(June 11, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Aegon Wrote: These comments make me feel like I should have some vendetta against my parents for citcumcising me but I really couldn't care less. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

There was a study done in 2015 where uncircumcised men voluntarily were circumcised to test the difference when it comes to sex. The study basically said that there was little to no difference. Add on to that the fact that infections and disease are easier to catch when you're uncircumcised.....I don't know, I don't think it's this terrible barbaric practice everyone is describing.

I get why you'd oppose it, since the infant has no say. But being circumcised or not....it's really not a huge deal

Voluntarily, no? That may be a confounding factor.

(June 11, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Aegon Wrote: These comments make me feel like I should have some vendetta against my parents for citcumcising me but I really couldn't care less. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

There was a study done in 2015 where uncircumcised men voluntarily were circumcised to test the difference when it comes to sex. The study basically said that there was little to no difference. Add on to that the fact that infections and disease are easier to catch when you're uncircumcised.....I don't know, I don't think it's this terrible barbaric practice everyone is describing.

I get why you'd oppose it, since the infant has no say. But being circumcised or not....it's really not a huge deal

Why should you have a vendetta against parents who likely made a decision out of ignorance based on what they thought was best for you?

Show me some scientific evidence that shows a causation (not a correlation) of infections or disease?
Have you ever had an orgasm with your foreskin intact? Can you link the study?
Are you sure your argument is not made out of ignorance? I read a study yesterday where 38 women said that there was no difference in sexual stimulation and 9 said that there was increased sexual pleasure and 0 said that there was decreased pleasure after having their labia and clitoral hood cut. Knowing this, would you also advocate for female circumcision or at least say it's not a big deal?

It's barbaric because it is chopping off part of a baby's genitals for no good reason. How could that ever not be barbaric?

(June 11, 2016 at 3:54 pm)Losty Wrote: I think a handy without lube on a circumcised guy sounds painful. I know some guys who like it. Circumcised guys, in my experience, like a death grip also. It tires your arm out much faster lol

But does that mean then that (most) circumcised guys are basically forced to use lube every time they want to masturbate? I'd see that as another negative of circumcision. I'm sure everyone finds their own ways and means but it still seems to me that having a foreskin makes the whole process a lot easier and more natural.

(June 11, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Aegon Wrote: These comments make me feel like I should have some vendetta against my parents for citcumcising me but I really couldn't care less. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

There was a study done in 2015 where uncircumcised men voluntarily were circumcised to test the difference when it comes to sex. The study basically said that there was little to no difference. Add on to that the fact that infections and disease are easier to catch when you're uncircumcised.....I don't know, I don't think it's this terrible barbaric practice everyone is describing.

I get why you'd oppose it, since the infant has no say. But being circumcised or not....it's really not a huge deal

Which study are you talking about? Please provide a link. (If you are talking about the canadian study which concluded "circumcision might not make much of a difference in sensitivity", then it was done on a handful of participants who were intact and were tested for pain, burning and such and were just recorded it they felt it. If you read the actual report and the original comments you'll see how misleading of a study it is.)

The study below with a sample size of around 1000 concluded it does make a difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102


Aside from that there are hundreds of accounts on youtube and other forums where men who had opted for circumcision after experiencing uncircumcised sex are regretting it and looking for ways to restore their foreskin.


Most people are ok with it because it was done to them as babies and they never got to experience the difference for themselves, moreover, it was drilled into their heads from the start that it was the right thing to do as everyone else around them was doing it too.

I don't know much about the biology of it but it makes sense to me that the foreskin, alongside the glans, is probably the most sensitive part of the penis. Because when it's back and there is an erection it exposes a lot of surface area - due to the stretching - on it's underside, essentially forming part of the shaft near the top, and when it's forward it's rubbing the glans. So without it it looks to me that both of those aspects of stimulation would be lost during sex.

I've had a few piercings done (Tongue, Navel, Back Dimples). I think they're more aesthetically pleasing. Should I have had my daughters pierced when they were babies so they wouldn't have to experience the healing process afterwards if they later in life decide to get piercings (and they very well may)?

I mean I don't think so, but going by some of the arguments here...

(June 11, 2016 at 4:09 pm)Emjay Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 3:54 pm)Losty Wrote: I think a handy without lube on a circumcised guy sounds painful. I know some guys who like it. Circumcised guys, in my experience, like a death grip also. It tires your arm out much faster lol

But does that mean then that (most) circumcised guys are basically forced to use lube every time they want to masturbate? I'd see that as another negative of circumcision. I'm sure everyone finds their own ways and means but it still seems to me that having a foreskin makes the whole process a lot easier and more natural.

It depends as well on how one masturbates. For the circumcised, you definitely need lube if you want to masturbate comfortably without having to worry about what would cause pain and all that. But if you can find a way to masturbate and eventually orgasm without having to rub and up down the penile shaft so feverishly (such as gripping the bottom of the shaft and only moving that part slightly up and down), then it's possible without a lube.

(June 11, 2016 at 4:40 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 4:09 pm)Emjay Wrote: But does that mean then that (most) circumcised guys are basically forced to use lube every time they want to masturbate? I'd see that as another negative of circumcision. I'm sure everyone finds their own ways and means but it still seems to me that having a foreskin makes the whole process a lot easier and more natural.

It depends as well on how one masturbates. For the circumcised, you definitely need lube if you want to masturbate comfortably without having to worry about what would cause pain and all that. But if you can find a way to masturbate and eventually orgasm without having to rub and up down the penile shaft so feverishly (such as gripping the bottom of the shaft and only moving that part slightly up and down), then it's possible without a lube.

Wow, I never knew any of this until now. It's such a shame that so many people have had an important and natural part of themselves removed, for no good reason, leaving them having to jump through all these hoops when what it should be is a perfectly easy and natural process... just grab it and rub up and down... letting the foreskin do the work of stimulating the glans.

You should have a look at the living options though. While generally unecessary some of them can be quite fun.

(June 11, 2016 at 5:00 pm)Emjay Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 4:40 pm)Irrational Wrote: It depends as well on how one masturbates. For the circumcised, you definitely need lube if you want to masturbate comfortably without having to worry about what would cause pain and all that. But if you can find a way to masturbate and eventually orgasm without having to rub and up down the penile shaft so feverishly (such as gripping the bottom of the shaft and only moving that part slightly up and down), then it's possible without a lube.

Wow, I never knew any of this until now. It's such a shame that so many people have had an important and natural part of themselves removed, for no good reason, leaving them having to jump through all these hoops when what it should be is a perfectly easy and natural process... just grab it and rub up and down... letting the foreskin do the work of stimulating the glans.

Ah emjay. In some other place in time and space.

Wait, now I get the need of americans to lube up for masturbation. I always thought Americans were masturbating more than I did in my teen years, thats why the lube. I only got a few blisters in my youth, going dry and all that with palmita del mano derecha.