I think it is fair to say...

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

that every man who has been circed has a smaller penis. I have said this before and been told I was crazy. But it is the truth is it not?? I mean 30-50% of the total penile skin is removed during a circ so that = smaller penis. Many just have no idea this is the case and when confronted with the fact they get all bent out of shape.

I just wish more people would think when you cut anything off of something it makes it smaller not larger. It is just common sense. :

[Fyrestorm]

I usually refer to it as penile reduction surgery...I'm with you!!

[phatchristy]

You know what, I remember reading this in a medical paper about circ. It was one of those "neutral articles" but did mention that circumcised penises are smaller on average. No big shock there : .

[jessjgh1]

there's a pro-circ poster that has a good speil about how circed penises are longer and how the skin cannot every be too tight because it stretches.

Anyways... wonders never cease, but I will admit he does a good job of bs'ing.

Jessica

Adding... the sad thing is that no one questions him... which leads me to believe that they either believe him, or just like to feel reassured and wouldn't want to distrust anything that might see circing as anything less than wonderful. PUKE.

[Quindin]

It is a matter of pride and fear of regret, isn't it? People will believe anything to make them feel better...

Men don't want to open their eyes to the fact they were mutilated as babies, and without their consent were denied to experience all the sensations they would otherwise.

Women don't want to accept the fact that they actually put their sons through a horrific procedure unecessarily

[Nathan1097]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1

there's a pro-circ poster that has a good speil about how circed penises are longer and how the skin cannot every be too tight because it stretches.

That's a good example of pro-circ warped "logic". Sounds good, but really its a bunch of hooey.

[trmpetplaya]

Gosh... So if I cut an inch off a piece of paper the paper will be BIGGER after it's cut? Amazing...

love and peace.

[BamaDude]

Originally Posted by MCatLvrMom2A&X

that every man who has been circed has a smaller penis. I have said this before and been told I was crazy. But it is the truth is it not?? I mean 30-50% of the total penile skin is removed during a circ so that = smaller penis. Many just have no idea this is the case and when confronted with the fact they get all bent out of shape.

I just wish more people would think when you cut anything off of something it makes it smaller not larger. It is just common sense. :

Actually, it means that a circ'd penis has less skin to accomodate an erection, not that the erection itself is smaller.

Without going into a whole lot of detail that I imagine you'd rather not know, I will add that some guys who were very tightly circumcised report an increase in length when they begin restoring because they didn't have enough skin left on their penis to fully accomodate an erection prior to restoration.

[rowansmomma]

Originally Posted by polihaupt

It is a matter of pride and fear of regret, isn't it? People will believe anything to make them feel better...

Men don't want to open their eyes to the fact they were mutilated as babies, and without their consent were denied to experience all the sensations they would otherwise.

Would YOU want to admit that you are less than perfect? The person that was circ'ed as a baby should not have to feel guilt or own up to anything. It really bothers me that THEY get put down for something their parents did to them. My dh is circ'ed and he did not do it so he should not have to carry the burden or admit a damn thing.

[mntnmom]

i always thought an intact penis would have to be a little bit larger. Just makes sense.
Another thing I wonder about too: I dated a guy who was circ' and his erection curved up really dramatically(sorry if TMI). If that's because of the tight skin(especially if the erection is the same size), wouldn't that have to be uncomfortable?

[BamaDude]

Originally Posted by mntnmom

i always thought an intact penis would have to be a little bit larger. Just makes sense.

It really varies on an individual basis, depending on how much skin was removed when a cut guy was circ'd.

Originally Posted by mntnmom

Another thing I wonder about too: I dated a guy who was circ' and his erection curved up really dramatically(sorry if TMI). If that's because of the tight skin(especially if the erection is the same size), wouldn't that have to be uncomfortable?

Too-tight circumcisions can cause pain during erections, sometimes to a severe extent.

[MommytoB]

I slept with both . The difference I felt was width - not only did he 'grow long he also grew wider for an intact partner I had . The seeing part intact males were rifle pointers which at the time I was so confused when he had told me had an erection when i had thought all erections were the one's pointing straight up like flipping the bird finger not the pointing way like going "you" lol .

It interested in me in the difference and also sadden me to realize that the more circ'ed male were more leaning back to their tummy and more 'straight up their erection was made to be 'stiffer' and much more not long to last either

[BamaDude]

I feel the need to point out that it's unfair to compare intact guy "A" with cut guy "B" because they are two different guys.

There are only two possible ways to gauge how much is lost by circumcision that are even remotely accurate:
A. Measure an intact guy, circumcise him, and then measure him again (and none of us want to do that!), or
B. Measure a circ'd guy, have him restore his foreskin, and then measure him again.
But even these two methods are flawed because each circumcision is different as well.

I will agree that circumcision drastically reduces sensation and removes the natural gliding action from the penis, but I will say again that unless a circumcision removes so much skin that an erection is constrained by too-tight penile skin, circumcision does not affect the size of a penis.

[trmpetplaya]

Originally Posted by BamaDude

I feel the need to point out that it's unfair to compare intact guy "A" with cut guy "B" because they are two different guys.

I agree with you there.

I will agree that circumcision drastically reduces sensation and removes the natural gliding action from the penis, but I will say again that unless a circumcision removes so much skin that an erection is constrained by too-tight penile skin, circumcision does not affect the size of a penis.

Logically speaking though, removing ANY foreskin is bound to have an effect on the size even if the erection does not appear to be constrained - I would be willing to bet that removing ANY of the foreskin would constrain the erection somewhat because it doesn't have all the skin it was supposed to have.

Not a scientific observation, just one based on common sense, IMO, and the fact that I am VERY familiar with the intact penis and how it works.

love and peace.

[BamaDude]

Originally Posted by trmpetplaya

Logically speaking though, removing ANY foreskin is bound to have an effect on the size even if the erection does not appear to be constrained - I would be willing to bet that removing ANY of the foreskin would constrain the erection somewhat because it doesn't have all the skin it was supposed to have.

Circumcision doesn't remove the end of the penis, it removes some, most, or all of the skin covering the end of the penis (which contains specialized nerves, etc. that would be best left in place). Some circs are severe or "tight" and remove a lot of skin, others are "loose" and remove relatively little.

This may be venturing into the land of "TMI", but I was circ'd at birth and was lucky enough to receive a "loose" circ. I have been restoring my foreskin since June of 2006 and I have achieved rather dramatic gains in foreskin coverage during that time, but my penis is the same size it has been since puberty.
I have also spent a great deal of time talking to other restorers, from beginners to those who have completed their restoration, as well as men who were circumcised as adults, immediately regretted it, and then began restoring, and the only ones who have reported any change at all in the size of their erections were those who were so tightly circumcised that lack of penile skin kept their erections constrained.

Originally Posted by trmpetplaya

Not a scientific observation, just one based on common sense, IMO, and the fact that I am VERY familiar with the intact penis and how it works.

As am I (and since I think I've already tested the limits of "TMI" enough in one post, I won't go into details on that account except to say that I do have a past).
It may not be a scientific observation, but it is a logical one and it does initially make sense. However, it is not a correct observation in every case.

The pro-circ crowd doesn't hesitate to spread exaggeration, misinformation, and outright lies to advance their cause, so we as intactivists have to be extra careful to make sure all the information we give out is 100% factual and the absolute truth. I would love to be able to say that circumcision removes "X" amount of penile length every time because that would help to end circumcision sooner, but my own experience and the experiences of many other males in a position to know for sure do not bear this claim out.

If anything I've said in this post offends anyone I am truly sorry for that, but I can think of no better way to discourage people from falling into the trap of attractive misinformation than to relate my own first-hand observations and the educated observations of others in as clinical a manner as possible.

[Quindin]

Originally Posted by rowansmomma

Would YOU want to admit that you are less than perfect? The person that was circ'ed as a baby should not have to feel guilt or own up to anything. It really bothers me that THEY get put down for something their parents did to them. My dh is circ'ed and he did not do it so he should not have to carry the burden or admit a damn thing.

I did not say it is THEIR fault and I did not say they have to carry any burden!! I don't see how what I say may have been taken out of context! I said that it is hard to open your yes and see that there might have been a mutilation done to you when there is nothing one can do about it. One one will cling on whatever story they are told in order to push away the thought that they might be a victim of an unecessary procedure. It hurts having to admit something wrong was done to you, but it did happen. I feel DEEPLY sad when babies are mutilated at birth.

And what I said about women is that they often don't want to admit that the procedure that broke their heart putting their babies through was in fact unecessary!

It is a whole cycle of sad denial

I do get VERY upset when men and women cut their sons without giving it a lot of thought, or just because they want their babies to "look like daddy" - I did not talk about them in my post though.

[Daisyuk]

So BamaDude you subscribe to the thought that if you peel the skin off an orange, apple, grapefruit, or in fact anything, then it makes no difference at all to its width, girth, volume or general size?

Sorry, but if you cut a part of something off, it gets smaller. You may not have noticed, you may not care, no matter what you may think or wish to think, it will get smaller.

Why do people have to keep trying to rewrite the laws of physics?

[AXEius]

i have to agree with bamabdude somewhat. I don't think circumcision automatically reduces the length of the penis. Like he said, circumcision doesnt actually remove any erect length although it would automatically reduce the overall appearance of length in the flaccid state due to the removal of foreskin overhang. However I myself was tightly circumcised (painful erections) but after restoring appear to have gained some length (my wife is even more certain than i about this). So it seems to be dependant on how much skin was taken away from the man as to wether or not it would effect his length. Then again, circumcision seriously compromises blood flow to the outer surface of the the penis. Even though that shouldnt effect the errectile blood flow, it seems like any reduced blood flow to the penis would effect its length, maybe even its development during pubertey. I have no doubt that circumcision always reduces girth. In a circumcised man the skin does not bunch up behind the glans and in almost all cases, begins to stretch with erection (or in my case stretched to the point of pain). Skin which is in a stretched state is thinner, much like a rubberband becomes thinner as you stretch it. this would obviously reduce total girth of the penis. so if you also take girth into account i would say that circumcision always reduces the size of the penis sometimes more than others.

[BamaDude]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

So BamaDude you subscribe to the thought that if you peel the skin off an orange, apple, grapefruit, or in fact anything, then it makes no difference at all to its width, girth, volume or general size?

No, to say that would be absurd.

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

Sorry, but if you cut a part of something off, it gets smaller. You may not have noticed, you may not care, no matter what you may think or wish to think, it will get smaller.

Why do people have to keep trying to rewrite the laws of physics?

I am in no way trying to rewrite the laws of physics.
I will agree that total volume of flesh in a penis is reduced by the volume of flesh of the foreskin removed during a circumcision. However, most guys will immediately equate "smaller" with "shorter erect length" as did I, and that's where the misunderstanding and defensiveness gets started.

Trust me, guys don't really get worked up about or care what their respective penis is like when it's flaccid, because in that state it's just an aiming mechanism for a urine deployment system. But when an adult guy thinks about his penis he pictures it in his mind's eye during it's full erect state, and any and all statements referring to said penis refer to it in that state only. It's a stupid, weird guy habit, and it's one that I'm as guilty of falling prey to as any other guy.

Originally Posted by AXEius

I have to agree with BamaDude somewhat. I don't think circumcision automatically reduces the length of the penis. Like he said, circumcision doesnt actually remove any erect length although it would automatically reduce the overall appearance of length in the flaccid state due to the removal of foreskin overhang.

And I will in turn agree with that.

Originally Posted by AXEius

However I myself was tightly circumcised (painful erections) but after restoring appear to have gained some length (my wife is even more certain than I about this). So it seems to be dependant on how much skin was taken away from the man as to whether or not it would effect his length.

Yes! Thank you!

Originally Posted by AXEius

Then again, circumcision seriously compromises blood flow to the outer surface of the the penis. Even though that shouldn't affect the erectile blood flow, it seems like any reduced blood flow to the penis would effect its length, maybe even its development during puberty.

A very interesting hypothesis, but one that would be impossible to prove or disprove conclusively. Let's call that one a draw.

Originally Posted by AXEius

I have no doubt that circumcision always reduces girth. In a circumcised man the skin does not bunch up behind the glans and in almost all cases, begins to stretch with erection (or in my case stretched to the point of pain). Skin which is in a stretched state is thinner, much like a rubberband becomes thinner as you stretch it. This would obviously reduce total girth of the penis. So if you also take girth into account I would say that circumcision always reduces the size of the penis, sometimes more than others.

On some circumcised guys, the remaining foreskin does bunch up behind the glans, but it is also under greater stress during erection so I'll stipulate to that point as well.

[jessjgh1]

I think one point is that even if the foreskin is only a millimeter thick, if you remove it the penis is still its 'normal' size minus a millimiter. And if done poorly or incorrectly, it may have more serious consequences.

A millimeter is a millimeter and still that's smaller!

I personally don't think that the circ. makes the penis smaller arguement is very worthwhile--- accept as a cheeky comeback or to lighten up the subject matter a little (use of humor). But I also don't believe the pro-circers arguement that circumcision rarerly constricts the penis or causes problems and the skin almost always compensates.

I think that painful erections or constriction may be a more common complication than most doctors are willing to admit and that regardless, even a correctly done circumcision ALWAYS alters the penis and change the way it functions.

Just another take on it.

Jessica