Circumsized or uncircumsized?

so your saying that the body specificity the penis can defy the law of conservation of mass. yes the body can grow more skin when needed. but the foreskin is not just extra skin. the foreskin has structures one called the ridged band. that the body can't regrow. the foreskin is a mobile layer of highly nerve laden tissue that the body can't completely regrow. and when the foreskin is there the penis is bigger. and when its gone the penis is smaller. to say anything else would violate simple logic.

 

uncircumsized

 

I appreciate your logic - I truly do. I, as I sure you have guessed, am cut. I have enjoyed sexual encounters with others and practiced self gratification. Can not imagine having any more pleasure from stimulation w/o total loss of control.
Fact of the matter - cut can not imagine what uncut feels or vice-versa. That is our manhood and we generally are proud defensive of that unique little organ.
We had our son who is now 30 cut so he would look like his dad and for what we considered health issues. Would I do it now - I would have to give it serious thought. To say that millions and millions of parents are unfit for having their sons cut is uninformed and egocentric.
Honestly though - I think it makes little difference in pleasure one way or the other. Modern health issues probably should decide.

 

Ddoright thank you for talking with me. i am cut as well, but i can imagine what it would be like to be intact. i talk with people about this because. the more people i talk to about this the more i learn. and i have been able to sharpen my logic.

i have some other questions for you Ddoright.
does your son completely look like you. eyes, mouth, nose, hair color, body shape. fat muscle ratio, ext. will you also copy your scars onto your child? my guess is no. so why does his penis kinda need to match yours? a child is not a clone of one or both of his parents. the child may share similar traits but over time the child's own unique traits will show. and remember this were circumcised too but there was a time when the father would not be circumcised but had his kid cut at that point the child would be look different then the father. the child should match the father reason is BS its a play to vanity. is it really worth causing a baby that much pain just so the child's genitals would look kind of like the parents. knowing that when grown he could be bigger or smaller then you. the child's physical appearance is the child's choice. you would want to decide how your body looks right. so why change the appearance of the child's penis without his consent why not wait until he can give his consent. and if you wait the doctor can use effective pain meds, and give you pain control meds for the healing process.

the ability to choose what we do with our own body including appearance is our most important freedom.
choice is important without it we are not free

 

I can see you are very passionate about this subject - and I can see why it would be troublesome. There are definitely negatives to the procedure - an positives. I really don't fixate on this since I function very well sexually. My son is a young healthy sexually active male. I don't believe he feels deprived of anything by the missing foreskin.
There may be something to having a commonality between father and son. I do wish my son to be somewhat like me - he is an extension of me as I am of my father and he his father and on and on. We make hundreds or thousand of decisions for our children. We do the best we can.
I am sorry this arouses such anger in you - I think, perhaps you have worked this into a matter of torture or abuse when it is not. Every Jewish parent has this procedure performed and they have survived for thousands of years. I would hope that you find another concern of more consequence to express your passion over.
Let the parents decide on the welfare of their children. That is the most productive method of raising a successful family. No one, NO ONE, loves someone like a father loves a son. I hope that if you have not, you will have one of your own someday - and then the decision will be yours.

 

Ddoright it is good to talk with you. but you mistake my passion for anger. while talking with you i have not been very angry. i think that i am glad that i can share my knowledge with you.

i think that a parent should be able decide about the welfare of there children. but removing healthy tissue and causing that much pain to a baby. goes beyond child health. and the fact that we have clean water and antibiotics means that IF the child gets an infection a simple round of pills or creme or gel will kill the infection.

women are already protected from all genital modification including a pinprick to draw a single drop of blood. male children should have the same protection.

all i want is to give the male children the ability to choose what happens to there own body.

 

I don't believe you.

Your assertion that you can cut away a body part and watch the body grow more is an insult to anyone who has suffered an amputation or any lost body part. It's certainly an affront to thousands of cut-at-birth men whose penile skin is so tight upon erection that they are in pain. See their photos by Googling "circumcision damage" or by browsing the foreskin restoration progress galleries at http://Foreskin-Restoration.net/forum. There you'll see some guys whose erect length increased by 1/2" or more when they expanded their skin. The lack of skin often keeps the penis from attaining its full erect length.

Don't compare the foreskin lost to the surviving shaft skin. The foreskin is the most richly nerve-laden part of the penis. Also, the slinky slack skin tube envelopes the glans with each withdrawal motion so instead of the bare mucosa of the glans rubbing against the vagina, you'd have the glans within a double sleeve of skin. The perceived glans diameter is quite literally WIDER by 4 skin thicknesses when the foreskin is present. MORE penis.

Further, the foreskin protects the glans and mucosa from drying and abrasion most of the 24-hour day to keep it supple and pleasure-receptive. Without the protective skin the mucosa dries and toughens, the very reason suggested to explain the supposed HIV risk reduction to cut African adults (although that has just been quietly debunked by the very people who suggested it in the first place http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc...icleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015552).

Your lack of imagination is no justification to take a healthy normal body part from an infant who can't give his own rational informed consent.

You'll certainly find some rare men cut as adults who even boast an improvement. Who knows what was wrong with their penis that led them to lose part of it. You'll also find cut men who have restored as adults who can't say enough about how much better sex is with slack and with mucosa that are protected from drying and abrasion. A common theme is that the whole ride is awesome now whereas before restoring everything focused only on the big finish.

But people are different. Some men don't care if they're having the maximum possible sensual pleasure and some women swear there's no such thing as a G-Spot. The point is you wouldn't give a baby girl an otherwise harmless drug that makes her G-Spot shrivel to nothing just because some women don't value it, and you have no business deciding for any male how much sexual pleasure is enough.

NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcision. Many condemn it. The two most recently revised policy statements (Holland's and Australia's) certainly do. From the Dutch KNMG web site: "KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications." Read the whole policy in English here: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/k...rapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm You can see they certainly considered the latest assertions about HIV and HPV and whatever else, and still found no valid reason to mutilate a healthy normal boy.

The PENIS OWNER should decide, for HIMSELF.

 

I've enjoyed discussing this with you madbr3991. Sometimes passion can be confused with anger. Passion is a positive emotion - anger a destructive one. I hope you can maintain your passion without anger.
Keep the faith.
Peace and Love - Ddorighteace:

 

I agree totally - it's a barbaric practice and unless there is a strong cultural/religious or health reason circumcision should be outlawed.

Speaking as one cut at birth,

Simon

 

Si69 i agree circumcision is barbaric and should be outlawed.

 

Have u ever tried restoration madbr?

Simon

 

yes i have looked into restoration and i think that someday i will. but right now i don't have the money.

 

circumcision is not an upgrade its a DOWNGRADE.

if you have a child circumcised, then you enjoy torturing babies! and thats just unacceptable.

 

You are such a turd. Circumcision or no - no parent wants to torture their child. How many do you have?

 

Wow, the vanity.

 

His dick, his choice. At least that is my version of a very similar attitude I get when I complain of women using so much makeup.

Some women put so much makeup on, you swear if they fall in a creek, they'd have an oil spill that would give the Valdez spill some competition.

In the end Jo, you're right. It's all vanity. Maybe if they'd just be themselves, they wouldn't need to gob themselves up or have any special proceedures done to themselves. I dunno.

 

circumsized :cowboy:

 

What is vain about wanting an amputated body part back or replaced with a good replica?

Do you believe that any person wanting any body part back is vain or only if a person wants certain body parts back.
If it is only vanity with certain body parts, what then is the criteria for you to call a person vain for wanting a body part back? Is it the visibility of the body part? the size? something else?

 

I wonder if they can do inter-species transplants. Man, if I was hung like a horse, finding girlfriends would not be a problem....

 

vain [veɪn]
adj
1. inordinately proud of one's appearance, possessions, or achievements
2. given to ostentatious display, esp of one's beauty
3. worthless
4. senseless or futile

It's to bad he lost something he feels he needs but trying to put it back is all about appearance because the nerve ends can not be replaced.