The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

Equal success at a particular task does not imply equal functionality.

Well, that depends on what one means when one uses the word "function[ality]". The meaning I had in mind when I challenged your assertion is best captured by this dictionary entry: "the technical term for the vital activity of an organ, tissue or cell"

It seems you have a slightly different meaning in mind, that to my mind crosses the bounds of functionality, as described above. But that's OK, I know what you mean now, and I hope you know what I mean, so we understand each other now, which is what matters.

The reason I'm trying to point this out is because I believe many people see the functionality of the foreskin as distinct from that of the penis, as if it's an addition, when in fact its development and existence is symbiotic. Any separation of functionality is an artificial construct.

I agree, using your meaning of "functionality".
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Yes. Which is why I think a mere inclination isn't enough to ensure that his son isn't circumcised.

last post by Upchurch said:
...we'll listen to what the doctor says, but unless she has some super compelling reasons to do so, we are not going to have the kid circumcised.

Is that only a mere inclination?

I think it sounds quite promising. I tend to exaggerate in the opposite direction of what I want to believe as an attempt to counter-act bias, and I have an awareness of the potential power we (physicians) wield.

Linda
 
Allow me to clarify then.

We will not be circumcising our son for any religious, social (including sexual), or benign medical preventative reasons.

If the doctor comes to us and says, "ZOMG, Baby Upchurch has the ultra rare Brain Eating Foreskin Syndrome! That thing has to come off now!!", then we will have our son circumcised.
 
One advantage of having a foreskin?
Retained sensitivity of the glans penis.

One advantage of having no foreskin?
Slightly reduced sensitivity of the glans penis.
 
Allow me to clarify then.

We will not be circumcising our son for any religious, social (including sexual), or benign medical preventative reasons.

If the doctor comes to us and says, "ZOMG, Baby Upchurch has the ultra rare Brain Eating Foreskin Syndrome! That thing has to come off now!!", then we will have our son circumcised.

Shame on you Upchurch! It is not a disease if when your son grows up he wishes to eat Brian's foreskin, there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual.














:duck:
 
I honestly don't get how reduced sensitivity could be good in ANY way at all. I have read some accounts (sorry no source at the moment) that removing the foreskin could be the cause of premature ejaculation in some cases because with the foreskin intact it feels different and you have more sensory control or something (but this could be bs). Is circumcision recommended for premature ejaculation? From what I've seen it's not recommended as a cure. Frankly the whole concept of premature ejac. seems more like a psychological issue to me. I would be highly interested if anyone has a study has has rates of premature ejaculation for circ'd and uncirc'd groups. Again I think there is VERY little data on this issue. We are cutting off peoples junk without really knowing the effects (specifically I'm thinking of the qualia effects which are incredibly hard to measure).

This article reads like a lot of conflicting BS and seems typical of the types of lameass studies and conclusions that come from this stuff.
http://men.webmd.com/news/20040202/adult-circumcision-affects-sexual-performance

Here are some choice quotes:
The results: Everything was working smoothly -- except ejaculation, which took "significantly longer" after circumcision.

"We can say with more certainty that adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function," writes Senkul. The increase in time to reach ejaculation "can be considered an advantage rather than a complication."


Most adult patients "are fairly motivated," Ritenour says. "I think that's one reason why we don't hear about changes in sexual function. It's not something forced on them. Motivation has a lot to do with how they do afterward."

Sure, sex will feel different to a newly circumcised adult, he says. "You've just lost skin. You're used to having something there, and it's different when it's gone. That's probably why ejaculation time is different, because it feels different."

Considered an advantage? Like most men don't take long enough or something? I don't get that.

The last sentence just seems like a bizarre conclusion to reach. They BROKE your penis that's why it takes longer. Seriously, it just "feels different"???


Slate did some unscientific stuff that's interesting to read. Especially about some of the men who were circumcised as adults and missed out on the feelings.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136062/

In the disappointed camp are men who parted with their dearly remembered foreskins at the urging of doctors. Stewart, now 40, was circumcised after a rugby accident at 19. The snip was botched, the skin on his penis hardened, and "less sensation in sex resulted," he said. "I really, really wish I hadn't consented to the procedure." Many men were circumcised because of phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin becomes tight and doesn't fully retract. While some found relief, others were dismayed when they later learned they could have tried another, less invasive treatment. One man remembered discovering masturbation accidentally as a child thanks to his "extremely sensitive" foreskin. A doctor convinced him to get circumcised in his 30s after treatment of a minor skin problem left his foreskin relatively inelastic. "I was afraid I'd miss that feeling," he wrote. He did. Charlie blamed his high-school sex-ed teacher for "making me feel even more of an outsider" by saying that uncircumcised penises were less clean and failing to address how uncircumcised men should put on a condom. Of his circumcision at age 20, he said, "The loss of sensitivity is my biggest loss to date." It doesn't help that when women he is dating learn he was snipped electively as an adult, "every single one of them sighs."
 
Unless it's a really short time between arousal and ejaculation, I thought the definition of premature ejaculation was determined by how inadequate a man's sexual partner can make him feel.

I imagine before women expected to enjoy sex, premature ejaculation was much less common.

Damn feminists!
 
So there are lots of anecdotes out there, and I think they don't really prove anything one way or the other.
It's quite conceivable that many men particularly feel a loss of sensitivity once they are circumcised as adults, and that detracts from their sexual enjoyment. However, they grew up through puberty with a foreskin and their sensory neural pathways have become "imprinted" during this stage of their sexual development. It's likely that a lot of their sexual pleasure came from stimulation of the glans, and so subsequently the loss of this sensitivity is a major loss to them.
Conversely, those who have been circumcised in infancy still have highly enjoyable sexual sensations from their penises, perhaps with more sensory stimuli coming from the shaft of the penis rather than the glans itself, which has become desensitised to a degree.
The whole sexual experience entails more than just neural stimuli from a single anatomical part of the genitals.
 
I've read (and expect) circumcised boys/men have to be somewhat more careful than their intact peers to avoid "roughing themselves up" when masturbating.
 
So there are lots of anecdotes out there, and I think they don't really prove anything one way or the other.
It's quite conceivable that many men particularly feel a loss of sensitivity once they are circumcised as adults, and that detracts from their sexual enjoyment. However, they grew up through puberty with a foreskin and their sensory neural pathways have become "imprinted" during this stage of their sexual development. It's likely that a lot of their sexual pleasure came from stimulation of the glans, and so subsequently the loss of this sensitivity is a major loss to them.
Conversely, those who have been circumcised in infancy still have highly enjoyable sexual sensations from their penises, perhaps with more sensory stimuli coming from the shaft of the penis rather than the glans itself, which has become desensitised to a degree.
The whole sexual experience entails more than just neural stimuli from a single anatomical part of the genitals.


Of course this is just your opinion right? You don't have anything to back this up do you? I'm geniunely interested in studies about this.
 
Considered an advantage? Like most men don't take long enough or something? I don't get that.

I don't quite know how to respond to this, but I know a response is necessary! Enough said, I guess.

The whole sexual experience entails more than just neural stimuli from a single anatomical part of the genitals.

Something tells me this is a regular excuse of yours. I'd choose the glans over the shaft any time, by a large margin.

I've read (and expect) circumcised boys/men have to be somewhat more careful than their intact peers to avoid "roughing themselves up" when masturbating.

In group sessions, maybe. Alone, hard to imagine!

AND when zipping up..Ouch! I wish I hadn't said that.:(

I think you'll find it's the other way around (Oh, I feel a "said the ... to the ..." moment coming on now!).
 
I don't quite know how to respond to this, but I know a response is necessary! Enough said, I guess.

Graphic sex details below (no pics just me explaining stuff but I don't want to go outside of any rules here, it's clinical)


I'm honestly trying to understand here. Honesty and candor would be a good place to start. For example a "standard" vanilla sex session for me would be 1) some amount of foreplay both giving and getting possibly with orgasms 2) penetration until the woman climaxes first 3) my orgasm (brought on by me deciding to make it occur). The "control" of my orgasm seems simple and natural to me. I have seen some references to how not having a foreskin could possibly effect the control mechanism and possibly cause premature ejaculation not under your control. This is why I would love to see some data about this issue comparing cut/uncut men.
 
Unless it's a really short time between arousal and ejaculation, I thought the definition of premature ejaculation was determined by how inadequate a man's sexual partner can make him feel.

I imagine before women expected to enjoy sex, premature ejaculation was much less common.

Damn feminists!

seems to me like the frequency of it (like the majority of the time you have sex it occurs) or climaxing pre intercourse is what makes a diagnosis.
 
seems to me like the frequency of it (like the majority of the time you have sex it occurs) or climaxing pre intercourse is what makes a diagnosis.

But what is "it"? How do you define premature?
 
Graphic sex details below (no pics just me explaining stuff but I don't want to go outside of any rules here, it's clinical)


I'm honestly trying to understand here. Honesty and candor would be a good place to start. For example a "standard" vanilla sex session for me would be 1) some amount of foreplay both giving and getting possibly with orgasms 2) penetration until the woman climaxes first 3) my orgasm (brought on by me deciding to make it occur). The "control" of my orgasm seems simple and natural to me. I have seen some references to how not having a foreskin could possibly effect the control mechanism and possibly cause premature ejaculation not under your control. This is why I would love to see some data about this issue comparing cut/uncut men.

There's the rub, though(!). "Standard vanilla sex" for many men, I've heard, falls way short for their female partners, in terms of time. So yes, it seems that many men do not last long enough.
 
Of course this is just your opinion right? You don't have anything to back this up do you? I'm geniunely interested in studies about this.
Yes it's an opinion. Like just about everything else I have read on this thread too, including your contributions. But there is some data to support it.
If someone here has hard (no pun intended) scientific evidence that the overall sexual experience of uncircumcised males is superior to that of circumcised males I would like to see it.


ETA - Found some papers/comments with further references on the general topic
Here
Here
 
Last edited:
So there are lots of anecdotes out there, and I think they don't really prove anything one way or the other.

And we'll probably never know, since sexual pleasure is ultimately subjective. If you can imagine it, someone probably gets off doing it.

It's quite conceivable that many men particularly feel a loss of sensitivity once they are circumcised as adults, and that detracts from their sexual enjoyment. However, they grew up through puberty with a foreskin and their sensory neural pathways have become "imprinted" during this stage of their sexual development. It's likely that a lot of their sexual pleasure came from stimulation of the glans, and so subsequently the loss of this sensitivity is a major loss to them.

Conversely, those who have been circumcised in infancy still have highly enjoyable sexual sensations from their penises, perhaps with more sensory stimuli coming from the shaft of the penis rather than the glans itself, which has become desensitised to a degree.

I brought this up earlier, but no one latched on to the idea. I suppose it depends on how hard-wired body image is in the brain. IIRC, V.S. Ramachadran recalls a patient with sensations in a phantom limb they were born without.

What is almost certain is with no physical stimulation possible from the foreskin, other body parts mapped close to the foreskin on the homunculus encroach onto the sensory stimulation-deprived cortex. Do (at least some) circumcised men have 'phantom' foreskins?

The whole sexual experience entails more than just neural stimuli from a single anatomical part of the genitals.

I agree. But it also generally involves mechanical stimulation of the genitals. Having a foreskin makes mechanical stimulation easier. Does anyone really need a scientific experiment to demonstrate this?
 

Back
Top Bottom