Via the use of various apparati, tension is applied to the skin around the shaft of the penis, in the hopes of lengthening it enough to cover the head of their flaccid penis. Thereby granting them the foreskin that their parents stole from them.
I find it odd that Americans consider circumcision to be "normal" and uncut somehow "unusual"... At least Jews do it for religious reasons, regardless of how misguided and pointless that might be. People who do it for no other reason than the assumption that it needs doing just amaze me.
What other male animal needs to nibble off part of its genitals in order for them to work properly?
>>23222131 >what does it actually do? The head of the penis is meant to be an internal organ; it's made from a very delicate tissue quite different to normal skin, and ordinarily it's protected inside the foreskin, allowing it to remain highly sensitive.
When the foreskin is removed the head of the penis no longer has its natural protection, so the body must find another way to protect itself, and it does this by a process called keratinisation. Keratin is the substance that hair and fingernails are made from, and the once delicate tissue on the head of the penis turns into a thick layer of keratin. Essentially the entire glans becomes one big callus. Ever notice how uncut dicks have pink glossy heads, whereas cut ones tend to look dry, leathery, and a dull flesh colour?
The process of keratinisation reduces sensitivity in the penis because the nerve endings which were once close to the surface become buried under the callus layer. This is why cut men don't even notice the head of their dicks rubbing against their underwear all day, while similar direct stimulation to the glans of an uncut man would cause significant discomfort.
The theory behind restoration is that, while they can never reclaim the nerve endings in the foreskin which were amputated, by creating an approximation of a foreskin from the remaining skin, they can protect the glans from friction throughout the day, and over time the callus layer of keratin will reduce as it's no longer needed, and some sensitivity will return.
The other benefit is that the new skin can be rolled over the head during masturbation, eliminating the need for lube, and creating a more comfortable and lower-friction experience, akin to the one they would naturally have had.
>>23222411 Wtf, you basically just agreed with what he said, so why did you call it bullshit. And he explained it to a T, ask a urologist and you will hear generally the same thing. Foreskin is there for a reason. Did you know they actually started it to decrease the pleasure of sex and hope to curb the high birth rate, they actually thought about circumsising females too but thought it was outrageous because only men get pleasure from sex. Its male genital mutilation to decrease pleasure the same as female genital mutilation. If too much skin is removed it can be very painful to get an erection.
>The head of the penis is meant to be an internal organ; it's made from a very delicate tissue quite different to normal skin, and ordinarily it's protected inside the foreskin, allowing it to remain highly sensitive.
The head of the penis is mucocutaneous tissue, but it's only "highly sensitive" to pain and irritation. It's not particularly erogenous.
>The...glans...is covered by stratified squamous epithelium and a dense layer of connective tissue equivalent to the dermis of typical skin. Rete ridges of the epidermis are irregular and vary in height depending on location, age, and presence or absence of a foreskin...
>The most numerous nerve terminals are free nerve endings (FNEs) present in almost every dermal papilla, as well as scattered throughout the deeper dermis. FNEs are characterized by an incomplete Schwann cell investment, and contain irregularly scattered neurofilaments and neurotubules, clusters of mitochondria, vesicles of variable size and various inclusions.
>The ratio of FNEs to corpuscular receptors is approximately 10:1 and a similar ratio of small to large axons is seen in dermal nerves. Genital end bulbs are present throughout the glans, but are most numerous in the corona and near the frenulum. The unique corpuscular receptor of the glans penis consists of axon terminals that at an ultrastructural level resemble a tangled skein of FNEs. Simple, Pacinian and Ruffini corpuscles were occasionally identified predominantly in the corona glandis...
There are SOME complex sensory end organs around the corona of the glans, but not all that many. The main nerve endings in the glans are FNEs, which are pain sensors. The second most common are "genital end bulbs", which appear like a tangled web of FNEs with a capsule on top, and probably function similarly to FNEs.
There's little objective evidence for the idea that the glans is a super sensual/pleasurable part of the penis.
Why do so many people in the US get circumcised? I get the jews and members of a few other religions. But the rest? Just followed the example? Something to do with religion and puritanism at the historical roots of the country?
>>23230126 Well its origins are largely credited to Dr John Harvey Kellogg (one of the creators of Corn Flakes). He had this crazy idea that masturbation caused all kinds of medical ills, and he advocated circumcision to stop it, as well as applying carbolic acid to a girl's clitoris for the same reason. The idea gained some traction, and indeed over the years circumcision has been touted by quacks as some wonder cure for all manner of ailments.
It wasn't until World War Two that it became really ingrained in American culture though. Guys in the trenches weren't washing their dicks and became prone to infections, which took them away from the front lines, so it soon became policy that all new conscripts were to be cut as a preventative measure. I believe it was Eisenhower who was behind it.
After the war the soldiers came home and had their own kids, born in hospitals, and circumcision was offered to them. Military service was still compulsory at the time, and remembering their own pain of getting as adults, and being inclined to go along with a doctor's suggestion, they all had their sons cut at birth.
The 1960s marked the peak rate for circumcision nationally, with something like over 90% of men being cut, and even with the sexual revolution taking place and suddenly people no longer feeling shame about sex, the practice continued under the guise that it was cleaner and more healthy. In reality it was just a nice money maker for doctors, charging for unnecessary surgery on 50% of all newborn infants.
Today people go along with it because it's normalised, but with the advent of the Internet there's really no excuse for them not to do a little research into the matter, instead of thinking "he should look like dad."
>>23226435 Yeah, if the glans is all that's left it might not be as drastic of a change, but for me it's been great so far.
My glans and remaining inner foreskin/frenulum remnant were very insensitive and dry to begin with, and I was so tightly cut that there was no gliding skin to go over my corona. The first time I got a blowjob I couldn't get off from it at all.
With the head and some inner foreskin covered, they've gotten softer and smoother, and there's a lot of new sensation to sex in general. Not only that, but orgasms have changed from a slight sensation of my dick sneezing to tingling across my body. It's added back a lot of what I felt was missing when I was first sexual active, which is very promising since I'm nowhere near full flaccid coverage yet.
I wasn't circumcised until I was a few years old and still remember it.
The cicumcision itself was partially botched, leaving behind quite a crown of scar tissue.
The interesting thing, aside from how distinctive it makes my cock, is that although ostensibly circumcised, I still have far more of my elasticity and nerve tissue intact than the typical mutilated american man.
So although my dick is haggard and scarred, I'm not sure I'd at all benefit from this process.
>>23220385 I'm Canadian and uncut I know some people who are cut tho It all depends on the father I think. Since the provinces stopped funding circumcision the occurrences in Canada have declined a lot
Newfoundland has a 0% circumcision rate. Alberta has the highest, at around 40%. Generally if you're from the east coast, you aren't circumcised. If you're from the western half of Canada, it's about a 1/3 chance.
Thread replies: 46 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 476600
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.