Male circumcision

Very much about the current common practice of circumcusion in the USA is not commonly known. One of the first mentionings of circumcision in the USA is by John Harvey Kellogg - Wikipedia (yes, from the Kellog's cerial company). He was a religious fanatic and found sex a disgusting act, which should only serve to procreate. He had two "marvellous" ideas to impose this on young boys (women weren't regarded to have sexual feelings at all, at that time).

One was serving healthy food, which he thought cerial was and for some reason he also assumed that cerial would suppress sexual feelings.

The other one was a procedure, which I guess he had observed by Jewish people, where the foreskin was removed. He not only believed that would keep boys from masturbating (where he obviously was wrong), he also recommended the procedure to be done without any anaesthetic, so it would be very painful. This would result in negative associations towards the boy's penis. For some reason the practice really caught on. At some point most boys in the USA were routinely circumcised and nobody really knew why anymore. The most common reasoning I nowadays read is that their son should be "the same" as their father and other boys. Which I think is just a bit shallow and weird. The "hygiene" argument is probably just a justification for the practice already commonly being carried out for ages and we all know it's invalid.

For all those people opposing circumcision I think it's good to know the general opinion on routine circumcision in the USA has turned almost 180 degrees in the last ten years. Where ten years ago about 90% of the boys where routinely circumcised, now this number has gone down to about 30-40% and is, afaik, still dropping.

My own opinion about the subject used to be very strong, but has become a bit more nuanced in the years and I will explain myself here.

My main objection to circumcision is that it removes so many sexually sensitive nerves. Which parts of the penis are most sensitive, appears to vary between men. My foreskin is exceptionally sensitive, I couldn't imagine having successful sexual stimulation without having a foreskin, so I would see the procedure as an amputation and an effective castration, as there would be no stimulation possible.

In the last few years I have read quite a few stories from men that had serious problems with their foreskins, either constant or recurring. It seems nature really did a lousy job making it work robustly. All of them are happy with their circumcision, they now can have a normal sex life (without pain and hassle). So circumcision really can be a good solution to a real problem.

Personally I have a love-hate relation with my foreskin. On one hand it's very sensitive, I can achieve orgasm only stimulating the foreskin. Also it comes in very handy for manual stimulation, no lube needed and feels really good. On the other hand, it's simply too long. A practical foreskin would only partly cover the glans when flaccid and would completely retract when having an erection. Mine still completely covers the glans when erect and has an ugly overhang when flaccid. I know many men have this, BTW. This means when having sex I tend to move back-and-forth in my foreskin instead of having direct contact. I can keep the foreskin retracted using my fingers, but it's not ideal of course. Also I need to retract my foresking during urinating, otherwise there will be pee everywhere (especially in my pants). And last but not least, I tend to get small wounds that either ache or itch, imagine after urinating.... Apparently the foreskin skin isn't very robust.

Out of curiosity I "learned" myself to masturbate like a circumcised men, by keeping the foreskin tightly retracted. At first, especially when you're still young, the glans and inside blade of the foreskin are far too sensitive to touch, so it needs practise. Some years later, I now can, without too much effort, reach orgasm while masturbating with the foreskin completely (and tightly) back. The glans needs to be dry, though (I am still working on that). I've shown my wife how to do it and I must say I like it very much when she does it that way! It also has two advantages when done before penetration and oral sex: the foreskin (inside blade) and glans become very dry and therefore clean, it gets rid of smelly stuff possibly remaining. The other being that as the foreskin has been retracted quite vigorously for some time, it remains retracted by itself more easily, exposing the glans better when going inside, which surely feels better.

I find that few circumcised men are actually complaining about the fact. Some of them do and do it very loudly, but when it comes down to hard statistics, it's really a small group.

Combined with above experience, I've come to the conclusion that circumcision really isn't the end of the world for your sex life. It has some drawbacks, but having a foreskin also has some drawbacks. Both very by person of course.

As for routine circumcision, I don't think it's right to make such a decision for your child. On the other hand, when done at a very young age, the result can be quite good (cosmetically and functionally). Routine circumcision tend to be of the "high" type where most of the inside blade of the foreskin (which is very sensitive) is actually retained and is used to replace a piece of less sensitive shaft skin. When the circumcision is done at a later age, especially when issues have already taken place, the foreskin can no longer be saved and must be removed completely.

So also in that area I think it's not as black and white as often claimed.

As for women's opinions, I've held several surveys and it looks like the vast majority really don't care at all (or even how a penis looks) as long as it clean, not too small and the owner is someone they want to be with. In Europe, where circumcision is rare, most women don't even know if their partner is circumcised (or even know what it means). There were a few exceptions where the woman was positively suprised when having a circumcised man (or having a very short foreskin). Some women apparently really prefer a circumcised penis, but that's mostly for "hygienic" reasons (which we know don't have to be valid), they way it looks, aestethic, appears mostly irrelevant. I think it's something us man are far more interested in than women.

So yeah, that's my thinking process about circumcision.

 

Um, ok. Thanks for your opinion.

 

LOL you probably mean "that was far too long and far too much information"

 

Seems like this Kellog guy is a nut.

If circumcision did indeed start out to remove pleasure and discourage boys/men from jerking off then that’s absolutely fucked and I’m surprised it’s still in use. Just the idea of the intent of its origins.

I totally understand if you have longer foreskin or if there are health issues say it doesn’t retract or causes pain. But those can be addressed as an adult, making your own decision.

I’m lucky, mine retracts 100%, the tip of my penis is exposed when soft and when hard I look circumcised, my GF actually asked me if I was circumcised or not after our first few times because she was unsure.

I’m bi so I’ve handled both and the mechanics of an uncircumcised penis is just unparrelled. It’s super simple to stroke it, don’t need lube and can use any desired pressure with grip, a circumcised one you can’t because you’ll get friction. You have to have it very lubbed up and even still can’t squeeze as much as you can with an uncircumcised one.

those my personal observations and opinions.

I do of course understand the sensitivity of the topic since those who are cicumsized didn’t make that decision and cannot change it (not saying they would want to). Having said all that. I’m happy to blow or take either I definitely do not discriminate

 

Oops that was long also lol

 

I don't think so, it was interesting read. Yeah, that guy was an absolute nutter. This wasn't his only crazy idea.

I think you're a lucky bastard with your foreskin, I'd say, treasure it . You have the ideal situation there.

 

haha thanks!

yeah I’m super happy with what I have

 

Crazy thing I read decades ago: circumcised men ~supposedly~ last longer during sex. The reason was because when the fire skin is removed as a newborn, years of friction from clothing desensitize the glans. An uncircumcised penis is ~supposedly~ more sensitive, thereby leading to faster orgasms.

I’m circumcised, so I have no frame of reference. As a teen, I came in under 10 seconds. As an adult, depending on mood, position and who knows how many other factors, ~sometimes~ I can go for over a half hour. I highly doubt the circumcision has anything to do with it, but logically, it ~sort of~ makes a small amount of sense.

My wife was never with an uncircumcised man. She and I both agree that a circumcised cock is far more attractive. She loves mine, that’s for sure.

 

I would agree. I’m uncircumcised and when hard look circumcised tho the skin does move during sex or handjob or whatever, But I could hold the skin down so my head is 100% exposed and remains exposed and the sensation is different for sure. My head is very sensitive and I don’t like that feeling when it’s completely exposed with no for skin going back and forth. After a bit it actually starts to feel numb sorta, hard to explain. It’s like it’s over sensitive but not in a good way and then just feels numb.

I can cum in under a minute almost anytime. I can also last for hours if needed, just apply mental focus and mix positions and pressure/angle etc.

 

Similarly, if you are with a girl and you gently pinch her lips together with your index and middle fingers. You sorta cup her pussy at the same time and apply a soft forward pressure and then just wiggle your fingers so her lips/vulva and all is just touching each other, she’ll love it. I find it similar in a way to a circumcised hand job say. Of course it’s impossible to tell, but it reminds me of being similar in a way.

 

That is an interesting idea and I see the statement today just as much as ten years ago. I think it has some truth in it. On one hand I read quite a few stories of circumcised men that (still) have problems with orgasming too quickly while others, with or without being circumcised can go forever (like me). On the other hand, when you look at it from biological perspective, it does make some sense. Not because the glans presumably getting less sensitive but due to two other factors: 1) quite a few sexual sensitive nerves, as appear in the foreskin, are simply removed (although the amount will vary with the used circumcision technique) and 2) the surface of the glans is made of epithelium, not skin. It's comparable to the inside of your eyelids and your mouth, but then without the mucous membrane (that's on the foreskin, inside blade). So it's not "meant" to be exposed to the outside world. So to protect it, the body will make the tissue thicker (and then it will do just fine). This process will make the nerves being less on the surface so less sensitive to the touch. There are scientific reports that claim only nerves for touch are affected and the sexually sensitive nervers are not affected. I am not completely sure on this. Maybe sexual stimulation is per definition a bit rougher and will reach the nerves nonetheless.

Some circumcised guys use oils or coverings to get the glans into an "pre-circumcised" state. This actually works. It just doesn't give the advantages of a non-circumcised penis, though. The lots of sexually sensitive nerves are still gone and the glans only gets more sensitive to touch, not necessarily sexual stimulation. The glans of most non-circumcised guys is so overly sensitive that it can't really be touched at all. I don't think that is a situation you'd want to achieve. I've spent some time and effort to get rid of this overly sensitivity and I am glad I did.

Exactly, age and experience are the keywords here. For me it's the same and I am not circumcised.

I can imagine any woman, especially with little "experience in the field", would prefer a circumcised penis for attractiveness. The foreskin is some ugly flap of skin indeed. But on the other side, many women nowadays appear to appreciate the function of the foreskin, makes it easier for them to do a handjob and for quite a few it seems to feel better inside their vagina. I am not a woman, I'd say more friction is better, but apparently it's not that simple.

 

Yep I know what you mean. Directly stimulating the glans is very sensitive to start with, then after some time it gets unpleasant and if you still continue, it gets numb. Many uncircumcised men experience this. Funny fact is that it's similar with women. That's why most, although claiming to stimulate the clitoris, actually rub the clitoral hood over the clitoris (kind of like non-circumcised men do with their foreskin). I've learned is that you can train your glans to become less sensitive and then it can "work" too (just like it works on circumcised men). I've now been able to masturbate while rubbing the glans, but it needs to be dry. When wet, it's still too sensitive (even with lube), I am hoping I can get to a point where that also works at some time.

Masturbation using stimulation of the glans (and the inside blade of the foreskin) is something I find very intense, it can be very good and certainly feels different than the foreskin moving. So I like to alternate both approaches. It has a few interesting advantages though (in my opinion): 1) your penis will get quite clean (and your hands dirty ;-)), makes a real difference in smellyness 2) less chance of small wounds on the foreskin due to e.g. nails 3) in my case: pulling the foresking back hard trains the remainings of the frenulum to get more elastic (I've got some scar issue there from surgery, extending it), so the foreskin remains retracted more easily as it tends to roll forward very quickly.

 

I wouldn't give JH Kellogg all of the credit behind the practice of circumcision in the USA. The practice was alive and well before him due to the followings of the writings in the biblical book of Genesis. Understand that the pilgrims and many other religious factions came to settle in America, many in Pennsylvania, to escape the suppression of their religion. Carrying with them was the belief in the story of Abraham and his covenant with God. Circumcision was part of that covenant. Judaism and Christianity follow the teachings in the Bible and have circumcised their infant males for centuries. This practice spread throughout the US because of the country's religious foundation among other cultural practices.

Many cultures around the world circumcise for reasons other than religion. One being it is thought of as a rite of passage from childhood to manhood status and becoming a strong and virile warrior. But then there was a belief within the Grecian society the the male body was not naked if the foreskin of the penis covered the glans. Therefore the Grecian male was not nude as long as his foreskin remained intact and not retracted whether or not he was clothed. First Maccabees, a writing not included in the Bible but found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicates many Jewish men attempted to hide or reverse their circumcision so they could exercise in Greek Gymnasia where activities sans clothing was normally accepted.

I was circumcised for religious reasons of my parents. I refuse to offer blame for this as this is what they felt was proper according to their beliefs. My penis is very attractive as I've been told by many women without my asking. There have been studies done that reveal the practice of circumcision reduces the onset of various sexually transmitted diseases. It has been proven in Africa where HIV transmission is high. I know no difference in sexual stimulation of my penis towards orgasm as I have nothing to compare to. What I do know is I have had and still have a very satisfying sex life. I love having an erection. It doesn't take long at times to orgasm from penile stimulation. Other times I last longer and have noted with age comes longer ejaculatory response time. In my sixties the time is longer on the average than when much younger but sometimes I ejaculate within 5 minutes of starting the stimulation process whether it be through intercourse or masturbation. I do not know if the removal of my foreskin has lessened the enjoyment of having sex. I do know I enjoy sex very much even to the point of being mildly addicted to it. What I can't do is join the Greeks in the gymnasium because, according to them, I am always nude without clothing to cover my body.

 

I did not say that Kellog invented the procedure. I said he encouraged it (profoundly...). I really don't think he would have come up with that idea by itself. Neither did Jew or Islam people, by the way. The practice of circumcision had been common in the middle east as long as known. Jew and Islam people just adapted a piece of local culture into their religion, which happens more often. It is thought that circumcision actually started in pagan rites, where temple priests got circumcised, probably just for the sake of cosmetics or sexual appearance. As this practice become more common, it got anchored in the culture and eventually adopted by current religions. There is no indication any of these introduced the procedure for hygiene, which is often implied! Which is quite logical, because if it were significant for hygiene, for women the clitoral hood would also would have to be removed. Which is a practice that's very seldomly performed and something quite different from female genital mutilation (FGM) where large parts of the genitals are removed or sown together, for completely different purposes.

The amount of Jew (Judaist) and Islam people in the USA cannot explain the very high percentage of circumcised men. Not now and not in the past. Furthermore, Christian people don't need to get circumcised because apostle Paul proclaimed they are "circumcised of the heart". I am not familiar with any Christian branch that practises circumcision nonetheless (other than for other reasons, like the English Royal Family does), but there might be a few small branches, who knows.

And although the risk of transmission of STI's is reduced when the foreskin is absent (notably for HIV), I'd still rather opt for having safe sex instead, because that can give 100% protection and circumcision can't.

The rest of your text I completely agree with.

 

I think the HIV thing is silly, you should wash your dick (or pussy) after sex anyways, especially after being with a stranger. I get that you don’t always have the opportunity but with a stranger I wash up personally.

 

I thoroughly inspect my dick every single time I pee. Pull the skin back and flip it around to check it all. If I ever see even a fiber or lint or whatever, even toilet paper I’ll wipe down with a baby wipe.

 

I profoundly hoping you're joking here or in another way not serious!

I cannot stress this enough: an STI cannot be prevented by washing or any kind of hygiene. An STI can only be prevented by (properly) using a condom. Some STIs don't even get stopped by a condom, like hepatitis and genital warts. And not by washing too.

 

Maybe I misunderstood the relation to how HIV would be contracted with an uncircumcised vs circumcised?

I wasn’t implying that washing is a safe method. I was assuming that in both cases that no protection was used and the claim is that circumcised is less likely to contract and my assumption was that it was because perhaps the virus was held under the forskin and then contracted later on. I don’t fully understand the claim, so perhaps my comment doesn’t make sense. Please explain?

 

This is the crux: Langerhans cell - Wikipedia Langerhans cells. These are very abundant in the foreskin and in principle very valuable for the immune system, but in the case for HIV the virus, it can attack and abuse those cells actually against the immune system. So if you remove the foreskin, a lot (but not all, IIRC) Langerhans cells have gone and the HIV virus has less chance to enter the body. So it does not have anything to do with personal hygiene. Please also note that some Langerhans cells are still present after circumcision, especially if you're circumcised the common American way, also known as "high". In that circumcision style, actually mostly shaft skin is removed, the foreskin is folded back and the inside blade of the foreskin replaces the removed shaft skin. The outside blade of the foreskin is also removed, but that's not where the Langerhans cells reside, they're in the inside blade (which is still present). Even if you circumcised in a "low" style (commonly practised in Europe and Africa(?)), where the foreskin is actually completely removed, you're still not completely protected against HIV.

So I'd rather just use a condom (or stick with one partner that's tested I did and I am still glad for it, it also greatly reduces the chance on HPV, the cause of various sorts of cancer).

 

On a side note, about circumcision styles. As I stated before, most Americans are circumcised "high" style which means most of the inside blade of the foreskin is retained. I think that's a very good thing. In Europe men tend to get circumcised in the "low" style, where all foreskin is removed. I don't understand that practice very much. I'd guess having maximum sensitivity is more important than looks (high means you have visibile scar, not necessarily very visible, low means the scar is against the glans, so invisible). I can imagine that if you already have (severe) foreskin issues it's better to get rid of it completely, but I don't think that's always the case?

Also I noticed there is a surgeon that does an foreskin-trim-by-remove-of-shaft-skin procedure. He takes aways a complete ring of shaft skin at the base of the penis and sews it together, so the foreskin is always retracted. As far as I know there's only surgeon that does this. I can imagine this would really help those having an overly long foreskin, without having to sacrifice the foreskin itself. I do fear though that many nerves get cut by removing a complete ring of shaft skin, it may be the reason it's not a common practice. Also I think the end result is cosmetically not the best (but that should be minor consideration).