Circumcision-- What Is It... Really?

I agree 100% Happy — I think it’s unnecessary, but I don’t think anyone has the proper experiences to really know how circumcision affects sexual sensation. All we know for sure is that whatever effect exists can’t be huge, else we’d find differences in circ and uncirc men’s self-reported sexual satsifaction, rates of ED, etc.

I also agree with you that foreskin restoration (and adult circumcision) don’t directly answer any questions about infant circumcision. I’m just saying that they give some empirical basis for judgment, whereas everything else is just theoretical speculation. (The point of my neural plasticity argument was, indeed, just to establish that most circumcision arguments are speculation; we really can’t know, one way or the other, for sure.)

There are many reasons for a culture to adopt a practice that would diminish sexual capacity. Ideas of spiritual purity would be one reason. The belief that diminished sexual stimulation would distract one less from worship and godly communion. Some nomadic desert tribes practiced circumcision as a way to sidestep the issue of cleanliness and illnesses like balantitis. In that instance, although capacity was diminished, functionality was not. It still felt good. They still got their women knocked up. The tribe could continue to reproduce. There tends to be a little bit of confusion between functionality and capacity, and sometimes I think this is puposeful. Of course I think a circumcised cock functions adequately, but do I think it works as good? No, not really.

I don’t give a hoot if one is cut or uncut either. I do, however, feel this issue needs to be brought to light. We really need to discuss the pros and cons of circumcision and come to a general consensus on what those pros and cons actually are. I, for one, would rather have an informed choice. Some men feel that ignorance is bliss, but I do not.

While I apologize for any inflammatory remarks you may have felt I made, I am entitled to share my opinion with others. This is, after all, a free forum. I did not personally attack anyone with my ED remarks, and I feel personally that it follows, common-sense-wise, that anything that would diminish the sensitivity of the penis to various extents would effect the quality of a man’s erections to various extents. If you do not think this is logical, then you have every right to say so as well.

Finally, I do think that you are trying to beat up on me…just a little…that’s just my personal opinion, tho. If I provided you with reams of scientific data concerning the detrimental side effects of circumcision, would it make you any less satisfied with your own circumcised penis? As you said, you’re quite happy with your cut status. It’s my personal belief that “science” is a liquid, and what is today’s “rock solid fact” is tomorrows “God, I can’t believe they used to think that!” To me, common sense is a much more valuable commodity… and common sense says, “If you cut something up, it don’t work as good.”

An apt analogy in several ways.

Survey says:

We all agree that it is unnecessary, but a very small number think it matters all that much.

64 posts later.

Having been on both sides of the fence, as I posted someplace here a long time ago, it is much ado about nothing, as far as the difference to me personally.

Would I do it again? No.

Some men dig for truth and some men try to bury it. I’m taking the rest of the night off to think about these things.

To para, thanks for posting that link. I am going to read it in-depth sometime in the next day or so. It looks very interesting. Also, to address your question about acclimatization to the new sensations… yes, I have noticed this to a degree. You get used to it, but it doesn’t mean I’d ever want to give it up now that I have it back! It feels good! Also, getting used to it doesn’t mean you don’t feel it. You just get used to it.

Anyway, good night, fellas, and thanks for the awesome debate. I feel like I took on a few Agents in the Matrix. Whew!

My dick works fine and I don’t feel like I’m missing anything so the whole thing is not very important to me but it’s been an interesting thread.

He has no idea.

There is no spoon.

I would like to see some legit links on this one if you have them. By "earliest times" I assume you mean earliest times in recorded history? Strong evidence exists that circumcision predates recorded history and was not used to oppress. Many intact Stone Age cultures that have been studied in the last 100 years contain circumcision of various forms as a right of entering manhood and carry it out at puberty. I would be interested in sources or links that address the “earliest times” mentioned above by showing that its use for oppression pre-dates Neolithic and pre-Neolithic puberty ceremonies.

On a volatile topic like this posting a link is rather a given if you want to be taken seriously.

That is cool. I have encountered the "sexing down" of the American male theory before but never cared enough to do the research. I always enjoy reading the bits of behind the scenes history that tell the story that doesn't make it into the text books. Look forward to some links.

I agree. Also for you Jewish guys that haven’t had kids yet: Depending on how orthodox you are the pricking of the foreskin to shed a single drop of blood may be enough. Even if you are way orthodox do some homework because a full circumcision is not milah. A “tip" circumcision is brit milah, a “full” circumcision is (periah). A tip circumcision is all that is required to the best of my knowledge.

Ok, some nice links, thanks for posting them. They contain some good info but all seem to be rather heavily slanted and written to promote a preconceived view rather than to be objective. “…one theory postulates that circumcision began as a way of "purifying" individuals and society by reducing sexuality and sexual pleasure…” is hardly conclusive evidence. In the few cases where they mention anthropologists with views that do not support the party line they are quick to point out “…None of these speculations has been confirmed. …” True, but equally true of the speculations on Pre-historic and early-history circumcision presented in your links that support your views.

I think some of the difficulty you are encountering is that guys feel this is not the frame of mind you are coming from. Many of your posts come across as “preachy”, as though you feel that you have found the “truth” and are sharing it with the ignorant. This is not discussing and reaching a consensus. “We really need to discuss the pros and cons of circumcision and come to a general consensus on what those pros and cons actually are.”, is simply your opinion. You have stated it as an absolute truth and not open to debate. Simple little things like prefacing the above with “I feel that” would go a long way to making your views more palatable to the other members.

Just for the record I am circumcised and would never even consider having a full snip done to a son of mine. I am gratefull that my unit works great but don’t see any reason for unnecessary surgery, especially on the penis. That has nothing to do with you making this into a kind of personal crusade. It is obvious that you have very strong feelings on this topic and that it might be hard for you to address this less than zealously. It might be tough for you to follow my suggestion; but, consider just dropping this thread for a while and concentrate on doing some PE.

From the movie “Matrix - PEloaded”

“It is not the penis that is doing a sadsak. You have to realize that there is no penis.”

http://www.news cientist.com/ch … /mg18625015.500

Same shade of blue for me and you

:rolling: :funpost:

That’s addressing a different question. But this isn’t the place to get into phil of mind…

With regards to differences in reported sensation, we can only really ask those that have undergone the procedure as adults, or those that willingly tape up their foreskin for a long time in order to compare.

The neural argument is good for adults, but not for infants. There have been tests carried out on cats and kittens, where one eye was sewn shut on both. After 8 (or was it 12?) weeks the stitches were taken out, and while the cat had sight on both eyes, the kitten was blind for the rest of it’s life on the eye that had been sewn shut. What happens during the developing phases is that if a allotted space (such as visual cortex) is not used, then it is not developed and at a certain age all unused neurons are simply killed off and discarded in the brain. For the adult, if an eye or limb is permanently lost, the allotted space is reused for something else. This is not controversial in neural network circles; as I understand these things this is the way it works. Another example is that of the chinese “sand-babies” - infants placed in sand bags, like a papoose on it’s mothers back. If the baby is constantly in the soft warm surrounding it will not complain - which is nice for the parents - but since it never receives adequate sensory stimulus, the allotted space in the brain deteriorates. These babies turn out to be mentally handicapped - from lack of stimulus! (To all parents - variety is good for your babies!)

I could go on and rant about this, but my point is that if you have let’s say 50 nerveendings in the foreskin and 50 in the glans, and cut away the 50 from the foreskin, the allotted space in the brain will not automatically be remapped to more sensitivity to the glans, it will be discarded (there is an excess of about 20-25% more neurons in a newborns brain compared to an adult - we are born with extra capacity that is discarded if unused. The discarding phase starts at different ages for different functions, but language stops at 6-7 years, I recall, and from the end of puberty~20 years old is the last major cleanup - which may explain why we do not develop all that much as persons after that age. The reason for discarding is that if you have neurons lying around that have no fixed purpose, there is interference = false answers to the computations in the brain). It could possibly remapped, but who knows where? So my understanding of these things is that cutting away nervendings in infancy will result in a sensory loss as an adult, nothing else.