Is this a whoosh? ‘hard work’? Bwuh?
Yeah, with soda crystals and a brillo pad, I get my knob end almost as gleaming as a circumcised one :rolleyes: How difficult do you think it is for me to clean myself? :dubious:
You dignify the thread with a rather bold claim such as that, but then don’t dignify us with an explanation, posted here for long?
A very big but and seemingly at odds with the previous claim of sexual prowess by circumcised males.
:rolleyes: and I’ve heard that those who pee in the desert can get sand trapped under their foreskin and WWII soldiers liked to have their’s removed to avoid irritation, does this have everyone reaching for a knife yet?
And I come from the generation that were given regular tonsillectomies here in the UK, so I do object to unneccessary surgeries.
My understanding of the plethora of studies recently is this: during the (brief) time during which the men in question have been followed, the newly-circumcised men had a much lower risk of contracting HIV.
However, for the first 6 weeks, they probably were having a lot less sex period.
If you look at the USA, where the majority of men are circumcised (generally as infants), you see a higher rate of HIV infection compared to a number of other nations where the majority of men have not had their genitals altered, countries where the protective skin is considered an important part of the penis - like Japan, for instance.
Why? Why do those men retain the genitals they were born with, yet do not contract HIV at nearly the same rate as altered Americans? How about the Africans followed in these studies? What is the difference? Is it cultural? Is it their general state of health and nutrition that makes them more susceptible? Is it women using herbs and pessaries to create ‘dry sex’, making themselves and their partners more susceptible to abrasions to their mucosal tissues?
I will agree with the people above who say: let the boy choose for himself. Circumcision will not protect him if he engages in risky behaviors over time, any more than anti-smoking commercials will keep him from learning to smoke if that’s what he wants to do. But…wearing a condom will help. And the men on the restoration list all seem to agree that restored sex with a condom is many times superior in sensation to circumcised sex with a condom. The biggest complaint I have heard over and over from circumcised men about condoms is that it’s extremely difficult to feel anything with one on. But with that natural loose skin, inside the condom, there is more sensation; thus less reason to conveniently forget to wear one.
I’d say it’s far more important to teach the kid to wear a condom, than to surgically alter his genitals.
I think…one ought not to make such absolute statements.
All it takes is one anecdote to disprove this. I know a man whose early sexual experiences amounted to ejaculation after one thrust in and out. He was circumcised. He has recently finished full restoration, and experiences what he considers far more pleasurable orgasms - and much more leisurely ones - than he ever had before. He is about 45 years of age. So…what caused the premature ejaculation? Was it his age? His altered genitals? Pure bad luck? Who knows? But it disproves your claim above.
As for the idea that longer == better, any woman who’s ever been chafed to the point that she’s mentally begging the man to just COME already and get it OVER with, or asking for extra artificial lube because hers gave up a while ago, knows better than that. “Longer” is not a virtue. It’s a relative measure of time. It may be good, bad, or indifferent. Better…is better.
Not true.
I know this from experience.
Oh great - you know, they’d probably be better protected from HIV uncircumcized wearing a condom than uncircumcized and bare.
Are you aware that Muslims are ALSO circumcized?
Another point against circumcision, or as I call it, male genital mutilation is that it decreases the sensitivity of the glans penis so much that the use of a condom, with its further reduction in sensitivity, becomes downright uninteresting.
I know because I was genitally mutilated as an infant. I am also a gay man and HIV negative.
Before AIDS came along, I was slow to ejaculate. Part of it is psychological, due to inhibitions, but part of it is surely due to the lack of sensitivity in the glans penis.
How do I know that? At the risk of repeating myself, I must stress that as a gay man who was sexually active in the naughty 70s, I got to see a pretty good sampling of a couple of hundred penises in that decade, some of which were cut and some of which were uncut. My information was not gleaned from sterile, clinical interviews. It does not rely on differing interpretations of what individual interviewees report as “sensitivity”.
You may think I was a Ho, but the fact is that I got direct, hands-on experience (all puns intended) of the comparative performance and reaction of a major cross-sampling of both types of penis. I would like to know how many of these sex researchers can claim this.
I can recall only ONE uncircumcised male who needed to learn about genital hygiene. I did indeed meet one or two uncut males who ejaculated too fast. I also met cut males who also had the same problem. And obviously, premature ejaculation can be due to a whole range of factors.
But I am absolutely certain that as a whole the uncut partners I have had enjoyed sex more and performed better.
When AIDS and the use of condoms appeared, it became more or less impossible for me to ejaculate with one of those things on. This was a real problem since I am a “top”. Since I am a responsible person and wish to remain HIV negative, I have adapted in other ways, such as wearing the condom during intercourse until my partner ejaculates and then taking the condom off and ejaculating outside my partner.
But I cannot help wondering if other circumcised males, once they realize that wearing a condom on a cut cock is like taking a shower with a raincoat on, are not tempted to dispense with it? And this might especially apply to straight males who figure that AIDS is a “faggot’s disease” anyhow.
I realize it is hard for us circumcised males to admit that we were genitally mutilated for some idiotic religious or social reason. But accepting it is more honest than indulging in “sour grapes” and making up rationalizations that uncirumcised males are disease carriers or somehow mysteriously unable to pull back a bit of skin and use soap and water on their glans penis! 
I forgot to mention another detail. I have been told by a woman who fights against female genital mutilation that women in developing countries who are victims of this barbaric practice, such as removal of the clitoris, indulge in this same sort of rationalzation and demonizing of women who are unmutilated.
Instead of admitting they have been victims of mutilation, and instead of turning against the religion/society/establishment that allowed this, they cling to the idea that they are “pure” and “virtuous” women and that unmutilated women with intact genitals are “dirty whores” because they enjoy sex.
Of course, the vast majority of men who have been cut, particularly as infants, certainly do experience pleasure, which they may describe as intense and satisfying. I’ve seen quotes on here to the effect that “If it felt any better, I’d never leave the house.” But some men - and I have talked to them - have virtually no sensation in the penis however, and I knew one young man who confessed to me that he could not orgasm. At all. He simply could not give himself adequate stimulation to achieve an orgasm. I knew another man who gave up on the restoration list because his penis was, as he described it, ‘a dead stick’. He had no sensation. He could not orgasm either (unless by prostate stimulation, which wasn’t to his taste apparently). The nerve damage he had received was too great, and even restoration (which by most reports does increase sensation) did nothing for him. I don’t know what happened to him.
To the people who think that this surgery causes no nerve or vein damage, nor any risk of significant scarring, skin bridges, or reduction in the natural size of the erect penis by removing an unspecified amount of tissue (containing muscle, veins and nerves) through a crushing and cutting injury, and that this therefore does not and cannot have any long-term effects on sensation or pleasure, or that if it does, it is irrelevent…your logic escapes me.
I do not deny that most circed men do indeed feel pleasure and may be entirely satisfied with it - and if they are, good. I see every day on the restoration list how miserable it is to be dissatisfied with one’s sexual experience because of a modification done to one’s body. However, the idea that there is no change to sensation, and that not having had the surgery done would be no different, is irrational on its very face. No one would cut around any other protruding body part, and expect to have no nerve damage. No one would remove a naturally-occuring section of skin from any other body part, and call it an improvement on the design - that’s reserved for deformities. Even cesarean section surgery can cause lifelong numbing and tingling to the lower abdomen. I know that one from personal experience.
Personally, I think soap on the glans itself is a bad idea, as soap is both irritating and drying. The covered glans penis and the inner prepuce skin, are naturally mucosal in nature and is apparently most similar in cell type to the inside of the eyelid. You wouldn’t use soap there, either. For that matter, soap on the labia menora stings and burns. I can only imagine it feels the same on the glans. However warm water and a soft cloth are good things, and certainly adequate for female hygiene too.
Are you a doctor, Chotii? What you have to say about restoration piqued my curiosity. What is it and how does it work? Where do you practise?
I am not trying to hijack this thread. But since the OP wanted to know if he should have his non-infant son circumcised, I imagine he would like to know that there are men who actually take measures to restore their lost foreskin. It might give him an extra side of the issue to consider.
I’m not a doctor, and I don’t play one on the Internet. I’ve just been on this one list for about 2, maybe 3 years now, and I’ve seen the efforts the men go to, to alter their bodies to what they want them to be. Most of them have been very pleased with the results, and claim their partners are generally pleased also. Most were cut as infants, a couple as pre-teen boys such as the OP’s son, and a couple as adults. The subjects discussed run the gamut from anatomy to hygiene, to safe sex practices, to methods (manual stretching, taping, tugger devices like the CAT-II and the Tug-Ahoy, problems encountered and how to manage them, emotional effects and frustrations.) It’s a civil group. I enjoy being on the list. And they don’t seem to mind my presence, despite me being one of only a couple of women, and the only one who has never been genitally altered (two of the women on the list were intersex or given clitoridectomies. Neither of them know why.)
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/rest.html
The men on the list are entirely for adults making choices about body modifications, but that these choices should be left to the adult to make, unless there is a clear and present medical issue that must be addressed. I do concur.
Are you a doctor, Chotii? What you have to say about restoration piqued my curiosity. What is it and how does it work? Where do you practise?
I am not trying to hijack this thread. But since the OP wanted to know if he should have his non-infant son circumcised, I imagine he would like to know that there are men who actually take measures to restore their lost foreskin. It might give him an extra side of the issue to consider.