Circumcision-- What Is It... Really?

You got yourself into trouble in your thread by stating gross generalities like “The basic purpose of circumcision is to reduce the size of the penis and diminish the capacity for sexual stimulation and desire.” [Now, really, if that were true, what loving parent would wish that on a son?] In the same post you said that dessert dwellers found circumcision a way around certain issues of sanitation of their lifestyle and other religious groups had theological foundation. So much for the purposeful diminishing of capacity. Just from a vague, anthropological point of view I have a whole lot of trouble seeing why a culture would encourage a practice that would diminish sexual capacity.

To clarify, I don’t give a hoot if one is cut or uncut, so long as he’s happy.

While you say your purpose in starting this thread was to discuss the “history of circumcision” which admittedly is rife with painful and horrific examples, (so is the history of anaesthesiology to name one of thousands of physiological means of change) in the same post you brought circumcision right up into current time by suggesting that circumcision is a mutilation and (incredibly, still, to me) that it causes ED. You still haven’t backed up the ED part yet and please don’t suggest that it should be my job to do research for you on such an uncommonly held notion. You should support that statement yourself.

It is not my intention to beat up on you here. It is, though, my intention to keep you straight about what you post because we admire intellectual accuracy here at Thunders and so far you aren’t giving us much of that.

Yes, circumcision can diminish sensitivity. Yes, some really fucked up people pushed it for the wrong reasons. But in today’s modern hospital and in the hands of religious leaders as well, circumcision is neither dangerous nor dibilitating, to hear most circumcizees talk when they grow up.

It seems to come down to this for me, and maybe a lot of others:

Am I happy being circumcicized?
Am I happy being un-circumcized?
If I am unhappy (either way), how can I change my condition?

Beyond that, we are either one or the other, or on our ways in between with restoration or getting circumcized.

Funny thing, science. It seems to be a liquid rather than a solid. Not too long ago, historically speaking, medical “science” believed that circumcision cured paralysis. Forgive me if I don’t bow down before your theory of neural plasticity because it seems a little too convenient a way to make circumcised men feel better about lost body parts. Whatever gets you through the night.

As I think I said (maybe it got lost in there), I would expect remapping to other parts of the penis, i.e., increased sensitivity of the remaining tissues. Something like this is probably going on, considering the sheer number of nerves lost in circumcision, and the lack of a huge discrepancy between circ and uncirc men’s self-reports of sexual pleasure.

Anyway, I grant you that your experience with foreskin restoration does give you some empirical basis for judging circ’s effects, like the guy who gets circumcised as an adult. That’s cool that the “rolling” sensation of extra skin feels better. How long have you had the restored foreskin, though? You might find that things “revert” to “normal” after a while, just as the dude who masturbates furiously with a death-grip often acclimates to those newer, (initially) more intense sensations.

In any case, I do enjoy having slightly looser penile skin from my PE efforts. I actually think I did a bit of “restoration” by accident as a teenager, too, since I masturbated dry by pulling the skin of my cock over my head repeatedly, as if I were uncut (but I’m not…). Okay I’m going off-topic here :)

So Kong, if science is useless, then what would make you think that the foreskin is important? I thought it had something to do with the number of nerves there and whatnot.

I’m Happy either way.

Or is that I’d be Happy either way.

I’m with you avocet, brilliant post, as usual.

I’d really like know more about these dessert dwellers, though. Whether they be from the Isle of Apple Cobbler or the Mountains of Chocolate Mousse, I’m sure their circumcision practices are very interesting.

Woo-hoo!

DAmn, but that Maker’s Mark is some good shit!

Para I wouldn’t be so quick to give him this point: foreskin restoration does give you some empirical basis for judging circ's effects.

After all, it’s not the same tissue. Who knows what he’d be feeling with the original ridged stuff, right?

Arguing this stuff is a bit like arguing if we all see the color blue in the same way. Who knows? But we all agree that it is blue.

Wow Kong…it looks as if the guys here question the way you present info and overstate things at times
just like the guys over at the “other” PE forum. Imagine that! That the guys here wanting links and for you
to back up statments that you make.

kooky

PUI Happy?

Remember what you put here tonight will still be here in the morning, although you will swear someone else posted it. :D

Actually, I don’t have any Maker’s Mark; I was reminiscing.

I wish I had some. You know? But the shit’s so damn expensive.

Interesting: apparently there are some neurologically based anti-circ arguments too: http://www.cirp … sych/immerman1/ I don’t know if anyone has made the kind of argument I was making.

None of us are really as smart as you Para.

Most of us were just annoyed by the pre-amble and the ever shifting focus of discussion…

I just skimmed the first page. It is indeed, interesting.

Somebody has experienced it first hand though.

Hey Happy, get a bottle of Ripple and a Magic Marker.

:rolling:

We definitely have to go drinking!

Kong, are you the same Kong from MOS?

I quit Happy, nine years ago. I can be just as dumb sober as I was drunk.

I repeat Para, I wouldn’t be so quick to give him this point: foreskin restoration does give you some empirical basis for judging circ's effects.

After all, it’s not the same tissue. Who knows what he’d be feeling with the original ridged stuff, right? So can he really trust his own sensations as being the same as if he still had the original?

By the same token, if one lives to adulthood foreskin intact and then has a circumcision would this subject really be in a position to judge? The trauma of the circumcision could change his sensory perception - similar to those who have nipple or glans piercings…

It’s all pretty hazy.

I agree that circumcision is un-necessary. I can speculate that it is possibly damaging, but I can’t intellectually go much farther than that.

Mutilation? Well, some would consider tatooing a kind of mutilation. Technically, I guess it could be…

Who cares?

I’m going to get some Ripple. Have at it boys.

PS: Thunder I hear you and respect that. We’ll have to get together and reminisce. It can be just as crazy, as I’m sure you know.
And your head hurts less in the morning.