I then retract my previous statement. However I do believe that you trying to change fully functioning males in the sexual aspect, into believing that they are missing something to integral, as to not be able to have enjoyable sex. This however is not the case as I'm sure 99.9% of circumcised males can attest to. The sole fact that they missing skin does not make them inadequate in any way, shape or form. I myself am missing a kidney, but that does not make my body mutilated, or disfigured. I am still capable of being a productive citizen (aside from military duties) and can still function in normal society. The same can be said about the penis. Just because it may be missing some skin, some nerves, does not mean it can not still serve it's purpose, as both a means of reproduction and a means of male pleasure.
-
Would you have your child circumsized?
-
Thank you, BMOC, for recognizing the variability and eccentricity of human experience, but I fear that I owe you an apology. It was mortifying to discover that anyone might suspect that my purpose is to disparage their sexual potency, when exactly the opposite is true. My only intention is to INCREASE and to MAXIMIZE sensation, while helping ensure that the next generation won't have to suffer genital mutilation, because of the ignorance and cupidity of parents who agree to mutilate the genitals of their children out of a paralyzing fear that they might be "different". When it comes to social conformity, genital mutilation is always antithetical to the best interests of the individual. Knowledge and understanding of natural function being central to a healthy sense of self, an individual's feelings of shame, by contrast, proves always to be self-defeating: harmful to life and limb. Therefore, only you, only the individual, can allow feelings of inadequacy affect sexual function. We, each of us, knows what we experience, and words, alone, cannot change the level of sensitivity felt by the body. If the mind cannot accept the truth, then, well, work on the mind.Again, there is little that a circumcised man can do to alter his sexual sensitivity, save for restoring his foreskin, but he must first understand and accept the fact that he isn't fully functional, compared to what he might experience were he still intact. Men can function without a kidney or a lung, without limbs, ears, eyes or nose, but the penis cannot function, normally, if it has been mutilated. Neither can the individual function without those normal, natural aids to sensation. As you indicated, a person can fulfill certain minimal functions, despite amputations, but no one would agree that amputations are either desirable or ideal.As I wrote previously ... we need to maximize individual circumstance and potential, while including bodily integrity among the rights guaranteed to the next generation. Korydon http://www.norm-phoenix.org/
-
A cut penis can function normally.
-
In reply to:A cut penis can funcion normally. It's not fair to others, Amanda, nor is it enlightening for me to say yes, while you say no in ten brief syllables, without investigating in depth the nature of the intact penis in its role during sexual intercourse, as contrasted with the facts and consequences of genital mutilation. Perhaps we can agree to say that a "cut", or mutilated penis, functions as well as a circumcised penis can 'funcion', while an intact penis was designed by natural selection, through eons of time, to function as well as, what: God and Nature intended? It's not enough to be satisfied with half a loaf, though many of us have been forced by circumstances and through our own ignorance (and through the ignorance of parents and the venality of the medical establishment, too) to do just that. However, it is just short of criminal when someone encourages the genital mutilation of helpless children by subscribing to the erroneous idea that genital mutilation has no consequences.A comparison between the remarkable similarity in function and form between the foreskin and the eyelids can be instructive. Tear or cut off a person's eyelids, and sight is still possible, but the consequences can be as rudely debilitating to true function, just as is the tearing or cutting away of the foreskin. Now you may have not noticed the difference, but then, you are intact.A limited experience with intact and genitally mutilated men can be no substitute. If you wish to convince otherwise, cut off your bits and let us know if you can 'funcion' normally. Having experienced sex with and without a foreskin, without having eroticized one or the other, and with the ability to look at and dispassionately judge the difference, I can state categorically that the mutilated penis does not in any way function with the marvelous facility natural to the intact variety.Korydon
-
I'm sorry, but any adult that got circumcised who says that he did not lose sensitivity is either lying, or he did not have a fully functional foreskin. The fernulum is an extremely sensitive part of the penis, and if it were removed, it would certainly detract from the overall pleasure. The glans would HAVE TO lose sensitivity. An uncut man could never leave his exposed glans in his pants. Any time I take a piss and forget to roll my foreskin back up, I notice it straight away. It has to be covered by the foreskin. The fact that a circumcised male can, must mean that he lost some sensitivity in the glans. An intact man's glans is perfectly smooth, whereas a circumcised man's becomes rougher and thicker. Even if a circumcised man's glans does not lose any sensitivity, his overall sexual pleasure must be reduced simply by the removal of the thousands of sensitive nerve endings in both the fernulum and the foreskin. I'm not saying that circumcised men can't enjoy sex...they certainly can. But they definately lose some sensation in their penises.
-
BMOC, it is not that much harder take care of an intact penis. Also, the foreskin does not usually detatch from the glans until later in life when the "babies" are old enough to take proper care of them.
Circumcised men clean their penises too (or at least I hope they do). For an intact man, the only difference is that you have to roll the foreskin back. I can do that in less than a second.
A circumcised man cleans his penis like this:
1. Wash with soap and water
2. RinseAn intact man cleans his like this:
1. Retract foreskin
2. Wash with soap and water
3. Rinse
4. Roll foreskin back upSo an uncut guy might have to spend an extra 5-6 seconds MAX washing his penis.
-
yes...i thought i established it is not that much more work...if they guy's skin retracts. But there are those who suffer from phimosis, and those who just haven't taken the time to retract their skin, even though it may be detached from the glans...to me, that, to me, is a little bit "nasty" when it is detached but the skin won't retract due to tightness, or whatever and the smegma is still being produced. Not being able to clean the smegma, which people say has a different odor, is what makes me happy i'm cut, REGARDLESS of how much time it takes.
-
Hi, Blade07: As you and I agree without exception on the value of the foreskin, I'm presuming that you meant to address your above message to Amanda, who wrote that she finds no difference in 'funcion' when comparing intact men with men who have been genitally mutilated. Of course your statements are correct, but, in truth, I believe that Amanda meant to suggest that SHE has noticed no difference ... in 'funcion', her male consorts having, evidently, satisfied HER. The arguments for and against genital mutilation having been addressed almost ad infinitum, the need, here, is to encourage more precision in thought and word. As we debated the question of penile function on a previous thread, Amanda's brief, additional statement adds nothing to the equation ... and, as noted, its imprecision merely serves to confuse the issue. That someone can't tell the difference between an intact or a mutilated penis not only doesn't justify the mutilation of millions of helpless infant boys in the USA, it absolutely demonstrates the cruelty and needless barbarousness of the procedure. That doctors and hospitals hide their savagery behind closed doors and sound-proofed walls is a telling indictment of the practice, and for anyone to stress only their pleasure, while ignoring the suffering of others, is cruel and heartless, indeed. We can only assume that Amanda didn't analyze her thought before giving it expression.At first Kristen O'Hara didn't notice the difference, either, but with time and study, she figured it out. The book: Sex As Nature Intended It, c. 2001 (www.SexAsNatureIntendedIt.com), written with her foreskin-restored husband, Jeffrey, is the result. Amanda is a caring and thoughtful person, and I'm sure that her empathy for others and her value judgements will, in time, be better informed by experience and understanding. Korydon
-
Blade07, I agree that the foreskin cleanliness is a spurious justification for genital mutilation, but the use of soaps should NOT be encouraged when washing the penis. Harsh soaps tend to kill the "good" bacteria living naturally beneath the foreskin and on the glans penis, and their absence makes the region susceptible to unnecessary and unpleasant infections. Clear, clean water, only, (or with the assistance of a wash cloth) is entirely sufficient. Indeed, one of the unfortunate consequences of circumcision is the almost universal necessity of using artificial lubricants as an aid during both masturbation and sexual intercourse. Harsh soaps are required in order to clean these unpleasant, sticky, chemical substances from the genitals, with the result that circumcised men are almost constantly involved in a continuous effort to maintain, artifically, a condition which, to intact men, is natural, uncomplicated, and practically maintenance free. That someone would wish to mutilate their penis in order not to spend a second or two rinsing beneath their foreskin is an example of a curious lack of thought and reason. Chopping off one's fingers to avoid having to wash them is similarly ridiculous, as the remaining stumps would become even more difficult to clean. Yet we wash our hands and fingers constantly throughout each day without complaint. One has to wonder the actual reason why certain men exult in circumcision. The impetus for obsessions with genital mutilation usually lodge somewhere in childhood trauma, whether or not the individual views the contributing incident in a negative or positive light.These facts, of course, don't address the question of circumcised men forcing chemical lubricants into the vaginal cavity, during sexual intercourse. While it may be relatively easy for a circumcised man to wash harsh chemicals from his exposed penis, the poor woman cannot easily flush them from within her body. This may help reveal why women are ten times more susceptible than men to the debilitating consequences of the incurable disease Lichen Sclerosus (also known as BXO - balanitis xerotica obliterans). Korydon
-
Uhhh becasue Blade posted twice and he was replying seperately to each post?
-
Korydon, I was just replying to the claim that men who were circumcised in adulthood didn't notice any difference in pleasure. In response to BMOC, yes cleanliness is a problem if the foreskin does not roll back. But that is a DISORDER. It is NOT THE NORM. I am sure that the majority of intact men do not have problems with foreskin tightness etc. I never had any problems. There are many men with those problems that come to these boards, but that's what these boards are for; to find answers to problems. That does not mean that these people are representative of the whole population of uncircumcised men. The majority of men on this planet are not circumcised. The majority of them will or are currently engaging in some sort of sexual relations. The fact that most of them can have sex without problems must mean that they have fully functional foreskins (if the foreskin couldn't roll back, they wouldn't be able to have sex properly). So, if their foreskins can roll back...chances are they are cleaning under them. Any guy that didn't clean under his foreskin would probably be so unclean that he would never get a girl in bed in the first place due to body order. If left for a long time, an intact penis will begin to smell bad. But it's like that with hygene in general: if you didn't bathe for a long time...you wouldn't smell very pleasant.We don't remove various other body parts because of a small possibility of problems with them in the future. It should not be any difference with the foreskin. Just because a minority of men will have problems with their foreskins doesn't mean we should remove them in all men.
-
I understand, Blade, and thanks. Obviously, our posts are meant for more than just one another, and though we address them to an individual, the intent is often to go beyond, to larger questions and to a bigger audience. By the way, millions of men worldwide live their entire lives without being able to retract, and they have no big problem with undue odour. I, myself, when I was unretractable, had no discernable problem with hygiene, though the opening was no more than 5 mm in diameter. In cases of severe foreskin tightness, urine itself, a sterile liquid, often washes the inner foreskin clean. Western cultures, especially that of the USA, seem to have a preoccupation and a horror for natural body odours, all out of proportion with the nature of the body and of sex. The genitals of American women smell far more pungent than the foreskin of any intact man, and few people advocate female genital mutilation, or complain too loudly. Indeed, some men are ravenous for the smell of female genitals.By the way, your nickname is the same as that of an acquaintance in Canada, but his alias is tragically related to his preoccupation with cutting (you know where), so I find addressing you as "Blade" eerily reminiscent of his obsession. If you don't mind my asking, how did you come by the name? Knowing its genesis will give you the distinction which you deserve, while helping me separate the two of you in my mind. With due respect,Korydon
-
In reply to: Western cultures, especially that of the USA, seem to have a preoccupation and a horror for natural body odours, all out of proportion with the nature of the body and of sex. Very true. Who likes the smell of Body Odor? Some things, no matter how "natural" are not appealing. In reply to: The genitals of American women smell far more pungent than the foreskin of any intact man, Don't ladies in every country, not just the USA have a certain odor?
-
In reply to: Very true. Who likes the smell of Body Odor? Some things, no matter how "natural" are not appealing. LOL, have you been to Europe? Deoderant isn't too big over there! No joke, it's sick!!
-
yep, lol lived in Germany for four years. I found that it was really only an issue amongst the older germans, that and not shaving, but the closer you got to my generation, the more common it got to shave ur legs/pits and to use deodorant and perfume.
-
There's no real significance to the name "blade". I think I just used it as a name because I had just finished watching one of the blade movies (those movies starring Wesley Snipes) when I signed up here. I just attached 07 because that is the year I'll be graduating from college.
-
In reply to:
Don't ladies in every country, not just the USA have a certain odor?
What he is saying is that in the US, womens' vaginas are not cut up to eliminate the possibility of bad odors, yet one of the most popular reasons cited for male circumcision is "cleanliness" (usually referring to smegma build up in an intact penis).
As has been pointed out, an intact penis can be just as clean as a circumcised penis with at most a few extra seconds of maintenance per day. But even if a man does not wash under his foreskin as frequently as he should and smemgma accumulates, the smell is still not as pungent as that of a woman's vagina.
-
yes i know he was using the vagina as a comparitive object, but my question was, why he chose to use only US women. Except in countries where vaginal circumcisions are practiced, all vagina's in essence look the same. So why he chose to just say US women sounded like he was trying to say American women smell worse or have a different odor then the rest of the women in the world.
-
Yes, but the vagina does not work as a comparison in most other countries. The United States is the only country that performs routine circumcision for non-religious reasons. This is why (I think) he only referred to American women. The analogy does not work for countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel etc. where male circumcisions are performed for religious reasons as opposed to here, where "cleanliness" (i.e. smell) is cited as one of the reasons.
-
I would apparently it is more healthy and hygenic to be circumsised but i would only get it done in a hospital which is obviousley the safest place.