or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Less Sensitive=Lasts Longer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Less Sensitive=Lasts Longer - Page 2

post #21 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatchristy View Post
You know, there is no "cookie cutter" circ...no two are alike.
Indeed.

Penises are just like snowflakes.

Jen
post #22 of 75
As a women who has had both intact and circ'ed partners, I am so very sad over this argument.: It presumes that women need partners who can last a long time. They forget that sex for the woman is less satisfying with a circ'ed partner as well. The foreskin provides stimulation for the g-spot for women - that almost mythically hard to find spot in American culture. The foreskin does all the work, and generally women don't need as much stimulation to orgasm (on average, again - every penis is unique. : ) The whole "it's takes a lot of work and a long to get a woman to orgasm" is so very, very sad.
When I lived outside of the US, I noticed that they don't sell ribbed "for her pleasure" condoms. Don't need to.

Dh is the only circ'ed man to make it easy for me. Every intact man had no problem. Let's just say that statistically those odds are abysmal.
post #23 of 75
my partner actually has nerve damage from his circ...there are times when he wants to climax, it feels good, etc, but cannot because his penis will not cooperate...and he feels this is a direct result of the circ, because there is no other medical explanation for it (and we have been to the docs)...

and personally, just because it can go on for a while, doesnt make it pleasurable...just as men like it a certain way, so do women...and i am not a fan of being sore the next day because sex took a while...

peace...
post #24 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture View Post
I am so sick of this justification. "Well, my husband feels plenty and if he was anymore sensitive sex would be over in minutes." or, " Well, for women, a man being a little less sensitive isn't necessarily a bad thing."
There was a time I might have said this. He!!, I probably did say this.

I was not always the intactavist that I am today. I was as shallow and uninformed as they come.

But I changed. And changed quickly once I did about 10 mins of research.

The annoying thing is when people don't change- with or without research .
post #25 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by InDaPhunk View Post
The annoying thing is when people don't change- with or without research .
exactly!!!!

it depresses me to see it on another board i am on... : i just cant click those message links anymore... *sigh*

peace...
post #26 of 75
here is an example of how an "anti circ" attitude gets out of control.. Instead of sticking to the real authentic, justifiable reasons that support in-tactness, these other ridiculous issues to strengthen their support surface. Premature ejaculation is 90% psychological and mental. Despite research that suggests any phsyical explanations to the contrary, it's miniscule compared to the overall psychological and mental influences that dictate climactic results. C'mon... The "findings" that are being mentioned here would be like a man saying: "in my sexual experiences, the women who had the best figure and kept herself in shape and exercised regularly and took a multi-vitamin every day had better sexual feelings than any of the overweight women I've been with." Any overweight women out here would have difficulty believing this, if SHE HERSELF thought that her sexual feelings were as good as they could possibly be. If a circ'ed guy believes that sex feels amazing, and couldn't imagine it being better, then who cares about what he might be missing?? If he's missing anything, then so perhaps is a women who takes for granted that being 20-30 pounds overweight isn't "missing out" on something that she doesn't have.

The point here is it's probably not as important what is present PHYSICALLY, but what is going on within the individual MENTALLY, and PSYCHOLOGICALLY. This is where being satisfied or dissatisfied lies, for BOTH men and women.
post #27 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetiger View Post
here is an example of how an "anti circ" attitude gets out of control.. Instead of sticking to the real authentic, justifiable reasons that support in-tactness, these other ridiculous issues to strengthen their support surface. Premature ejaculation is 90% psychological and mental. Despite research that suggests any phsyical explanations to the contrary, it's miniscule compared to the overall psychological and mental influences that dictate climactic results.
OK, show me the research that says that circed and intact men have equal rates of premature ejaculation. I agree that part of PE is going to be psychological/mental.....but why do you dismiss so easily the idea that surgically altering the genitals to completely change the mechanics and remove the most sensitive areas might affect a man's performance? There's plausible evidence to suggest that the ridged band, which is always removed with circ, is the primary ejaculation trigger in an intact man.

It's plausible that circumcision will make some men last longer, because they no longer have the sensitivity of the foreskin....and it's also plausible that it will contribute to PE in some men, because they're missing the fully functioning system that triggers ejaculation and don't have the control/fine-tuned sensitivity that an intact man does.
post #28 of 75
i love tiger~ You're very wrong. It's PROVEN that if a circ is too tight, the blood-filled caverns press on the inner erectile tissue too much, causing the release of chemicals that trigger ejaculation (which may or may not be premature, depending on the woman's preference, I guess!). You missed the whole point of the thread. We are talking about people who are pro-circ for the intention of "making a man last longer" and we are saying that being circumcised DOES NOT GUARANTEE that you will be able to last longer! and lasting longer is not always great with a circumcised man whose glans penis is ripping you apart and pulling all of the moisture out of you, instead of an intact man whose foreskin prevents this type of mechanical irritation. Also, one last point, just b/c you are more sensitive with a foreskin, doesn't mean that you will ejaculate faster. That's the point that circ'ed men just don't get! (but if you read through all of the posts again, instead of becoming defensive, b/c YOU obviously are circ'ed or are pro-circ., you would learn why this is, physiologically!!!) BTW, NOONE is saying that ejaculation isn't mostly psychological, we're saying that "circumcising a newborn baby, just so he will 'last longer later in life' is ridiculous, as there's NO GUARANTEE of this!" (Well, it's ridiculous on many other levels, this is just one example!) Good luck becoming educated on the subject, without being too defensive- I sincerely mean that; it must be hard to accept.
post #29 of 75
I've talked to several men who were intact, circ'd as adults (who later restored) and all three of them said they had better egaculatory control when they were intact. That includes both the circ'd and restored states. Of course, that in anticdotal...but research also shows that premature egaculation is actually *higher* rate wise with circumcised men.

The way the former intact men have described it to me is that they seem to have a winder range of levels of excitement which is really easy to alter. After being circumcised their sensation is decreased and they don't have so many levels to discern where they are in terms of being ready to egaculate.

Hope I'm explaining it so it makes sense.

Of course, there are also those men out there who have so much damage that they can go on forever. But, these also tend to be the guys who have to pound away with a lot of force to even egaculate.

(wow, I am so tired, please excuse me if I have serious spelling errors...DS has a tummy bug and I've been up for a while--he woke me up by throwing up on me ewww.....)
post #30 of 75
Some of you are REALLY stretching for anti-circ arguments. Gimme a break. The research is flawed, and the experimental sample shows nothing representative of ANYTHING of importance when attempting to derive at a plausible conclusion about circ vs intact and HOW LONG ONE WILL LAST, even with the undeniable changes in sensitivity. As soon as you admit that there are many exceptions, then it's an unworth argument..."they all wore the same underwear...".

I'm gonna start a thread entitled, "Physical characteristics that influence pain tolerance", as if to say that pain tolerance is determined by something pyhsically distinctive in an individual.. Regardless of what you FORCE YOURSELF to find with regard to a physical explanation, it's mental and psychologically controlled. It's all about training and experience.

I ADMIT there are physical differences, and they are, perhaps, factors, BUT they are unnoticable due to the tremendous amount mental and psychological factors that go into the sexual experience.

I have a few analogies of my own, which I'd be happy to share, but I think I've already made my point.
post #31 of 75
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...710&query_hl=3
Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?
"Overall satisfaction was 61%. CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."



Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction.
"Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...453&query_hl=3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...526&query_hl=3
Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation.
Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A.
"In the dysfunctional group, circumcised men (49 +/- 16 years) were significantly younger (P <0.01) than uncircumcised men (56 +/- 13 years)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...371&query_hl=3
"However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...200&query_hl=3
"Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision]
[Article in Chinese]
Shen Z, Chen S, Zhu C, Wan Q, Chen Z.
Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, China. shenzhj@mail.hz.zj.cn
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the erectile function of adults after circumcision. METHODS: Ninty-five patients were investigated on erectile function by questionnaire before and after circumcision, respectively. RESULTS: Eighteen patients suffered from mild erectile dysfunction before circumcision, and 28 suffered from mild or moderate erectile dysfunction after circumcision(P = 0.001). Adult circumcision appeared to have resulted in weakened erectile confidence in 33 cases(P = 0.04), difficult insertion in 41 cases(P = 0.03), prolonged intercourse in 31 cases(P = 0.04) and improved satisfaction in 34 cases(P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision has certain effect on erectile function, to which more importance should be attached."



************************************************** ********************
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...X.2006.06685.x
"OBJECTIVE

To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.
RESULTS

The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.


CONCLUSIONS

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

Full Text:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...rells_2007.pdf

************************************************** ***************************************

Looks like if you want to totally screw up your son's sexual prowess as an adult, circumcision is the way to go.

I feel sorry for you ilovetiger, you clearly do not understand the serious consequences for the adult man, of carrying out this surgery on a child, and you clearly do not like what you have read here.

Stick around and you'll find that everything that you see here is true, we have studies and papers that we get our information from, I hope that you find it informative and educational, and that you will not do this horrible mutilation to any children you might have.
post #32 of 75
Stick to supporting in-tactness because of the mutilation factors. That's fine with me...I fully support intactness!!!!!! I'll say it again..I fully support intactness...But stick to REAL reasons....things like why a child shouldn't be "mutilated"..that works fine with me.. Don't stretch for other "scientific" reasons that use poor population samples to reach other refutable conclusions. We've gone from mutilation to staying power?? Focus on your few genuine reasons that justifiably support intactness.. Don't allow yourself to get recruited into these other ridiculous and poorly experimented findings.
post #33 of 75
Actually, ranting doesn't help either - and you are coming across as ranting.

The OP was talking about women using "staying power" as a reason TO circ their sons. They seem to think it's an advantage, and we were all pointing out that it is far from an advantage.

Why can't we have a discussion about other things without you getting excitable about it?

This is a board that is for discussion about intactness and information sharing, not debate, there shouldn't be ANY procirc people reading this board (and if they are I hope they're feeling suitably guilty) so what are you talking about? That we shouldn't discuss, here of all places, our experiences and exchange information?
post #34 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetiger View Post
Stick to supporting in-tactness because of the mutilation factors. That's fine with me...I fully support intactness!!!!!! I'll say it again..I fully support intactness...But stick to REAL reasons....things like why a child shouldn't be "mutilated"..that works fine with me.. Don't stretch for other "scientific" reasons that use poor population samples to reach other refutable conclusions. We've gone from mutilation to staying power?? Focus on your few genuine reasons that justifiably support intactness.. Don't allow yourself to get recruited into these other ridiculous and poorly experimented findings.
Th truth is we have science on our side. The truth is procirc does not. Circumcision in America (RIC) was not started to increase a man's sexual prowess, it was started to decrease sensitivity.Check it out, you might learn something I'm sorry the history of it does not support its continuation. Please, inform yourself. Check out some of the links in my siggy. If you don't believe them, watch a video. I promise they are all true. I really do hope you inform yourself and learn that this is bad news. Please stop attacking us, we do not "believe" circ is wrong, we KNOW it.
post #35 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetiger View Post
here is an example of how an "anti circ" attitude gets out of control.. Instead of sticking to the real authentic, justifiable reasons that support in-tactness, these other ridiculous issues to strengthen their support surface. Premature ejaculation is 90% psychological and mental. Despite research that suggests any phsyical explanations to the contrary, it's miniscule compared to the overall psychological and mental influences that dictate climactic results. C'mon... The "findings" that are being mentioned here would be like a man saying: "in my sexual experiences, the women who had the best figure and kept herself in shape and exercised regularly and took a multi-vitamin every day had better sexual feelings than any of the overweight women I've been with." Any overweight women out here would have difficulty believing this, if SHE HERSELF thought that her sexual feelings were as good as they could possibly be. If a circ'ed guy believes that sex feels amazing, and couldn't imagine it being better, then who cares about what he might be missing?? If he's missing anything, then so perhaps is a women who takes for granted that being 20-30 pounds overweight isn't "missing out" on something that she doesn't have.

The point here is it's probably not as important what is present PHYSICALLY, but what is going on within the individual MENTALLY, and PSYCHOLOGICALLY. This is where being satisfied or dissatisfied lies, for BOTH men and women.
ilovetiger, I find your posts to be lacking in scientific proof for your position that time of ejaculation is 90% mentally controlled. It is a given that removal of the foreskin interferes with the normal function of the penis, so it would logically follow that the mechanism of ejaculation would also be changed. I do not know whether this would generally make for accelerated or delayed ejaculation, or if it varies among individuals. But if -as the OP said- people are making the claim that 'a benefit of circumcision is an ability to delay ejaculation', one would think there would be much reliable research on the matter. I believe you said there isn't any. I haven't seen any that supports your above assertion either.

As far as this:
Quote:
If a circ'ed guy believes that sex feels amazing, and couldn't imagine it being better, then who cares about what he might be missing??
Well, all of us here care greatly. When a circumcised man feels that way, he's unlikely to understand that he'd be harming his son by removing the best part of his penis. He will probably perpetuate the cycle of circumcision. That's why we feel it's important to bust the myths surrounding circumcision, and to help people understand the function and the benefits of the foreskin.
post #36 of 75
Besides, why mess with something that nature has profected? We learn all the time that things in our bodies are there for a reason. The tonsils were once routinely removed, yet they serve a vital role in the immune system. It is being learned that the appendix does too. (I don't have a link). There is proof that the foreskin serves a role in immunity. (BTW Langerhans cells are found in the foreskin). Here's the thread we have on that.
post #37 of 75
"We" did not bring this up... circumcised people did!!! Circumcised people said that they are glad they are circ'ed and want to circ. future sons b/c "circumcised men have better staying power/ last longer".
THEY said it, THEY started this whole conversation. WE merely are refuting the comment that THEY made.
post #38 of 75
I asked a father to be if he would leave his son intact.

He replied "no, I would want a son to be circ'd".

I said "Are you circumcised?" He said "No, that's why I want my son circumcised."

I was confused. "What do you think circumcision is going to do for your son?", I asked.

He was embarrassed but said "When I first started having sex, I would always prematurely ejaculate. . . I couldn't help it." My reply "Yeah, all teenage boys do that, what else is new?"

He said "No, the other guys told me they could last." I said, "They were lying, trust me, I've been with a few teenage boys in my day and they're not good for much." He said, "Really? Okay I'll keep my son intact then." They had a boy, he's intact. Sometimes we need to clear these things up by sharing our own experience.
post #39 of 75
Just continue to recruit other anti-circ members on the basis of circ being "mutilating" and painful and simply unnecessary...I'm with THAT. I"M ALL FOR IT.. I personally would not circ my sons for these reasons alone. I don't need to scramble for other bogus research from Instanbul, Turkey (probably conducted by a Dr. who none of us would ever take our children to) with a sample of 42 men in an attempt to further prove the case against circ.. You've already made your point. Please, just stop stretching. I know too many women who've been with both, and the consensus is..."It doesn't matter to me", and "I don't have a preference..." I, myself am anti-circ...purely due to the unnecessary pain and mutilation cast on infants who have no say. I find no advantages in circ, but it doesn't mean that all who are are disadvantaged...Yes, you say it's about helpless children, but I see it stemming off to how adults are "disadvantaged" because they're circ'ed. This, too, is a stretch, and can't be supported scientifically without affecting individuals who are beside the findings.

Overall...if you don't like Pres. Bush, then say, "I don't like the way he's handling this war in Iraq....he's putting our troops' lives at risk unnecessarily, etc.. you don't have to add: "OH, AND BY THE WAY..HE'S FROM TEXAS...I HAD A BAD EXPERINCE IN TEXAS. SOMEONE STOLE MY RADIO FROM MY CAR...NOW I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HATE BUSH"!!!!

Stay on course. Don't make stuff up with bogus research.. I realize that the internet makes it easy to access this stuff. Don't believe everything you read either. I learned that from a professor in college. I'm done with this topic..

I'm very passionate in how I go about making my point, but mean no disrespect, so please don't take this the wrong way. Good luck to all, and have a Happy Easter.
post #40 of 75


ok, riiiight.

We know nothing....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Less Sensitive=Lasts Longer