Girls how would you describe an attractive penis?

Yep thats basically what I think.


Tiffany

 

Thanks Sarahrei & Tiffany .... you've helped my self-esteem!

 

*takes 4skins selfesteem and gives it a mega boost*

 

Aww, you know foreskin rocks. Those that are cut are missing something that the men with foreskin with always have. "BETTER SENSATION"

This is one chick in America that isn't doing it to her son, if she has one!

Tiffany

 

I have no idea why this myth keeps persisting.

 

^ My dad was cut late and he says that it's true. As long as people hve the expierence of it taking away senstivity then the 'myth' isn't a myth

 

And I can produce countless other people saying the opposite. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no science conclusively backing it up. It is all in the mind of the beholder.

 

Be he was cut late so doesn't they have a huge bearing on his sensitivity recovery?!

 

what? 'sensitivity recovery'?

 

I was wondering the same thing. I was talking to my doctor about it (whos also a OBGYN) and he says that there is no sensitivity recovery.

 

So, what you're saying is, your doctor thinks there is a loss. Is that what he/she means by 'sensitivity recovery'?

 

My doctor (he) thinks that the reason that circumsion is so popular is because people used to do it because they were too uncomfertable to tell their sons how to wash properly, and the fad stuck around. He advises all of his patients not to do it. There isn't really a need as long as you teach your son proper hygien or religous purposes.

I imagine he means (as in the poster above) that your dick learns to adapt to having a piece of skin missing. It makes me wonder though, why would you assume that you would get the sensitivity back from that piece of skin being removed. It's gone for good and it's not like your other nerves are going to become more sensitive to adapt.

 

I don't know. I have read at least 6 studies on the subject (studied everything from personal opinions to brain reactions), and all of them came to the conclusion that there is really no conclusive difference between the two (cut and uncut). Hell, one even reported that certain test subjects reported and increase in sensitivity AFTER getting a circumsion as an adult.

Anyways, I am a firm believer that the real difference is all in the mind.

 

Do you have a study supporting that?

 

I'm starting to agree with you, this arguement is like beating a dead horse. Like 98% of guys perfer what they have. So who really cares? I know that my boy wont be cut, and thats all that really matters to me.

 

My sister-in-law decided not to get her son cut. When he was older, I think he was 10 or 12, he developed issues and had to have it done. It caused a lot of problems for him.

I think that every mother-to-be should have a discussion with her child's pediatrician before the child's birth, because such an important decision shouldn't be made without full understanding of both the pros and cons.

 

Actually resent studies (in San Fran of all places) indicate that there is as much as 30% loss of sensation loss do to circumcision. Personally I feel that it is more then that because they only to into account the glans. The fact of the matter is that the inner foreskin is very sensitive. So if this tissue is missing then that also needs to be taken into the equation.

As an intact male. I can tell you there is a loss of sensation even if I walk around for a day with my foreskin back. I saw a british site once marketing an artificial silicon foreskin. They and others point out that a male that has been circumcised develops keratinised tissue over the glans reducing the sensation.

Hey as a hetro male I only play with my own. But women who have experienced both say the circ'd males are missing a great deal. Something I'm sure they don't want to hear. I wouldn't if I was them.

I am really really really glad to be whole.

The circ'e guys can say anything they want. The fact of the matter is; if if males were suppose to have foreskins they would have been born with them.

 

The history of circumcision is actually interesting. We know it, both male and female, predates recorded history. If you look at where it seems to have originated (The Middle East, Africa and the Australian outback) this gives us a clue as to why this bizarre practice may have come about. Perhaps long ago our predecessors discovered that males survived in the hot unhygienic condition better if this was done. Well maybe that explains the male version. The female version still baffles me completely.

Under these extreme conditions if it helps with survival obviously it would be a good thing. A reduction of natural sensation (pleasure) is a small price to pay for survival. Soon this practice would become indoctrinated into the belief system and culture. The only problem with this is it is clearly is a form of infant or child abuse. It is an unfortunate part of human behaviour that those who were abused become the abusers. It is the women in the Sudan who are circumcised who become the circumcisers. Not unlike male fathers in America.

 

The studies I was referring to all took place between 2002 and 2007.

Still, how would a woman know what a cut male was/is missing? How would an uncut male know what a cut male is missing with no means of comparison. Like I said earlier, the science simply doesn't support such conclusions.

 

Agreed.

I think Shana has the right idea. The smartest bet for a parent, IMO, would be to talk with a pediatrician about all the pros and cons