Something I don't understand about circed penises

[SlackerDad]

Is the exposed glans of a circed penis dry? That is, as dry as the rest of the penis--I don't mean bone dry obviously. Or does it still manage to stay moist, like a dog's nose?

What sort of makes me stunned that this has even become as widespread as it has (though thankfully somewhat less so than when I was young) is also the reason I find it silly to be told that I would need to be circed, and then compare, to be able to report that the circed state is less desirable. That is, it's just completely obvious (as I'm sure it must be to most intact men) that the glans is meant to be an internal organ, kept moist at all times, for its proper sexual function.

I mean, if I leave it retracted (not something I've tried often as I learned my lesson), it really hurts if it even brushes against my underwear! When I imagine being circumcised (cringe), it's like having no eyelids--but even more than that, to have my eyeball hanging out, drying out and brushing into clothing all the time.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'm surprised that circed men get on as well as they do.

[frontierpsych]

yes, it is usually dry as the rest of the skin.

A circed penis' glans becomes desensitized by rubbing up against clothes and such, which is why there is such a difference in sensation even when not accounting for the nerves in the actual foreskin.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

Is the exposed glans of a circed penis dry? That is, as dry as the rest of the penis

Yup.

[tlh]

I've seen the difference in looks referred to as gloss(intact) and matte(circ'd) finishes like paint.

And not all men lose sensitivity and do have pain their whole lives which is the reason I got involved with intactivism.

[SlackerDad]

Huh.

So...I know there are things people do to restore their foreskin. But what about if you put some kind of cap over the glans or something? You could line the inside of it with moisturiser or something. Would that help bring the glans back to its natural state, I wonder?

Because, yeah, I believe that stuff about all the nerves in the foreskin, but from my perspective it is the dried out, desensitised glans that would be the greatest problem.

Also amazing, what tlh reports: that some men don't lose sensitivity and report pain their whole lives. Do they do something to kind of bandage it up like I'm talking about?

[Otto]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

Also amazing, what tlh reports: that some men don't lose sensitivity and report pain their whole lives. Do they do something to kind of bandage it up like I'm talking about?

Beg pardon? I certainly agree that circumcision is medically unnecessary, but I can also pretty much assure you that there's not a secret army of circumcised men stalking around with egg cups full of Jergens lotion attached to their nether regions, or something like that.

[Quirky]

Actually, there is pretty much a secret army of men marching around restoring their foreskins, and many restoration devices do involve some kind of a covering for the glans, both as a surface to which to attach the tensioning apparatus and also as a way to help restore sensitivity to the glans by allowing the glans to reverse the process of keratinization.

Google it.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Quirky

Actually, there is pretty much a secret army of men marching around restoring their foreskins, and many restoration devices do involve some kind of a covering for the glans, both as a surface to which to attach the tensioning apparatus and also as a way to help restore sensitivity to the glans by allowing the glans to reverse the process of keratinization.

I don't doubt this. I thought the question was whether uncircumcised men generally required similar prophylaxis.

[Quirky]

Well, the quotation you quoted from the OP did refer to what "some men" report, not "all men." I know my dh doesn't suffer discomfort from chafing -- but then again his glans is so well and truly keratinized he had no idea until I told him that it had ever been anything else.

I think circ is going to be like any other surgery -- some people are going to suffer a lot more from it than others. There are people who post here and elsewhere that their circs were so botched that, for all intents and purposes, they have no sexual functioning left at all.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Otto

I don't doubt this. I thought the question was whether uncircumcised men generally required similar prophylaxis.

Circumcised men cut as infants generally only know what it is like to be circumcised. So, the sensation they get from their glans is all that they know. They don't know, nor comprehend the type of fine touch type sensitivity they could have had if they had not been circumcised.

I once talked to an intact man, who told me that he always knew he was 'lucky' and had more sensitivity than the circumcised men. He talked about how he'd noted that circumcised men could have very hot water sprayed on their exposed glans during showers, and how that hot of water would have been so uncomfortable as to be painful if he exposed his glans.

My best friend puts it like this, in comparison the intact men are 'so easy to please'. She called them super sexual in comparison (she'd only had two intact men at that point). One was her fiance, and she said it was quite noticable that she didn't have to work as hard to give him pleasure. She was the first person who really made me want to find out more about circumcision (met her when I was pregnant with #1).

And, BTW, there are other aspects unfortunately of circumcision that circumcised men think is normal. The testicles being pulled up and into the groin during erections for example. And, the skin on the penis being tight as a drum. As in, NO MOBILE SKIN during an erection. The men I've met who are intact whom I've talked to about that are really shocked when they learn that stuff. Some seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding how they're able to masturbate without mobile skin. It is MUCH more difficult in comparison IMHO. That was the whole reason why circumcision was started/medicalized here in the US. They believed that masturbation caused disease, mental illness, crime...among other things. So, they decided to make masturbation more difficult and less pleasurable through circumcision.

[Minarai]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

That was the whole reason why circumcision was started/medicalized here in the US. They believed that masturbation caused disease, mental illness, crime...among other things. So, they decided to make masturbation more difficult and less pleasurable through circumcision.

And when they figured out that was bogus, they amended their statement to claim that circ would keep boys/men chaste before marriage.

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

Is the exposed glans of a circed penis dry?

Dry like your thumb or your elbow When adults are circed, the keratinization process takes about a year. (They start out with tender, sensitive exposed skin)

Circ'ed men in general have NO IDEA what the intact man's equipment is like, or why protection for the glans might be a good idea.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

Is the exposed glans of a circed penis dry? That is, as dry as the rest of the penis--I don't mean bone dry obviously. Or does it still manage to stay moist, like a dog's nose?

It is very dry. To me it reminds me of the back of the hand with the tiny wrinkles there. It has those when flaccid they disappear when erect.

My dh has zero pain (unless you count the skin bridge) but does have sensitivity issues.

A reminder that restoration is outside the scope of this forum so we cant talk about that aspect.

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

Just a quick reminder:

Mothering questions routine medical circumcision and advocates for informed consent. TCAC hosts discussion of the reasons to avoid circumcision, the history of the procedure, medical issues and studies, complications, the needs and rights of the child, care of the intact child's penis and other educational topics. We are not interested in hosting discussion on merits of routine infant medical circumcision. Advocacy threads requesting members take action should be submitted to the Activism forum for approval.

It is our wish that The Case Against Circumcision be an informative and welcoming space for those who are new to the subject of circumcision. This is not a space to bash others. In an effort to minimize language which might alienate those seeking information, we are cautious about using pejorative terms such as abuse, barbarism, mutilation, etc. when routinely discussing circumcision. Let the facts speak for themselves.

While circumcision has sexual impact, any discussion of a sexual concern needs to remain clinical in nature, focused on the actual impact of circumcision and in keeping with the MDC User Agreement:

Quote:
Do not post profane or sexually explicit text. Discussions of a sexual nature should be within the realm of topics inherent to Mothering discussions such as sex after delivery, sex and the family bed, etc.
Please avoid slang terms for anatomy. Posts containing graphic sexual discussion or that link to or reference sexually explicit material are inappropriate for the forum and will be removed. Foreskin restoration discussion is beyond the current scope of this forum

Back to your regular scheduled program!

[SlackerDad]

Glad the thread survived its time in purgatory. ;0)

I have learned a lot from this thread. As a straight male, I clearly know less about circumcised penises than the vast majority of the U.S. population. Wondering about the moistness or lack thereof of the glans was the thought I pondered as I started this thread, but the lack of mobility of the skin overall definitely would be another big drawback.

[jessjgh1]

I hope this discussion continues. I think an intact and a circumcised penis just DO NOT compare. Intact and circumcised penises are different and function very differently. Of course there is a great deal of individual variation, too.
Most people (in the US) do not understand the differences or even realize that circumcision alters function, just as most people from an intact-norm country probably do not realize how much circumcision alters what is normal to them.
I know when looking into sexuality before my son was born I pretty much decided that I had no right to change the mechanics of how my sons body should work... and even though I didn't really understand all of it, I would rather he have the body he was born with than an altered body. I have sense learned more and have a greater respect for the intact body.
The funciton of the foreskin is rarely brought up in the US and the myths are rampant. As we can see from the thread, it is hard to understand the mechanics of the other option. I think this makes the myths sometimes seem more plausible and it might be easier to go with what is known or common than go against the norm.

The thing is, once you start to have SOME information it is hard to counter the normal intact, as nature intended, default, body-type. You realize Europeans are mostly intact... Most of the world is intact. The foreskin has a function. The foreskin protects... etc. etc. When we can give a value and a purpose to the foreskin it becomes very hard to justify circumcision.

Jessica

[SlackerDad]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1

I hope this discussion continues. I think an intact and a circumcised penis just DO NOT compare. Intact and circumcised penises are different and function very differently. Of course there is a great deal of individual variation, too.
Most people (in the US) do not understand the differences or even realize that circumcision alters function, just as most people from an intact-norm country probably do not realize how much circumcision alters what is normal to them.
I know when looking into sexuality before my son was born I pretty much decided that I had no right to change the mechanics of how my sons body should work... and even though I didn't really understand all of it, I would rather he have the body he was born with than an altered body. I have sense learned more and have a greater respect for the intact body.
The funciton of the foreskin is rarely brought up in the US and the myths are rampant. As we can see from the thread, it is hard to understand the mechanics of the other option. I think this makes the myths sometimes seem more plausible and it might be easier to go with what is known or common than go against the norm.

The thing is, once you start to have SOME information it is hard to counter the normal intact, as nature intended, default, body-type. You realize Europeans are mostly intact... Most of the world is intact. The foreskin has a function. The foreskin protects... etc. etc. When we can give a value and a purpose to the foreskin it becomes very hard to justify circumcision.

Jessica

Exactly right. And the more I learn about this, it is increasingly clear that circumcision does not just remove something from the penis, it radically alters it. It's frankly stunning (even though I should be too used to it by now) that something like this goes on daily, routinely, in the 21st century in an advanced nation like the U.S. Sometimes I wonder what people in a hundred years (or whatever length of time it takes before RIC is completely ended) will think looking back from a cultural historical perspective. Like, "Lobotomy was discontinued in the 1960s, and bleeding of 'humors' had not gone on since the Middle Ages, but somehow circumcision survived until the 21st century". You know?

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

Like, "Lobotomy was discontinued in the 1960s, and bleeding of 'humors' had not gone on since the Middle Ages, but somehow circumcision survived until the 21st century". You know?

Don't forget foot binding, outlawed in communist China in 1949.

[SlackerDad]

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

Don't forget foot binding, outlawed in communist China in 1949.

Yup, good call! And whalebone corsets. Actually, come to think of it, frequently wearing high heeled shoes with narrow, pointed toes should go on the list as well. Though at least it's not done to them as infants against their will (my wife certainly does not wear those kinds of shoes). Cultural forces are strong and hard to overcome, but at least some of us do manage it (really, that's what sites like this are all about). RIC gives boys no opportunity to buck convention and make healthier choices for themselves.

At least circumcision is on the decline, even if it's not nearly fast enough. Something that has occurred to me is that it will be especially sad for the last small minority to be circed while the vast majority of their generation are left intact. They will have all the usual problems associated with circumcision, plus the humiliation of being "different" in the locker room and in the bedroom with sexual partners. I don't know what it's like for circed people in a dominant-circ society to see an intact penis for the first time (and can't possibly ever know); but I just have to think the flip side (being in a dominantly intact society and seeing a circed penis for the first time) is much more jarring (it still makes me cringe every time I happen to catch a glimpse at the locker room or wherever).

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

I don't know what it's like for circed people in a dominant-circ society to see an intact penis for the first time ....

Most circed males in the USA (and many females) never look closely at an intact penis. These are the decision makers for circ vs. intact. They have no idea about form, function, sensitivity... intact is just not what they are used to seeing. Since most of the circs are done in-hospital, 50% of intact penises last about 3 days.

Fortunately, the rate is dropping fast. In my generation most USA-born males are circed. In my son's generation, about half are intact. Everyone will know there is a choice and many women will get to see both choices. In addition, some of the circed males will be very unhappy about their status, leading to a better choice for their own children.

When we advocate for intactness, 50% is the "tipping point", we are just about there.