Small Glans and Foreskin Restoration

westla,

<< No, it’s not plausible at all. Circumcision has no relationship to sperm production or fertility. >>

How can you be so sure of this? Suppose that a botched (or maybe normal) infantile circumcision results in the matured victim to end up having ED. Is this plausible to you so far? As a result of having ED, his genitals atrophy to some degree or another from non-use. Could this be a possibility do you think? Now, being that his genitals including his testicles aren’t receiving a healthy full flow blood supply (non-use in my opinion diminishes good blood supply and functionality of the genitals), is it understandable to me that this could cause the victim to become stricken with low testosterone (especially after middle age).

I don’t know exactly what the figures are in this country, but I can tell you that there are a lot of healthy young males and healthy middle aged or older males with extremely low testosterone levels. How could this be? Nobody anywhere dares to question as to whether infantile circumcision could be causing this? Well, I’m here to tell everybody that I am questioning it.

I’m not a medical professional, but from what I understand, virility and fertility are very much related. Low testosterone levels pretty much guarantee low sperm quality/counts. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that intact men are much hornier than cut men generally speaking. To me, this horniness is indicative of having high testosterone levels.

There you go! Infantile circumcision kind of reminds me of what we do to our pets to tame them down preventing them from humping our legs. In my most honest and brightest thinking, I can really say I think the reason why male infants have been routinely sexually butchered in this country is so that the resulting man would be more productive, meaning that his desire for sexual relations wouldn’t be an all consuming determining factor in his life. Does this sound plausible to you westla? Think about it!

r0ad_h0gg

Originally posted by r0ad_h0gg
How can you be so sure of this? Suppose that a botched (or maybe normal) infantile circumcision results in the matured victim to end up having ED. Is this plausible to you so far?

No. Circumcision, as evil a practice as it is, does not cause ED. Before you go any further with this you have to find a source that states circumcision is a cause of erectile dysfunction. I have been looking for several days and I cannot find one.

As a result of having ED, his genitals atrophy to some degree or another from non-use. Could this be a possibility do you think?

Not really. Atrophy of the testicles is well known and can be due a a variety of reasons (chronic alcoholism, hypopituitarism, atherosclerosis, chemotherapy or radiation, severe prolonged illness, etc.), however penile atrophy is relatively unknown. Usually a shortening of the penis is due to Peyronie’s disease rather than true atrophy. "Disuse" due to ED isn’t likely to cause the genitals to shrink.

In general, "atrophy of the penis" is not generally a diagnosis in itself. The importance is in determining exactly what change has occurred and exactly what caused the change. In general, atrophy occurs when the body part is not used. However, this generally refers to muscles. Another cause of atrophy in general is the lack of blood flow. Although erectile dysfunction is often associated with vascular problems, true atrophy of the penis generally does not occur. Significant atrophy generally would warrant investigation so that a more specific diagnosis can be made. Source: interview with Joel Gelman, MD, urologist and ED specialist, University of California at Irvine.

Now, being that his genitals including his testicles aren't receiving a healthy full flow blood supply (non-use in my opinion diminishes good blood supply and functionality of the genitals),…

You’re making assumptions that are not based on known physiological principles. Why would non-use cause the penile arteries and veins (e.g. the circulation) to change? If the ED is being caused by atherosclerosis then there is a reason for low blood flow. But disuse by itself wouldn’t change the penile circulation.

…is it understandable to me that this could cause the victim to become stricken with low testosterone (especially after middle age).

Well, middle age by itself is a cause for low testosterone levels, but it’s not associated with a decreased circulation. In order for poor circulation to be a cause for low testosterone it would be so bad that the tissues would be damaged from hypoxia anyway.

The most common causes for low testosterone levels are: andropause (natural decrease in production), trauma, castration, orchitis, radiation treatment or chemotherapy, testicular tumors, pituitary tumors, high prolactin levels, medications, HIV/AIDS, immune and inflammatory pituitary disease, Klinefelter's syndrome, hemochromatosis, Kallmann's syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, and myotonic dystrophy. Source: Patient’s Guide to Low Testosterone , The Medem Network web site.

I don't know exactly what the figures are in this country, but I can tell you that there are a lot of healthy young males and healthy middle aged or older males with extremely low testosterone levels. How could this be?

See the causes listed above and visit the web site link.

Nobody anywhere dares to question as to whether infantile circumcision could be causing this? Well, I'm here to tell everybody that I am questioning it.

You’re alone in this quest. Infant circumcision is a terrible thing. It exposes the glans and removes specialized tissue and can cause several sexual problems. But it is not known as a cause for ED, poor genital circulation, low testosterone or any of the other things you’re trying to link to it.

I'm not a medical professional, but from what I understand, virility and fertility are very much related. Low testosterone levels pretty much guarantee low sperm quality/counts.

To be virile means you have the ability to produce sperm and get a woman pregnant. To be fertile means your sperm are normal in shape, number and motility. So, yes, they are related. Testosterone is definitely related to sperm production so I agree with you.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that intact men are much hornier than cut men generally speaking. To me, this horniness is indicative of having high testosterone levels.

This is conjecture based on your prejudice against circumcision. How does one measure horniness? Is it necessarily related to testosterone level? Perhaps, but couldn’t other causes of it be a lengthy time since sexual activity, pheromones, visual stimulation, or any number of other reasons? Did you do a survey of cut and uncut men or are you speculating?

There you go! Infantile circumcision kind of reminds me of what we do to our pets to tame them down preventing them from humping our legs.

That’s castration. You remove their ability to produce testosterone. Not the same thing as cutting off the skin at the end of the penis.

In my most honest and brightest thinking, I can really say I think the reason why male infants have been routinely sexually butchered in this country is so that the resulting man would be more productive, meaning that his desire for sexual relations wouldn't be an all consuming determining factor in his life. Does this sound plausible to you westla? Think about it!

Well, sort of. In the U.S. the reason for the increase in infant circumcision at the end of the 19th Century was related to Victorian morals, anti-masturbation, etc. I’m sure you’ve seen many anti-circumcision web sites that explain this and I don’t need to list them. However, your points have not been addressing infant circumcision for these reasons. You’re trying to link it to adult problems that are well defined and studied. Circumcision is not listed as a cause for any of them.

As I said before, please continue this thread and teach others about foreskin restoration. I’m a believer and participant in that process. But please don’t try to make circumcision the cause for problems not related to sexual pleasure and normal penile functions like intercourse.

westla,

<< As I said before, please continue this thread and teach others about foreskin restoration. I’m a believer and participant in that process. But please don’t try to make circumcision the cause for problems not related to sexual pleasure and normal penile functions like intercourse. >>

Is not sexual pleasure a basic human function that will help an individual to have normal hormonal balances such as a good testosterone count? When this sexual sensing ability is altered/amputated (to an extreme in some unfortunate cases), how is one able to attain sexual satisfaction?

westla, I don’t believe that you are aware of the changes that an infant circumcision can make in the resulting man’s life and well being. Even though my circumcision left me with my testicles, I swear I felt like I was castrated until after I did foreskin restoration. Sex prior to doing foreskin restoration didn’t give me any pleasure at all. It was mainly just frustrating because my penis didn’t work. Why did my penis start to work well after I did foreskin restoration? There’s no doubt in my mind that my circumcision caused me to have ED since puberty or prior. It wouldn’t make sense for the medical industry or doctors to acknowledge something like this because of potential legal liabilities.

r0ad_h0gg

It’s as simple as this….how can you surgically remove a large part of a normal healthy penis at birth, and expect it to work/function optimally?

If I rip off your eyelid, sooner or later your eye will suffer…

The human body is a highly sophisticated self-contained piece of machinery. All of the parts contained within are necessary or they would not be there in the first place. You can rest assured if foreskin has survived Darwin and nature this long, it’s very necessary.

On the contrary, a female’s sex/reproductive organ is internal…protected. A man’s (unless circ’ed) is too also internal. When one is circumcised, a previously internal organ, is made external. Most other mammals penises’ are also internal, and protected. We as humans are no different and are mammals.

You can’t expect it to work the same when you chop off the protective covering.

Obviously, vascularity is an individual thing, but my penis is quite vascular. I have veins running all through out my penis. They all stop at my circ scar. Look at a picture of an uncut penis. The veins run all throughout the penis past the glans to the end of the foreskin.

Circumcision exposes the glans causing keratonization. This will lead to a hardened glans, leading to a decrease in sensitivity/harder to become aroused. etc. Circumcision also removes the frenulum (the male g-spot) from the penis. Clearly it causes ED.

Let’s start chopping off the clitoris or even the hood of the clitoris at birth and see what the ensuing results would be….probably not good.

Further how many shafts are destroyed and made crooked due to tight shaft skin after being circumcised?? Clearly you know when there is scar tissue it pulls the surrounding normal skin in tighter and with more force, what kind of damage does that do?

I can even reduce it and put it in layman’s terms for you: cut any other piece of skin/part/protective covering off of your body, the resulting damage clearly won’t be good.

While roadhogg might lack in the technical proof/terminology of these things clearly we can see what is being eluded to.

WestLA said:
>Before you go any further with this you have to find a source that states circumcision is a cause of erectile dysfunction. I have been looking for several days and I cannot find one. <

WestLA, science is an ever rapid evolving thing. While science has not proved these things or may never will you can try to use your own brain and not wait for someone else to tell you what is dark and what is light.

>It exposes the glans and removes specialized tissue and can cause several sexual problems. But it is not known as a cause for ED, poor genital circulation, low testosterone or any of the other things you’re trying to link to it. <

Isn’t ED a sexual problem?? Call me crazy, but the only time I need an Erection is for sex….

>As I said before, please continue this thread and teach others about foreskin restoration. I’m a believer and participant in that process. But please don’t try to make circumcision the cause for problems not related to sexual pleasure and normal penile functions like intercourse.<

Define normal penile function??? Normal to me is the way one was born before their foreskin was removed surgically.

p.s. The same science and doctors and medical journals you put all your stock in, are the same ones that are telling you enlargement is not possible without surgery. Food for thought.

WestLA, don’t despair… I’m not trying to change your mind…I could care less.

But I must offer my congratulations on ruining another good thread here with your “science.” Have a good one. That is all.

Some info on foreskin.

http://www.circ … rg/foreskin.htm

>It’s as simple as this….how can you surgically remove a large part of a normal healthy penis at birth, and expect it to work/function optimally?

The same way one’s brain won’t be impaired by removing a section of the scalp. The blood mechanism for erectile function has nothing to do with what is removed in circumcision. That is one of the points Westla was trying to make.

>The human body is a highly sophisticated self-contained piece of machinery. All of the parts contained within are necessary or they would not be there in the first place. You can rest assured if foreskin has survived Darwin and nature this long, it’s very necessary.

Like the appendix?

hobby,

<< The same way one’s brain won’t be impaired by removing a section of the scalp. The blood mechanism for erectile function has nothing to do with what is removed in circumcision. That is one of the points Westla was trying to make. >>

From what I understand there are three basic types of erections (mental, tactile, nocturnal). I believe infantile circumcision alters/reduces the tactile produced erection because the nerve signals sent to the brain are either incomplete or corrupted (our brain is the true sex organ which controls everything). Even when there is good stimuli to obtain a mentally produced erection, it is still necessary for tactile input signals to maintain it. Also, I believe that infantile circumcision reduces the frequency and quality of nocturnal erections. Scientific studies need to be done on the long term effects of an infantile circumcision in a man’s life.

Better yet, rather than study it, why can’t it just be banned and made criminal like female genital mutilation is now? The thing that amazes me is the number of people of this country that support such practices (of which they have very limited knowledge) simply because it’s culturally normal here. The majority of people in the USA apparently have the “follow the leader” type of mentality with out any common sense reasoning. I would like some answers! Who says that male infants need to be and should be genitally altered and what is the reason for it? If any one on this board knows please speak up and tell us all why our bodies/sexuality have been forever changed/reduced with out our permission. Does every on here just simply accept that this is what’s been done to them because it’s some kind of societal normalcy?

r0ad_h0gg

Originally posted by r0ad_h0gg
Is not sexual pleasure a basic human function that will help an individual to have normal hormonal balances such as a good testosterone count?

Uh, no. Sexual pleasure does not influence testosterone levels. “Pleasure” is a mental or emotional state. There’s no connection with testosterone production.

When this sexual sensing ability is altered/amputated (to an extreme in some unfortunate cases), how is one able to attain sexual satisfaction?

I’m not going to defend circumcision, but there are hundreds of thousands of men in the U.S. alone who seem to do quite well in the sexual pleasure/sensing department without their foreskins. I’ve said before that I agree with you in that I believe many of these men would have even better sex lives if they restored their foreskins. You don’t have to convince me about the benefits.

westla, I don't believe that you are aware of the changes that an infant circumcision can make in the resulting man's life and well being. Even though my circumcision left me with my testicles, I swear I felt like I was castrated until after I did foreskin restoration. Sex prior to doing foreskin restoration didn't give me any pleasure at all. It was mainly just frustrating because my penis didn't work. Why did my penis start to work well after I did foreskin restoration? There's no doubt in my mind that my circumcision caused me to have ED since puberty or prior. It wouldn't make sense for the medical industry or doctors to acknowledge something like this because of potential legal liabilities.

I’d say you’re an extreme case. It’s not that difficult for the majority of circumcised men to have sex and enjoy it. I’ve read the anti-circumcision papers that advocate the application of some legal responsibility to the physicians who perform infant circumcision. In some cases, where the cause and effect are clear, cases have been won. But you’re trying to make circumcision the culprit in a wide variety of conditions that have no clear connection to that surgery. I’m just trying to help you understand why you’re wasting your time in that quest.

Originally posted by bigblackstick
It's as simple as this….how can you surgically remove a large part of a normal healthy penis at birth, and expect it to work/function optimally?

You can’t. The best you can do is to work with what you have or try to restore it to as good a condition as you can. If you talk about sexual functioning, intercourse, a healthy glans, pleasure from the frenulum, etc., then I agree with you completely. However, if you try to say that removing the foreskin makes the testicles shrink, causes ED, changes your testosterone level, or any of the other things r0ad_h0gg has tried to connect with circumcision, then I wholeheartedly disagree.

If I rip off your eyelid, sooner or later your eye will suffer…

Exposing the glans reduces its ability to function the way it was intended, but does not destroy it which is what would happen to an eye without an eyelid. I know both the lid and the foreskin provide a protective cover, but the removal of one is not equivalent to the removal of the other.

The human body is a highly sophisticated self-contained piece of machinery. All of the parts contained within are necessary or they would not be there in the first place. You can rest assured if foreskin has survived Darwin and nature this long, it's very necessary.

I’m anti-circumcision. You’re preaching to the choir.

On the contrary, a female's sex/reproductive organ is internal…protected. A man's (unless circ'ed) is too also internal. When one is circumcised, a previously internal organ, is made external. Most other mammals penises' are also internal, and protected. We as humans are no different and are mammals.

I agree.

You can't expect it to work the same when you chop off the protective covering.

True, if you’re talking about sexual functions and not testicle temperature or penis size.

Obviously, vascularity is an individual thing, but my penis is quite vascular. I have veins running all through out my penis. They all stop at my circ scar. Look at a picture of an uncut penis. The veins run all throughout the penis past the glans to the end of the foreskin.

Mine looks the same. You are correct.

Circumcision exposes the glans causing keratonization. This will lead to a hardened glans, leading to a decrease in sensitivity/harder to become aroused. etc.

In some men.

Circumcision also removes the frenulum (the male g-spot) from the penis.

True.

Clearly it causes ED.

No. Erectile dysfunction is an inability to attain erection. The inability to have pleasurable sexual feelings, from a moist glans or from the frenulum, is not ED.

Let's start chopping off the clitoris or even the hood of the clitoris at birth and see what the ensuing results would be….probably not good.

Not good. I agree.

Further how many shafts are destroyed and made crooked due to tight shaft skin after being circumcised?? Clearly you know when there is scar tissue it pulls the surrounding normal skin in tighter and with more force, what kind of damage does that do? I can even reduce it and put it in layman's terms for you: cut any other piece of skin/part/protective covering off of your body, the resulting damage clearly won't be good.

I’m sure there are some penises with curves caused by circumcision. That doesn’t mean everyone who is circ’d will have a deformity (other than the circ scar). You’re still preaching to the choir. I’m only disagreeing with the outrageous connections Mr. h0gg is trying to make, not with the barbaric practice of circumcision itself.

…science is an ever rapid evolving thing. While science has not proved these things or may never will you can try to use your own brain and not wait for someone else to tell you what is dark and what is light.

Thinking outside the box is what they call it, I believe. That’s a good thing. But you have to first have an understanding of what is already known before you can start making those not-so-obvious connections. r0ad_h0gg hasn’t done his homework and neither have you. He’s trying to make connections that just won’t work, no matter how “outside the box” he thinks. You can’t just start saying things and expect people to believe them unless you give some rational explanation or connection. Saying something like “the glans is the thermostat of the testicles” is ludicrous. Where’s the proof besides the experience of one person who is attempting to make his circumcision the cause of all his penis problems?

Isn't ED a sexual problem?? Call me crazy, but the only time I need an Erection is for sex….

It is a sexual problem, but it is not caused by having your foreskin removed. Please find one web site that says circumcision is the cause of erectile dysfunction. Just one. Oh, and penis enlargement and anti-circumcision web sites don’t count. Find an erectile dysfunction web site that lists causes of ED. Show me one that includes circumcision in the list.

Define normal penile function??? Normal to me is the way one was born before their foreskin was removed surgically.

Normal penile function includes the ability to become erect, have intercourse, and ejaculate semen. Millions of men who have had a circumcision can do that.

p.s. The same science and doctors and medical journals you put all your stock in, are the same ones that are telling you enlargement is not possible without surgery. Food for thought.

I agree. They should be doing studies and helping men with feelings of inadequacy avoid penile lengthening surgery or wasting money on pills that don’t work. That does not mean that everything else in science and medicine is false.

WestLA, don't despair… I'm not trying to change your mind…I could care less.

Nor I yours. You and r0ad_h0gg will continue to believe what you want to. My task here is to prevent your wild ideas from becoming “fact” and getting perpetuated by those with less of an understanding of the workings of male genitals in general and of circumcision in particular.

But I must offer my congratulations on ruining another good thread here with your “science.” Have a good one. That is all.

I’ll not be baited into an argument by a personal attack. Nor will I be dismissed. Let’s continue.

Road,

You sound very annoyed at having been circumcised. I think I would be too if it had happened to me, its an abhorrent practice, more so because a baby cannot consent.

If you started a thread about it being a bad thing I’m sure sure get a mixed response but you’d get a lot of people agreeing. I think the circulation thingumy is a red herring though.

Originally posted by r0ad_h0gg
From what I understand there are three basic types of erections (mental, tactile, nocturnal). I believe infantile circumcision alters/reduces the tactile produced erection… Scientific studies need to be done on the long term effects of an infantile circumcision in a man's life.

I agree with this train of thought.

Better yet, rather than study it, why can't it just be banned and made criminal like female genital mutilation is now? The thing that amazes me is the number of people of this country that support such practices (of which they have very limited knowledge) simply because it's culturally normal here. The majority of people in the USA apparently have the “follow the leader” type of mentality with out any common sense reasoning. I would like some answers! Who says that male infants need to be and should be genitally altered and what is the reason for it? If any one on this board knows please speak up and tell us all why our bodies/sexuality have been forever changed/reduced with out our permission. Does every on here just simply accept that this is what's been done to them because it's some kind of societal normalcy?

No, some of us are restoring, attending NORM meetings, speaking out against circumcision (even in the very place that pays our salary), and doing lots of other things. However, most people in this country are not interested in this subject. All you can do is keep trying and do what you can as an individual.

Well, I am cut. And most likely I have lost some sensations because of it. But I can never really know can I? I can tell you this … When a girl is giving me oral or I when I enter a vagina, nothing in the world feels better, so I am happy.

Sometimes I feel I’m too sensitive already, the feeling is overwhelming. And I’m horny all the time, every single day, much to the chagrin of my partner, who sometimes isn’t up to the task. And my erections are rock hard, and straight as an arrow.

If circumcisions do in fact cause ED, reduced testosterone, and sex drive, well I’m glad it missed me. Now if I can just get rid of this premature ejaculation problem … and oh yeah grow my dick about 2 inches bigger, I’m all set!

I’m uncut and I can’t even partially cover my glans when erect. So how do you cut guy manage to cover your glans when erect? I belive it has to do with my erect lenght/flaccid lenght ratio being high. If I had been cut, it would have resulted in a deformed penis because of the pressure on the skin when erect. Circumcision should only be done on fully grown persons when there’s a medical condition like phimosis, paraphimosis or excess skin.

They don’t. This is what I’m trying to prevent - taking the things said in this thread and making them into “truths.”

I’m restoring mainly because I like the look. Secondarily because a covered glans will return to it’s natural moist and sensitive state. I’ve never had erection problems (and I even take Propecia), testosterone problems, atrophy or any of the other things that r0ad_h0gg thinks are due to his being cut.

There are a lot of circumcised guys who are quite happy with their situation and that’s how it should be. You deal with what you have, but you can try to prevent it from happening to others (like your own children) so they can experience things as they’re meant to be.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by westla90069
[B]
“I’m restoring mainly because I like the look. Secondarily because a covered glans will return to it’s natural moist and sensitive state.”

so, that is interesting. Do you think nature chooses to give men foreskins for the sake of look of it? I strongly doubt it. Without going deep to science, just lets talk about some common sense here. It is the same argument that many pro circ people use to cut boys - for the “aesthetic” reason, to look “right”, to look “same” or to meet the established cultural/beauty norms of a societal collective nonsenseness. Human body and its parts are designed for the functionality first and the forms/apearances come second.

In your anti-nature (sorry if it is too harsh to say this way) argument/logic you only put one of MANY functions of foreskin next to the look. That alone really weakens most of your points. If a culture (which does not exist) advocate that the look of women’s breast or nipples looked not right or they don’t like the looks of women’s breasts/nipples, would they cut them off? Now its easy to choose to deny the very existing problems of circumcision or the aftermath of this anti-nature practice. A denial also can be used to justify the vicious cycle of this bloody business. Now if the appearance is only what a person is going after I would suggest that the person should change the beauty standard by accepting the cut penis is the normal, beautiful one and that would solve the problem without going through this long and painful, laborious foreskin restoration procedure.

I’m confused. Can you help me understand your position? Are your for or against infant circumcision?

I’m anti-circumcision. I gave my personal reasons for restoration: because I like the look. My reasons for restoration have nothing to do with anyone else and I’m not advocating that as a reason to restore. It’s only my reason. Just like penis enlargement. You do it for your own reasons.

What does my wanting to restore my foreskin for aesthetic reasons have to do with my position against r0ad_h0gg’s various theories regarding why his penis doesn’t work and how does my personal reason for restoring weaken my arguments?