off, other times it's just a semi and I can calm down before it begins to really hurt. Other times it's too much and I have to go adjust. But unless you're specifically looking for something sexy it shouldn't be a problem. The feel of the tension, while not painful if you're doing it right, is enough to make boners a no-go.
This guy's clips make me consider that yes, there is sensitivity lost to circumcision.
I feel like bring genital regeneration into the fold of things would be great, and give men a chance to truly gain back what they lost without consent.
Regardless of sensitivity issues, the natural sexual experience is a human right. Period.
Just FYI: Studies of men who have restored have shown no decrease in keratinization or increases in fine point sensitivity a year after restoration is complete. In theory, that means no difference whatsoever in increased sensitivity.
As for aesthetics, restored dicks...they're interesting.
Actually, a lot of uncut guys in the US are unhappy with being uncut. I've been with two guys who were considering getting cut because they didn't like the way they looked/had been made fun of. I talked both of them out of it.
Some guys want to get cut. I'm not sure why you don't believe that but whatever. I could point out extremes like people with BDD who cut off their legs.
Restoration will work as a stop-gap measure until Foregen finally gets the funding to start human trials, then move on to having it commercially available. Then you'd have to find a place/doctor to do it, and either save up the money or convince your insurance to pay for the operation. It could be at least as long as a decade until guys can start getting their foreskins truly restored.
You've got it backwards, the pro-mutilation sites exaggerate and lie, not to mention failure to disclose relevant information. Thousands of nerve endings are cut and the unprotected prepuce becomes calloused. Botched circumcisions are grossly unreported because only the most extreme problems are defined as botched, like when the penis is cut off, developes infection, or bleeds excessively. Problems don't always present themselves until adolescence,i.e. a tight circumcision. By that time there's really nothing that can be done except suffer through, or as many do, practice denial because the truth is too painful.
My original objection was to Infant circumcision. Only one person can make the decision to circumcise and that's the owner. It's child abuse to do it to child except for bona fide medical reasons, which are very rear. I, of course, respect the right of individual adults to make an informed choice for themselves even though I wouldn't make that choice for myself.
Gee-whiz, that was profoundly insightful. Tell us, we're all dying to know, was that keenly perspicacious conclusion based on assiduous thought, or did it come to you in more of a form of a revelation?
>My dick was mangled in a chainsaw incident. I guess my foreskin would have saved me...
They're not underreported. Hospitals are required to report all "complications" of all surgeries. Interestingly, any bleeding at all is considered a complication of circumcision and that makes up around ~80% of all complications of circumcision. Excessive bleeding was next followed by skin bridges if I remember correctly.
Nerve endings are lost, but the numbers are grossly exaggerated. Studies have found ~25k nerve endings in the entire penis (varies by a couple thousand). Less than half of those are found in the foreskin according to all studies.
As for whether people suffer though it. I've met very few cut guys unhappy with their dicks. One is restoring now. One restored and regretted restoring. He's currently much more unhappy with his dick now. My current boyfriend isn't happy with his dick.
All you fags arguing over absolutely nothing. The only dick you should be worried about is your own.
If you're arguing over cut vs uncut you're insecure and are trying to validate your probably disgusting/small/ugly penis.
>trying to validate your probably disgusting/small/ugly penis
Only cut dicks are small and disgusting. Some websites that I've been on have proved that circumcision means a dick will end up not growing as much. Uncut dicks are beautiful and large just like in porn!
They can't report something which hasn't occurred yet. Some of the consequences of circumcision don't present until years later in adolescence and old age. Circumcisions can be done "tight" too much skin was taken off and the erection is bent or painful, not noticed until the penis develops in puberty. Impotency is a lot higher in the US than Europe. The loss of sensitivity, due to cut nerve endings and calloused prepuce, caused by male genital mutilation.
It's not widely known that most circumcisions are performed by residents and are the very first procedure they have ever done.
Classic psychological projection:
>All you fags arguing over absolutely nothing.
Traslation: I don't want to hear about this> It's to painful.
>The only dick you should be worried about is your own.
Translation: The only dick he's worried about is his own, that why the subject is so painful.
>If you're arguing over cut vs uncut you're insecure and are trying to validate your probably disgusting/small/ugly penis
Translation: He's disfigured and the mention of this topic causes his mind to dwell on his denial.
If the subject just doesn't interest you, you wouldn't have invested the effort in reading a lengthy thread, let alone posting (shitposting, as it may be). I'm sorry your unhappy with your penis.
If you're trying to change people's minds about circumcision, you're doing a really really bad job. You have to realize nobody is going to pay attention to you when your first reaction is calling someone disfigured. Why would anyone take you seriously?
Seriously wish I had this guy's cock. Sooo exquisitely sensitive.
I really really look forward to foregen.org 's regeneration mission taking off.
Went to that website, of course it's all faggots. Seriously, why are fags so obsessed with baby boys dicks? They just want them to grow up to be uncut so they can suck them off? It's just so thinly veiled and creepy.
For one, choosing a different venue. Do you think many expecting parents are going to be on here and you'll change their minds? Also, most of the "anti-circumcision" crowd resorts to calling cut guys disgusting and disfigured. That's the fastest way to get someone to not listen to you. They'll just react to you and totally ignore what point you're trying to get across. And I'll just reiterate my first point: THIS IS A PORN BOARD SO POST HOT UNCUT COCKS AND LEAVE IT AT THAT!
First of all, I didn't start this thread and I'm not the only anti-circumcision poster here. I didn't call anyone disgusting, that I reserve for poor character and disreputable actions. True, it is a porn board, but since someone choose to include erroneous information, I see no problem with correcting it right then and there. Otherwise, you suggestion of a more subtle approach is excellent. I hope it won't be lost on others.
I didn't say you started this thread. You and your ilk just need to chill out and give up on trying to educate a demographic that will largely never require the information you're trying to give to them.
I wan't aware I had an "ilk" (lol) That's an obvious attempt to place me into a category of your choosing with your own specifications. By choosing to harp on the statements of others and associate me with them, you're obviously building a strawman so you can tear it down without having to address my points.
>educate a demographic that will largely never require the information
Really, men shouldn't be informed about male circumcision? Whoa.
Daily reminder that there is literally no reason whatsoever for routine infant circumcision and stupid Americlaps are so jew-owned, right down to their dick skins, they will argue otherwise.
Islam is just a later form of Judaism, they're both degenerate and the fact they hate each other is the icing on the cake. I notice you didn't actually attempt to even prove me wrong at any point, though, so good job on knowing when to shut the fuck up before you look twice as retarded as you currently do.
Stupid troll, I don't have to prove you wrong, it's as obvious as acne on an albino. Trying to equate anti-circumcision with anti-Semitism is a low blow, and very manipulative. Since you were talking about the right venue, why don't you try stormfront, you'll have fun and do so good trolling those paranoiacs.
>How many people on here do you think are going to be making a decision about circumcision ever?
Even if only one person here who has a kid, or talks to someone they know who is having a kid, and prevents that boy from having his penis cut up, I think that'd be worth it.
>talks to someone they know who is having a kid, and prevents that boy from having his penis cut up
Yeah, some 50 year old gay man from /hm is going to tell his sister not to circumcise her son and she's going to listen to him? I doubt it. She'll probably be creeped out by him talking about her newborns dick.
Unnecessary, painful, lost sensitivity, erectile difficulty et cetera. >>912666 Deliberately quoting out of context like that is very underhanded.
>How many people on here do you think are going to be making a decision about circumcision ever? Directly, a very small number; indirectly, a lot more. The decision to circumcise can be influenced by other people, like confidants, nurses, doctors et cetera. Some doctors are refusing to do circumcisions and some nurses refusing to attend them.
One of the biggest reasons for circumcision is so, "He won't be teased," or, "look different." As uncircumcised becomes more common this argument with vaporize.
Your selective criticism of the anti-mutilation side undermines your contention that this is not the proper venue for discussion of circumcision because that can be equally leveled angainst the pro-cutting side, esp. since they started it.
An overly emotional woman may be creeped out, but sound woman might actually value the opinion of someone who actually has a penis. Of course, Selfish women may just make the decision based on fashion or fad, to gain status with her girlfriends.
I wonder if anyone on a women's board, say a feministing, would ever criticize another poster by saying, "this isn't a proper venue for discussing male circumcision?"
You may have to edit your post about how angry I am that I'm uncircumcised in a 50/50 country like Canada. How how painful this entire subject is because I'm not circumcised. Or you can just realise that there are people in the world that think this entire argument is fucking retarded. The real psychological projection is on your own end. Anybody not interested in this topic MUST BE MUTILATED AND HATE THEMSELVES. You're pathetic lol.
Uncircumcised dicks are no different than huge roast-beef labia.
They look gross and are not nearly as hygienic. Not to mention, the operations are generally unaffordable in third-world shitholes.
I'm only to the point I wouldn't have my own children cut, just because I feel like it should be there choice not something arbitrarily decide by me or the mother at birth.
Also, did it never occur to pro-circumcision people that removing the foreskin just means I'm always sort of masturbating?
I think CI-7 looks the best. CI-10, on the other hand, is far too much skin.
That chart is absurd when it comes to cut dicks. I know they say do the soft state but that is ridiculous. According to the soft I'd choose I have a tight circumcision but I can pull skin over the head when hard.
There you go again, attributing statements to me that I never made. Clearly, more signs of projection on your part. I never said, "angry" or "Hate." You brought those words all by your self.
The misattribution continues:
>Anybody not interested in this topic MUST BE MUTILATED AND HATE THEMSELVES. You're pathetic lol.
(1) Another may freely choose to take an interest in this subject or not. That's their choice. Apparently, you take an interest. Just whether your interest is the issue or belittling intact advocates with ad hominem attacks and lies is up for question.
(2) Your actions undermine your statements. When you say, "realise that there are people in the world that think this entire argument is fucking retarded," you meant to stifle debate by censoring one side, the intact advocates. If your position was neutrality, you would use that against both sides. It's a partisan position pretending to be something else.
(3)You make no real attempt to argue in favor of circumcision, advance no facts, Nor challenges the facts put forth by anti-cut side. Just personal insults lobbed at people who advocate individual choice
>You're mentally ill man
More ad hominems. I must have triggered deep seated emotion with some people. Why are they so volatile?
fucking hell. circumcision is already one of the worst discussion topics on the internet, because men love nothing more than to literally argue about their dicks.
but add an exclusively gay audience and it's that much worse, because we're arguing about our own dicks AND the dicks we like.
typing "cut" and "uncut" should just automatically get you banned.
One got cut at 16. He's 28 now. We're getting close to that and he still says sex feels better. And, again, he got cut because he didn't like how it looked. Not because of phimosis or any other complications.
That's like saying a car got a flat tire cause the roof was cut off.
Oh god, I just oh good lord. I just laughed so fucking hard. I read the whole thing and then I scrolled up and a fucking huge as laughing bubbled up. You are awesome man.
I'm laughing at you for incorrectly assuming that I'm circumcised. Now I'm laughing at your lodging these long responses. My interest isn't in debating circumcision because like I said, the topic doesn't interest me. My interest is in watching you rage respond while you try to act collected and intelligent. All children should be circumcised. I wish I was circ'd at birth, it's too late now IMO.
Looks better, smells better, tastes better and reduces the transmission of HPV and HIV. 99.9% eliminates penile cancer. Decreases the risk of UTI's in infants and young children. Completely prevents balantitis and phimosis.
>reduces the transmission of HPV and HIV.
Gonna need sources for that
>what are condoms
>99.9% eliminates penile cancer.
>Decreases the risk of UTI's in infants and young children.
>what is teaching your children to bathe
>Completely prevents balantitis and phimosis.
Those are exceptional cases that should be fixed on their own. Not a legitimate reason to go around botching peoples dicks preemptively.
You actually believing bathing prevents UTI's in infants and small children.
Fucking retarded. Google the penile cancer thing yourself too it's a fact.
>> Because I didn't have phimosis or balantitits then NOBODY WILL LOL ITS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE HURR DUR
You're wrong. I'm right. Circ them all.
>Because I didn't have phimosis or balantitits then NOBODY WILL LOL ITS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE HURR DUR
You are fucking retarded. >>913325 point is that those are conditions that should be fixed on their own. Cutting up someones dick because they MIGHT develop balantits and phimosis is fucking stupid. I have seen much, much worse things come from circumcision.
>There's a reason clearly, if there wasn't then people wouldn't do it
Yeah, just like female circumcision in Africa, or Chinese footbinding, or the elongation of skulls in ancienct Peru...
As far I'm concerned unnecessary medical procedures are still unnecessary even if they're less harmful than others. Just because some people are getting their proverbial hands cut off doesn't mean that others having a finger cut off aren't getting hurt.
The argument is whether it's actually harmful or not. There's no reasoning with psychotics like you though no matter how much evidence presented that contradicts your feminized emotionally responsive brains. As an uncut guy, I will only suck and date cut guys because that's what I like and prefer, stay mad homie.
>There's no reasoning with psychotics like you though no matter how much evidence presented that contradicts your feminized emotionally responsive brains.
>people are psychotic for disagreeing with you
>using sexism as an argument
The evidence is bad because it does not state the condition of those involved. Not to mention all major medical journals are operated by Jews who have a religious conviction to show circumcision as the only legal pathway. Jews want everybody circumcised, no exceptions. These postings are to fool the goy into believing they are winning something by removing parts of their penis which is a lie. Even the bible had jealous jews who envied the gentiles as the gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be christian.
ITT: people trying to legitimate their own personal aesthetic and sexual preferences by advocating myths and stigmas
so you're uncut and you like cut guys. well, good for you. but why shove it in everybody's face as if it were the only biblical truth or something?
I dunno whether that's a good comparison, but anyway - I'm vers, and hung, and I enjoy bottoming for less endowed guys, yet I don't go around evangelizing how universally good smaller cocks are, I somehow feel no need to validate my own preferences in such a way.
>all major medical journals are operated by Jews
it's funny 'cause it's true.
pretty much ALL major things in the western world are operated by jews lol
>Jews want everybody circumcised, no exceptions.
this, however, is wrong. it's almost like saying they wanted everybody to be a jew. or as if they wanted everybody to eat kosher. of course they don't. they just want their business going, and that's it.
>so you're uncut and you like cut guys. well, good for you. but why shove it in everybody's face as if it were the only biblical truth or something?
I'm of the mind that preventing the needless cutting of baby boys' genitals is a good thing to work towards, even if through the most ineffective ways (ie posting here).
>they just want their business going, and that's it.
Do you know how much money is made from selling foreskins to cosmetics companies?
>preventing the needless cutting of baby boys' genitals is a good thing to work towards
sure is a very ineffective way of doing it. I don't see threads like this being much about pushing any message. just an entertaining read about how shallow the pro-cut americunts and their argumentation can be.
>Do you know how much money is made from selling foreskins to cosmetics companies?
I don't, and I guess it might be peanuts if compared to some globally bigger branches of cosmetics industry or the zillion turnovers of pharmaceuticals industry, but sure that's quite some money still.
however, I very much doubt that that this anti-wrinkle branch of cosmetics industry which need foreskins as raw material could be among major engines that drive the pro-circumcision agenda. I guess far bigger money is made by the surgery itself and those special cremes and other stuf which is involved of the maintenance of a cut cock, and those are the businesses that actually drive that agenda, aren't they?
For anyone too lazy to read this entire thread i will sum it up for you.
omg i like totaly wish i had 4skin man. omg ur dick like totaly looks ugly omg i totaly hate bein cut yo.. my life is so boring i obsess over a tiny piece of skin
Your response contains 6 sentences in which you managed to use the word, I (I, me, my) a total of 9 times. All of the statements but one begin with I.
>I'm laughing at you for incorrectly assuming that I'm circumcised.
More of your misattribution. Whether or not you were circumcised wasn't stated, except by you. In previous post>>912681 that you took issue with, the word, "disfigured" was used. Which is the correct word in this case because that is how you view yourself. Your words, "I wish I was circ'd at birth, it's too late now."
>My interest isn't in debating circumcision ...
>My interest is in watching you rage respond while you try to act collected and intelligent.
(1) Your trolling-like behavior was mentioned before. It's deeper than just an attention-seeking prank with you. It's far more malicious on your part. Is it a cry for help, sympathy, or what?
(2) I am collected and intelligent, I don't have to try. Where does the accusation, "rage," as you say come from? Add that to the "Angry," and, "Hate," you brought you in you previous post. >>913038 Clearly, more projection.
>All children should be circumcised. I wish I was circ'd at birth, it's too late now
It's not all about you. Rather than justify your personal preferences and choices on to others, look at facts. I doubt I'll respond to you again. If you're just trolling, perhaps >>911845 is the right place for you. You seen full of that.
The anti-Semitic tone of this is horrible. Not all Jews believe in circumcision, a few appose it, i.e. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
Some fundamentalists Christians also favor circumcision. The early Christian church found it difficult to recruit followers from pagan cultures, so it dropped circumcision as a "requirement." The medicalization of circumcision in the early 20th Century US was welcomed, if not promoted, by the fundamentalist Christians.
damn spam filter
It's considerably more than just a "flap of skin." It has a purpose, just like the eyelids, It protects sensitive skin. Thousand of nerves are cut during the operation. It also has the function of making a seal during sex and causing vaginal lubrication during sex.
Dude, like 90% of vaginal lubrication is sweat, and the rest is more or less mucus. Foreskin has nothing to do with that. I love uncut cocks myself, but even I don't think they have some sort of magical pussy moistening powers.
Not "magical" pussy moistening powers, it's a fact of biology. the foreskin provides a sort of "o" ring seal that helps stimulate natural vaginal lubrication.
Human Sexuality: an Encyclopedia
edited by Vern L. Bullough and Bonnie Bullough
New York: Garland Pub., 1994.
During masturbation, the mucosal surface of the foreskin rolls back and forth across the mucosal surface of the glans penis, providing nontraumatic sexual stimulation. During heterosexual activity, the mucosal surfaces of the glans penis and foreskin move back and forth across the mucosal surfaces of the labia and vagina, providing nontraumatic sexual stimulation of both male and female. This mucous-membrane-to-mucous-membrane contact provides the natural lubrication necessary for sexual relations and prevents both the dryness responsible for painful intercourse and the chafing and abrasions which allow entry of sexually transmitted diseases, both viral and bacterial.
When circumcision is performed ... the glans must still thicken in order to protect itself from constant chafing and abrasion by clothing.
The thickened, drier tissue covering the glans of the circumcised penis may necessitate the use of synthetic lubricants to facilitate nontraumatic sexual intercourse. Often, it is erroneously considered the woman's lack of lubrication that makes intercourse painful rather than the lack of natural male lubrication, which is more likely the cause. During masturbation, the circumcised male must use his hands for direct stimulation of the glans, and this may require synthetic lubrication as well.
Okay so you brought up how an uncircumsized dick is better for sex with vaginas on a board dedicated to handsome men. Just let that sink in, you are telling a group of gay "Uncircumcised is better because it helps the vagina lube up"!
I was responding to a question. Once again, routine infant circumcision is my main concern. Please, Let that sink in for a while. Not all baby boys will be gay. Once again, rather than attack the jist of my points, you'd rather divert attention with trifling points. When you resort to manipulative tactics such as these you simply concede the argument. you have nothing to present.
thanks for educating on pussy powers, but what about magical arse moistening powers? do such exist?
during nsa activity, the way how mucosal surfaces of a uncirumcised penis interact with anal canal epithelium and rectum surface, is it any advantaged over the case of a circumcised penis?
in protected anal activity, however, I can imagine there could be one minor technical advantage for a circumcised: perhaps the protection is less likely to slip off than on an uncircumcised penis, since there are less moving parts, sliding along each other, involved. am I right?
>Spent a couple years restoring my foreskin
>Was really tedious at first but eventually became easy
>The gliding sensation is back, which should be enough reason for anyone to want to look into it
>no more painful erections
>no more death grip
>no more weird methods to get off
>dick no longer looks extremely tight, skin is nice and relaxed
>no more two toned weird looking dick
they're discussing ascetics and sex lives concerning people with penises.
not "handsom men" per se but it definitely relates to sex and men, which we all know is what this thread really is.
I don't know about anybody else but I'm circumcised and my boyfriend had to work forever to build my stamina.
inb4 i was indeed the top i think that much was implied
also there have been like a million statistics that prove there are no adverse affects, only an improvement in hygiene and a VERY SLIGHT decline in the probability of transmitting deceases.
not even reading all this shit before posting keep your flame war
>evidence is bad because it does not state the condition of those involved
yeah actually in almost all cases the sample populations are random volunteers, usually from around uni campuses, and often though every participant agrees they're willing to get circumcisions for the study only half of them (a random half) are asked to do so and the rest are from the exact same population and kept uncircumcised as a control group. not only is there no reason to think one half would me more prone did you not read the study? do you not know how studies are done?
>all major medical journals are operated by Jews
>who have a religious conviction to show circumcision as the only legal pathway
>These postings are to fool the goy
>Even the bible
OK we're done here.
>just because the procedure is completely harmless doesn't mean it's not equivalent to getting your hands cut off
Sounds like this uncerc anon hit the strongest argument of this issue right on the head. Why are uncircumcised guys so emotionally desperate to convince others/themselves circumcision is evil?