Routine Circumcision

It's science, bro.

A circumcised head is calloused from losing it's protective sheath. Calloused membrane does not experience as much feeling as membrane in it's pure state.
But not only this, but the foreskin normally spreads the cowper's fluid along the glans, lubricating it and increasing sensitivity further.

And as far as the brain adapting. How would that possibly work? It's a matter of the skin itself; that's at the nerve level and is a matter of reception, not neural processing.

Though, I will admit control is a mildly controversial topic, and findings may vary. It seems to me that many more studies find that control is lowered for circumcised men, then the reverse.

 

it works the same way most blind person develop super hearing

it works the same way a blind person who reads braille adapts their fingers to be super sensitive

hell..i even know people who eat with their feet because they werent born with arms...try doing that yourself lol...the human ability to adapt is miraculous to say the least

 

i can only assume that if i was uncircumcised, i would be cumming in my pants all day. really, i don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for it to be even more sensitive than it already is.

 

me too lol

is your dick calloused like he says ?...because I sure as hell know mine isnt

 

I was circumcised as a baby (like my father was), but I still have almost all of my foreskin, which sits behind the glans. I can pull my foreskin over the head entirely when i want to, and I masturbate just like an uncut guy. My circumcision is called a "loose cut". Any smegma I have just dries up and drops off. I never notice it or have to clean it off. My glans is not callused, and is smooth when i am erect. I have no problems with premature ejaculation, unlike many uncut guys, whose head is often overly sensitive. (See my thread in the Sexual Health Forum on PE). The women I have been with have never had a problem with my cut status, and most prefer it, especially those who have been with uncut guys.

A relative of mine had his boys home birthed, so they are not circumcised (he is). His attitude is, wait and see if it is necessary, if there is a foreskin retraction problem later on or the boys want to look like their friends (they live in a region where most of the boys are circumcised). This is a reasonable approach.

 

maybe compared to an uncirced, but it's still probably the softest skin on my body.

 

Ya maybe........

 

i am ,, my son isnt,, he actually asked my mom when he was 3 why did she cut daddy's penis when i was a baby? she said the dr.'s told her that she should for medical reasons and she listened to them. he is now 8 and has never had a single issue:sunny:

 

Great idea to do circumscision at birth!

I wasn't circumsized. If you're not circumsized, you have to peel back the foreskin and clean your head daily. At age 21, I was doing this and my skin got stuck. I had to go the to hospital and they had to circumsize me then. Wasn't comfortable recovering.

 

lol 21...that must have been a wonderful few months of healing while walking funny and trying not to get a hard on

 

LOL Tell me about it! At the time, I worked at a service station (back then, they did full service, put in gas, check oil, wash windshield etc). Word got around about my surgery. I swear, I think the local chicks came in to get gas and asked me to wash their windshields so I had to check out their body. It got very uncomfortable at times. I mean, $2 in gas and wash my windshield? lol

 

I think it should only be legal to do to your sons if it were for health reasons, like tight foreskin. I would get my sons circumcised, but only if they were having tight foreskin.

 

Common sense tells me that pro-circumcision people were born into a culture/religion favoring circumcision.
With this in mind, how did the 1st few practitioners even know of the alleged benefits of circumcision pre-modern medicine?

 

I can see why we applied drastic separation action to what we now know as the umbilical cord, but I see no reason for the drastic separation action applied to anyone's little johnson's fir-less hoodie.

 

After a bit more research, this circumcision infatuation is akin to "jumping from a boiling pot of water into a frying pan" dilemma:

There is a study that showed that women who have sex with circumcised HIV positive men have a greater than 50% increased risk of acquiring HIV:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/abstract

 

(testing; please ignore; finally earned my sig. pic.)

 

how do the first people to do anything know the benefits? i would guess that there were foreskin issues, so they decided to try removing it.

 

Unless there are religious reasons I can't see a single reason to mutilate a child's penis 1.Doctors (?) practicing it , think otherwise for the known reason (follow the money).
2.HIV is a very difficult to transmit virus, either cut or not (see Pedian report, and she is not an AIDS denialist!!! )
3.There is no way to get your skin back, or I 'd say there is an expensive operation for those who went for it ,and later on they realized it was a very stupid decision .
4.Mother nature knows better ,and she has decided that it is for our benefit to have our foreskin intact.
People, who are mutilated and try to persuade others to do it,sound like the fox who lost her tail in an accident and is trying to persuade other foxes to cut theirs because it looks good!!!

 

Amounts to assault IMO, unless it is for serious medical reasons. If I had been, I would have taken my parents to Court for assault!!!!