What is a foreskin like?

What is a foreskin like?
And the rise of the foreskin.

I actually miss mine and was but a new born when I got the chop.
The trend is not to remove them now in New Zealand.
A new age of sexual freedom will be on the rise.
All those moves circumsized people don't climax from nor enjoy so much due to lack of sensitivity of the head glans: sodomy, oral sex, etc.

The simplicity of male sexual gratification is coming back along with everything else.

But will there be problems?

The ease of transmission of sexually transmitted
infections is supposed to be greatly increased when
it's not chopped is one. Some guys might resent that.

Other people will be much easier to use for sexual
pleasure in such a wonderful variety of ways. Will
they learn to accept it? Is it a great return to
nature? The garden queen and her perfect son?

That said it's Likely that the police will become involved.

Your thoughts on the rise of of the foreskin?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes those who are circumsized is truly horrible. you severe something like 2000 nerves and this is why males who are circumsized have no sensitivity. i think it should be banned personally.

the police will become involved

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

what are you talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's kind of like carrying a knife without a sheath. It will get dull. And the container is handy, it travels along. With little boys the foreskin may be tight and sometimes stuff gets under there. After puberty it is much easier to clean in the shower.

Hope that helps.

Had to tell this to our doctor several times as Merican doctors snip those things on babies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Circumcision is, and always was, a pointlessly barbaric exercise (except in cases where there is/was a legitimate medical reason to do it).

Personally, I can't really describe what it's like to have a foreskin, because I don't know what it's like not to have one. It's just something that's always been there. I can only imagine that if circumcised people could somehow get theirs back, it'd just feel like a there was a bunch stretchy skin hugging the tip of the penis (although such a sensation is not something that an uncircumcised person even notices). The experience of the retraction of the foreskin certainly involves some sensation however. It's quite unique.

When I was a youngster my mother schooled me well on the importance of retracting the foreskin to wash the tip of the penis, and then to return it to it's 'default configuration'. I do remember that it wasn't always the most pleasant exercise (I wouldn't say it was necessarily painful however), but as I got older everything loosened up and it was no longer an issue. This is typical.

I've spoken to many friends about this. The general consensus among those who are uncircumcised is that they wouldn't want to be without their foreskins, whereas those who are don't see the issue. They still work.

 

How can you miss something that you never had?:shrug:

 

For some of us the sensitivity remains despite that the protection has been forcibly removed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For those, it is "missed" and would be a blessing indeed to have it back, even though it was taken from us when we were but babes. It chafes when you move and there is no easy remedy.

We have gone round and round on this topic here a few times over the years now.

 

What a shitload of BS. Circumcision (male circumcision, that is, "female circumcision" is a whole different story) is not like castration or something, if there's really a detectable loss of sensitivity, the degree that it happens not affect sex negatively at all, it's by no means "horrible". I guess that the odds are even that circumcised males will tend to have less problems with premature ejaculation at the same time they won't have higher rates of impotence or "dull penis" or whatever. If there are bad effects in most cases (not resulting from improper procedure/accidents) it's probably they can be more solidly attributed to nocebo effects coming from this sort of BS of "mutilation" talk and whatnot, rather than something of actual physical origin.


Is the whole cry against male circumcision an anti-semite thing or is it just something like "female circumcision is bad, so male circumcision got to be bad too"?

 

No it's not anti semitisium any more than opposition to female genital mutilation is anti Islam. Any form of genital mutilation (male or female) is done without consent and YES it has long term conquences. Parents should only ever be authorising medical procedures because of medical NEED. Not to "make there child look like dad", not for religious reasons and not because "girls will expect it". The amusing thing is originally Jews did it as part of the ceremony of becoming a man and that might well be ok because then at least it is the persons CHOICE to have it done or not.

As for the damage it causes you need to look at how the penis is designed. The foreskin has more nerve endings in it than in your finger tips for one thing and there fore you lose all that sensitivity straight out. The next job it performs is it protects the gland itself and it keeps it moist. Without that it's exposed to everything and when you combine that with the western fashion of wearing tight underwear it's obvious that it's going to cause irritation and the bodies response to that is either to be in constant pain or it reduces sensitivity. So at best your condemning children who have no choice in the matter to a reduced quality of sex life and yes there are those who lose the ability to have sex all together

 

This info is not going to stop most religious people from getting their children circumcised.

 

Din.t miss it when you urinate at least you don't miss the bowl , many time it interferes in urinating and you piss out of the bowl.

 

So it would be a matter of "female 'circumcision' is bad, so male circumcision ought to be as bad so we can whine and create a cult of victim identity."

Male circumcision cannot be seriously said to be "genital mutilation", it can't be seriously compared with female "circumcision", this is either ignorant or outright dishonest, it's a language trick akin to pro-life conservatives labeling abortion "baby murder", it's just for shock value. Virtually all circumcised people don't feel in any way more mutilated than someone who trimmed his own nails or who has had earrings since an early age, they only start "missing" they foreskin after being brainwashed by people saying they're victims of mutilation and BS talk of that kind, not from physical consequences of the procedure itself.

Pure BS theory. People who are circumcised don't have reduced sex life quality, and for those who do, the more likely cause is the "you're a victim of mutilation" brainwashing, since the vast majority don't have this problem. Either that or a combination of factors that is just attributed to that in a ad hoc ergo propter hoc fashion.


You guys speak as if jews didn't have any enjoyment of sex and were able to reproduce only by extracting sperm with a seringe or something. Stop thinking reality conforms with your pet theories by decree and go check the facts.

 

From wikipedia:

 

OR made-up info will help a stealth religious strategy of opposition of practices that they oppose mostly for religious reasons:

Just like the "intelligent design" movement, the opposition to vaccinations produced from fetal cell lines, or the opposition of contraceptives to stop the AIDS epidemics in Africa.

 

So you don't understand the concept of consent then? If a person wishes to alter there body thats compleatly fine but it's up to them to make that choice, not there parents.

Oh and BTW
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/07/removing-pleasure-how-male-genital.html?m=1
http://somethingincommon.gov.au/get-inspired/ending-male-infant-genital-mutilation-australia
http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life
http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/infant-male-circumcision-is-genital.html?m=1
http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

 

Basically the question isn't wether this is anti Semitic because it's not but rather why don't you support autonomy, the right to decide what happens to your body? Let's say that it was a cultural practice to cut off the little finger of your left hand. Now there would be some loss of function but in general it would probably have little noticeable effect on the child's life and they would learn to adapt, so should that be allowed to be carried out on children to young to give informed consent? My ethics classes would say definitely not because it's a procedure without medical need performed in the absences of informed consent by the person its performed on. Parents should only be able to consent to a medically nessary procedure

 

I read through all the comments, and no where did anyone mention what women like. I asked many women which way they like it best, and not one of them like uncircumcised men. When asked what they didn't like about uncircumcised men, the reply was the smell and I said maybe they needed to wash more often and the response was most of the time the smell was still there even right after a shower. I won't be asking for mine back anytime soon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Kill where are you from? Because I know for a fact you wouldn't get that reaction here. Firstly the foreskin actually increases the sensation for a women, secondly in most of the world except the US it's the exception not the rule

However Let's concider the argument made in africa by mothers, that if they don't mutilate there daughters that men will be less attracted to them. Is that a valid argument? Of course not. Once again the problem isn't FGM OR MGM, if people want to do vertually anything to themselves they should be able to chose to do that. The problem is the lack of consent

 

The problem with that is, it is not a choice most men would be willing to make. Just the thought of doing that as an adult, is a memory I could gladly live without. You may be right about the rest of the world but I don't live in the rest of the world and the women I know that tried it both ways prefer a circumcised man over a non-circumcised man. So it's obvious the women you know have never been with circumcised men, so they don't know what they are missing.

 

Um no, actually I would say YOUR women don't know what they are missing, the foreskin plays a significant part in female stimulation so your not only depriving yourself of stimulation but your partner as well. Also think about your comment, "it's not a choice most men would gladly make". You don't see something wrong with that? Why would you think it's acceptable to force something on someone that they wouldn't chose themselves.

The obvious analogy is the deaf community. Would you think it was ok to deafen a perfectly normal child so it was like there parents? It like you isn't going to know anything different but it DOES make a difference. Once again there are more nerve endings in that piece of skin than in your fingertips. So let's say mum and dad burn off your fingertips so that there is a reduced feeling there, would you be ok with that? Do you think that would damage your life?

 

http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://mobile.goaskalice.columbia.edu/circumcision-and-sex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin
http://people.howstuffworks.com/circumcision1.htm
Oh and according to this http://www.restoringtally.com/blog/2010/12/women-overwhelmingly-prefer-sex-man-who-has-foreskin even for the US your wrong. Your partners were probably trying not to hurt your feelings

They are sacrificing levels of stimulation for themselves as well
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html