>tfw cut and can never enjoy the feeling of my foreskin rolling back >tfw i will never feel a thin most layer of my own pleasure nerves slipping back and forth over another layer of pleasure nerves K I L L M E
Not as good as you think. First off, when a girl faces her butt to you like that (along with doggy style and other such sex positions) You get a whiff of smelly Ass which is not a good smell. You virgins wouldn't know this, as you only watch porn with no smell, but the smell of ass is gross and is a turnoff.
>>25994729 >>25994662 >>25994435 >cutfag don't really feel pleasure from wanking >only when they cum What the hell I already knew you were desensitized but even I wouldn't have gone so far as to claim that. Are you fucking serious?
If you still have some of your frenular area left it might still feel good. It'd stimulate the nerve endings to rub the underside of your dick against her like that.
Pic related. This guy was circumcised but he still has some of the frenulum/delta area left. It doesn't look that neat, but he presumably has a lot more sensation than a guy who had his frenulum carved out.
Being cut has a deep meaning It was done to make these man more aggressive and more alpha because masturbation feels like dogshit compared to REAL pussy. Thats why they became more alpha. Example, see how cuc.ked sweden is (mostly uncut) And now how aggressiv the middle east is (100% cut) Its a tool to make your race stronger
>>25995220 >Will you ever forgive me for permanently mutilating your body and decreasing the sensitivity of your genitalia to the point of almost not working? I can't tell if somebody could seriously think this.
The Royal Dutch Medical Association has stated that conventional male circumcision (as practiced in the US and in Islam and Judaism) is as severe as some forms of female circumcision.
There are major, mainstream medical organizations that come right out and say that female circumcision isn't always worse--it depends on the form and the conditions. And even then it's hard to draw a line as to where two forms of mutilation become "equally bad" or whatever.
The bottom line is that girls are almost completely protected from genital cutting in the US--even from ritualistic pinpricks.
Wheras boys can be ritualistically pinpricked (as in the practice of hafat dam brit), and of course, circumcised.
Pricking a girl's genitals is a federal crime. Pricking a boy's genitals is legal. Cutting off a girl's prepuce is a federal crime. Cutting off a boy's prepuce is legal.
This shouldn't be the case. It's a violation of equal protection.
>>25994768 Please excuse my ignorance, but, premature ejaculation is a really common problem. What I don't understand is how that can be an issue when circumcision causes desensitization; or is it different with sex than masturbation?
>Please excuse my ignorance, but, premature ejaculation is a really common problem.
It's not even a well-defined condition. Different sources have different cutoffs for what counts as premature ejaculation or not.
A typical act of sexual intercourse lasts 5-10 minutes. This is a normal amount of time to have sex. If a woman expects her partner to go 45 minutes to an hour, her expectations are extremely unrealistic.
To some extent, this whole "lasting longer" thing is more of a sociological neurosis than anything else. Yes, there are a few men who squirt within a few seconds of penetration, but that's not common. Most men will have sex a few minutes before climaxing, and a few minutes is how long sex normally lasts.
>What I don't understand is how that can be an issue when circumcision causes desensitization; or is it different with sex than masturbation?
I don't think there's much evidence that circumcision causes or prevents premature ejaculation. It inherently reduces the sensual nature of the penis due to the removal of nerve endings in the specialized tissues of the foreskin. But desensitizing the penis alone doesn't necessarily mean a guy will take longer to ejaculate.
It could be that cut guys try to ejaculate sooner because they're more goal-oriented (since they don't get as much pleasure out of the entire act before the climax), whereas uncut guys would get more sensation, but would be more likely to take longer and savor the feelings, so they would regulate themselves to not cum too soon.
That's just my conjecture, though. There's very little data on this. A recent study by Frisch et al did find that premature ejaculation was equally common between cut and uncut guys, though.
The study you're referring to (Morris and Krieger, 2013) was flawed on multiple levels.
Brian Morris, a long-time circumcision advocate who was half the team that did this "study" has stated that circumcision should be compulsory, has postulated that touch sensation has no role in sexual pleasure (Morris, Krieger, and Cox, 2015), and he has ties to the Gilgal Society, a circumcision fetish organization whose leader was recently arrested and prosecuted on child porn/molestation charges.
As far as the study goes, Morris and Krieger themselves were in charge of assigning quality ratings to the studies they examined. They basically went through and assigned high ratings for the studies they interpreted as showing "no difference" (an ill-defined criteria, because many of the studies in their review didn't test the structures cut off by circumcision to begin with), and assigned low quality ratings to the ones that showed that circumcision removes penis sensitivity.
The review also didn't take into account any of John Taylor's histological studies that were published in the British Journal of Urology, which showed that the foreskin is richly endowed with specialized sensory end organs.
I forgot to mention that in their review, Morris and Krieger rated the Master's and Johnson study published back in the 60's as "high quality"--but that study was never peer reviewed and the details on how it was conducted are extremely sparse.
Two years later, in a different paper, Morris and Krieger (along with their colleague, Guy Cox) admitted that the Master's and Johnson study that they had rated high quality in their 2013 review wasn't so high quality after all--they admitted it was a "crude" test two years after they were called out on having rated it high quality.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.