Could it be that getting cut INCREASES sensitivity? Having a “bullethead” certainly exposes a greater area.
So maybe those ancient Hebrews knew something…
Username post combo of the week winnar! 
I’m cut, boys are not. It wasn’t a big unending decision, it was a ‘if there’s no big over-riding need to, leave it alone.’
I can’t tell if I’ve missed it, but I can tell the equipment works well enough.
You realize the sheathe pulls back during sex, right?
Does it make a cool hydraulic noise while doing so?
[Moderator Note]Let’s take the topic of whether it should have been removed in the first place elsewhere.[/Moderator Note]
I wouldn’t call myself a constant masturbator, but mine isn’t cut and I have the same kind of insensitivity specifically to oral.
The latter statement does not follow the former. Just because something requires to be cleaned more frequently doesn’t make it inherently less clean than something else at any given time, if done regularly.
And seriously, any dude that can’t keep take the time to clean his junk probably as other hygiene issues as well.
“If done regularly” being the operative words. Just because an uncircumcised penis can be washed and appear as clean as an unwashed, circumcised penis, there is no equivalency with regard to cleanliniess. If an uncircumcised penis requires more cleaning than an uncircumcised penis, it is inherently less clean.
No it is not. It being able to become less clean does not mean it is less clean at any given time, as your statement would imply.
Your logic only holds if the threshold for uncircumcised penile cleanliness is significantly higher than normative overall cleanliness habits, and if penile cleanliness directly correlates with time rather than events, which I doubt.
In other words, my dinner plates get dirty when I eat dinner off of them. If I have two kinds of plates – say, ordinary white ones, and some pink ones with decorative ridges that take slightly more work to get clean – but both kinds get completely clean when I run them through my efficient and thorough dishwasher, all my plates are still equally clean. The pink ones do not get less clean just sitting in the cupboard.
This has squat to do with the OP. It’s something Great Debates would LOVE you to open a thread in.
A circumcised penis tends to be most sensitive on the underside.
Unless your dinner plates produce smegma while they are sitting in the cupboard, this is the silliest analogy I have ever heard.
Pick any two objects; the one that requires the most washing to keep clean over time is inherently less clean than the other.
Ket’s get something clear: Smegma is not inherently unclean–and in fact, may very well be the opposite–and on a forum where ignorance is supposed to be fought, it’s disappointing to see you perpetuate this lie.
Cite: A Crcumcised Penis is Not Necessarily Cleaner
As such, your entire argument is flawed.
Probably TMI.
But I had an adult circumcision about a year ago due to a medical issue. To date I have not noticed any decrease in my sensitvity, which was pretty high to start with.
As an aside to something that popped in the middle of the thread, prior to the operation I had never used any lotions when taking care of myself, but I now find it much easier to use a lotion or mosituriser.
I find it funny that, in these threads, we usually have majority of the intact men saying, “Oh God, what brutal torture is circumcision!” while all the circ’d men cry, “What? We’re fine! Stop insulting our penises!” I think that this has less to do with functionality and culture and everything to do with men being very in love with their own penises, whatever the state.
You don’t think that women who were circumcised as children would have the same reaction?
No, not really.
lol
Something that requires and receives more washing to remain as clean as something that requires less washing is by definition equivalently clean.
But I’m trying to think of a situation where an unwashed penis would ever be acceptably clean for any specific purpose. I don’t think cleanliness is, in practice. a linear scale here.
It’s the ‘requires more washing’ thing that’s getting me. In what real-life situation are you suggesting the question arises whether the penis is clean and the uncircumcised man finds his is not, whereas the uncircumcised man finds his is already clean enough? (Because it seems to me that in such a situation, the uncircumcised man goes off to wash and thus proceeds with a cleaner penis than the circumcised man, if he decides he’s good to go without washing)