Myth: Uncircumcised Men Enjoy Sex More

[Yuber]

We are here to do yet another myth a month. And our month this myth is that uncircumcised men enjoy sex more than those who are circumcised. Now, circumcision in the male refers to the removal of the loose skin that covers the head or the end of the penis. The practice of removing the foreskin dates back to ancient times in many cultures. In Egypt circumcision was performed for hygienic reasons and perhaps aesthetic reasons way before biblical times. Later, both the Jewish and the Muslim faiths required ritual circumcision as a religious act, which continues to this day for millions and millions of men.

http://loveandhealth.ifriends.net/Ar...18&Article=216

Flawed studies, outright lies, erroneous statistics, exaggerated benefits and downplayed risks! She is a real mythbuster!

For a rebuttal on the deeply flawed studies on sensitivity difference(They retracted the foreskin of the males- the foreskin is well known to give pleasure itself) see http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html

The rest of the advice on that site by so called "experts" is equally as uninformed. Look at this, helpful information.

QUESTION


Submit Your Question

I have a foreskin that has a stretch capability that is far less than my fat erection requires. This gives me no problem when flaccid, and is even very stimulating during the first stage of stimulation as the penis is becoming engorged. But as the penis is reaching its full 'potential' it suddenly becomes disfiguring, by producing an hour glass shape (when the skin is pulled all the way back).It is uncomfortable as sometimes it will tear and there are many stretch mark-like scars on the overhang (the tightest portion) but they haven't really added to the loosening of the tight tip of my foreskin.
.

[movingon]

And what's with "fairly common condition"??? The lengths people will go to uphold barbaric practices...

[Nathan1097]

I just skimmed, but is this guy saying that he can't have an erection because his skin is too tight? Someone must've really messed up his penis then, because even totally non-retractable kids can have perfectly comfortable erections. The skin just "unwrinkles" from the entire penis. Its not some horrible painful burdon on the glans to have the foreskin still completely attached.

Playing off ignorance.....

[gabysmom617]

This thread is going to end up getting closed down, i'll bet.

[Yoshua]

stretching excersizes when flacid.... I mean seriously people.....


Why do dr's goto surgery as first response and claim it is last? Even with the 'little' bit of tugging I have been doing on my circ'ed penis, I have already begun to see new growth and alot more mobility in the skin..... :

[Zamber]

What horrible advice that so called "doctor" gave. I really hope the individual asking the question didn't go thru with that.

[Bm31]

Why is it that they always need so many "studies" to promote the mythology in favor of circumcision??!!! In no way do I think men circ'd as infants should be made to feel inferior or "brainwashed" into thinking they can't have a satisfying sex life. But, come on, no amount of "studies" will ever convince me of the illogical argument that mutilating a penis can improve it in any way.

How do you really "study" such a thing? Men who've been circ'd at an avg. age in their 30's wouldn't be an honest comparison. The average circ'd man out there was circ'd as an infant. By the time they're that age they've had several years for their penis and glans to desensitize, while men circ'd later had many years of protection to their sensitivity. It may very well be likely they don't see much difference in the short run. I wonder if their perception would change after 20 or 30 years of being circ'd??

A more honest study would be to take men who fit more of the "norm", circ'd as an infant, and then restored. They have a more real world experience about what it's like to have a penis that was circ'd as an infant and the sensation it's likely to have by the time they're in their 30's. Even though a restored man can never achieve a true, complete foreskin, many men still claim a great gain in their sensation.

Some pro-circ's have claimed it's all psychological because they wanted their foreskin back. However, I don't find that idea very compelling. An intact adult man who has been made to feel "different" his whole life will certainly have a psychological benefit to being circ'd just as well, and may not give an accurate analysis of his true physical sensation after a circ. With so many men restoring their foreskins, something constantly maligned as dirty and undesirable in our culture (US), I've got to believe they do it because of real improvements in sensation and sensuality. They certainly aren't getting much psychological-social benefit out of having a foreskin in this society.

That Dr. that answered that second question is about the norm for the US...quick to cut when it comes to anything with an intact man. It sounds like this man's problem may be related to bad medical advice; the "stretch marks" are probably the result of early forced retractions before it was ready. Still, given the success of men who restore, I would think if he can completely retract at all that he could find the extra "give" he needs by doing some stretching exercises. I hope he gets another opinion; it sounds like the only one who would be made "happy" by a circ i$ the Dr. :

[MommytoB]

I wonder why do they assume it's only men at the fault why don't they try to get to observe and ask of differenation as most of us could have had experience with both sides and if we are not in the predjudice thinking of intact males which could make a more impact on the feeling .

I wonder where that computer doc is located at no alternative treatment than circumcision bad bad recommendation.

[Ruthla]

OK, so they included a study of men who were asked about their sex lives before and after being circ'ed. I'd imagine that most men who chose to be circ'ed as an adult would be happy with the results- otherwise, why would they go through with it?

[Frankly Speaking]

Amazing! I saw false and misleading information in every single paragraph in those two quotes. Every single paragraph! This is probably the poorest excuse for research and writing I have ever seen.

This was not written as a honest medical help article but instead, a shameless promotion of male genital mutilation with the intent of getting parents to do it so that the man never has the chance to make the decision for himself.



Frank

[MatrionsRevenge]

Of course they need to promote it. It is a business! How else are they going to make there 300. Or in a adult 1500 minim per. Then they can either label it a simple operation so they don’t have to pay the insurance fees on it like they would a full blown operation. That’s one of many reasons they like doing it on infants cause there is differences based off of the risk factor. Now if a doctor practices circumcision only infants with in his practice. He would not get charge as much as if he did it on a adult.

""Can premiums vary?
A medical malpractice insurer is not prohibited from establishing reasonable classifications of risks and premium charges based upon the relative risk associated with practice in a particular specialty."

Now after reading that why do you think doctors label infant circumcision as a simple procedure. Or a risky procedure on a very crucial part of the human body. Hmm I don’t $ really know $ why would they lablel it a simple procedure hmm$$$$$ Could it be money$$


http://www.mass.gov/doi/Commercial/C...medmal.html#q5

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by gabysmom617

This thread is going to end up getting closed down, i'll bet.

Why? Maybe I don't understand the rules of this borad, it seems a perfectly legit subject for a anti circ topic?

QUESTION


Submit Your Question

I have a foreskin that has a stretch capability that is far less than my fat erection requires. This gives me no problem when flaccid, and is even very stimulating during the first stage of stimulation as the penis is becoming engorged. But as the penis is reaching its full 'potential' it suddenly becomes disfiguring, by producing an hour glass shape (when the skin is pulled all the way back).It is uncomfortable as sometimes it will tear and there are many stretch mark-like scars on the overhang (the tightest portion) but they haven't really added to the loosening of the tight tip of my foreskin.

While this question seems very fishy to me, I would think the forskin would have grown to accomodate erections as the man grew- like a male PP said, even with gentle tugging you can get an already grown up penis skin to stretch (like lots of guys do to restore) lets just say the guy really has a problem. If he does it is RARE! I will acknowlege that uncirced peni (how do you plural that ) once in a while have problems, but making it sound like these problems are common, puh-lease!