I wouldn't say that circumsision is bad because it leads to a decreease in sensitivity, rather that this could be a good thing. Men and women have different arousal patterns, men tend to get a quick errection, and because of the high sensitivity in the penis they will orgasm/ejaculate quickly. Women, on the other hand tend to be much more slow to arouse, and will take londger to reach orgasm.
Do women enjoy sex more with a foreskiin?
I don't know - personally, I don't have a foreskin, and I find sex enjoyable, but then I don't have anything to compare against!
I did post links to explain this better, but the admin said they weren't allowed because they contain pictures of penises.
The foreskin contains stretch receptors and nerves constantly giving feedback. So intact men are better able to control when they orgasm. A circumcised penis is exposed to un-natural forces and so that is another reason he is less able to guage when he orgasms.
The foreskin has a number of roles in sexual intercourse.
It traps moisture and so there is less chance of vaginal dryness.
The penis head of an intact man is more pliable as opposed to the hard dry circumcised head.
The foreskin makes insertion of the penis easier.
The intact man doesn't have to bang as hard because he is more sensitive.
With the gliding action of the foreskin back and forth, the man and the woman feel more in tandom during lovemaking.
http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Northrup/lovecirc.htm
The main reason I object to any boy being circumcised is that it violates his bodily rights. In a painful procedure, an important part of his body is taken away from him without his consent.[DLMURL="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html"]
[/DLMURL]
In reply to Binah and Elaineoz. There have been many claims about the medical benefits of circumcision. Most, if not all, are flawed. I'd recommend anyone interested to read this history:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=70&Itemid=48
Non religious circumcision only started to become popular in the late 1800's in English-speaking countries. It was never really that popular in Britain and with the advent of the health service, in 1950, it died out completely. In the USA however, due to it being a bit off a cash cow, it became routine. Doctors have contentiously come up with new reasons to justify it. In Australia and Canada, it was also once popular, but became less so when medical organisations came out against it in the 1970's. Today less than 10% of babies are cirumcised there.
In relation to cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is mainly caused by the human papilloma virus and smoking.
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2755
Bottom line - Don't sleep around, use a condom , don't smoke.
If circumcison reduces sensitivity, then circumised men are less likely to use a condom.
A recent study has found that being circumcised has no effect on contracting HPV:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/177
In relation to HIV. Many obsevational studies have been done. This suvrey is illuminating:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/cochrane2003/
There was not enough evidence to be conclusive that cirumcision lowers your risk of aquiring HIV due to confounding factors. So there were 3 randomised control trials conducted in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. Unfortunately these were also flawed:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
Unfortunately, the WHO has ignored these flaws and pressed ahead with promoting HIV as a new weapon in the fight to stop the HIV epidemic.
Another thing is that these trials were conducted in Africa and cannot be applied to 1st world countries.
The chance of catching HIV for a man through vaginal sex when the woman is know to have the HIV virus is very low, 1 in 2000:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#tab1
factor in the cahnce the woman has HIV and the cahnces are lower still.
Hence why there is no HIV epidemic in the Western world. It is mostly limited to the injecting drug community and men who have sex with men community(MSM). The risk in anal sex is a lot higher due to the fact that the anal pasage is more succeptible to the virus. It also is more prone to tearing).
thanks again all. We are awaiting the consultation so will keep you posted. It seems he could have 2 ops and still keep the foreskin but with no guarantee it will cure it, though it normally does. Our biggest worry is that if he is circumcised he will lose sensation down there or even the opposite that it will be hyper sensitive and affect our sex lives. I'd really appreciate all comments on this matter.
Another worry is that he is concerned about how his penis will look - obviously very different. Personally i do not mind the way a circumcised penis looks, in fact it can be quite a turn on if the shape etc is right. I'd like to hear what other women think of this.
Thanks again
L
x
I would go for the uncircumcised choice any day of the week if there is a choice to be had.
I totally agree. No man should be circumcised if he can avoid it.
If the bloke were the same (ie all conditions being equal), then what would you choose?
Look at all the willy's you see in art, paintings from the ancient times to now, movies etc - how often do you see a un-circumcised ones?
In this recent film "Watchmen" about these comic hero's there is a guy they continually show without any clothes, with a circumcised penis. Why would they do that if it looked more beautiful, more aesthetically pleasing un-circumcised?
Hi! I have to say that I have had two husbands, one circumcised, one not. I would go for the uncircumcised choice any day of the week if there is a choice to be had. Your husband may not have the choice and health is more important. At the end of the day, it is the bloke we fall for not the willy!
Look at all the willy's you see in art, paintings from the ancient times to now, movies etc - how often do you see a un-circumcised ones?
Just about in every example, James. The famed figure of 'David' comes to mind. It's quite the opposite of what you say. Mind you, not that this means anything either way.
Regarding the original thread topic, I don't know anything about this so cannot comment. Except to say that I agree that circumcision in the USA, as pointed out in a previous post, is merely justified in all kinds of ways as a "cash cow" as you pay for all ops. My mother went there on holiday and surgeons lied to her, saying she had cancer! - just to get the money from a fake or unnecessary op.
Few men have experienced both states as adults, but I'm certain that not being cut leaves you with a better sensitivity. However, given the opening post, in this case it may be necessary. (Can't there be exercises while erect to just pull it back, keep it there, and get it used to being stretched, though?)
As for the religious practice on children of some faiths - ouch! I was meditatng in great peace inside a mosque in Tunisia one day, when a young boy was brought in and taken inside a room. I didn't understand what was going on. But I "got it" when - no aneasthetic - he started screaming his head off! 😮 He was about 3-4 years old! Barbaric.
V
This "History" is not accurate and the article is entirely biased.
It describes ancient cultures as "pre-literate societes" thereby implying that they were stupid, superstitious, un-civilised, etc. It has sections like: "Why does this Victorian invention persist?" as if it was a Victorian invention!
Circumsicion was practiced in Egypt 6000 years ago by the priests. The famous historian Heradtotus believed that the practice orginated with the Egyptians and was practiced by much of the ancient and world of his time. We know that the Chaldeans, the Colchians, the Ethiopians, the Phoenicians, and the Syrians of Palestine (including the Jews). In south America people like the Aztecs and the Mayans practiced circumcision, in the east cost people like the Samoans practice it - where they refer to the Europeans as "the uncircumsised".
It would be a mistake to assume that this was due to "Religion" alone. The historian Philo gave "cleanliness, freedom from disease, offspring, and purity of heart" as reasons to circumsise - only the last of these can be labelled "religious". Physicians have also prescribed circumcision to guard against phimosis, balanitis, and other such things.
From the religious perspective, the Bible states that circumcision was given to Abraham, as "a sign of the covenant". All the old testament Prophets that followed Abraham were circumcised (we don't know how many prior to Abraham), including Jacob, his sons, and Moses. All semitic people (Arabic and Jewish) people have practiced this as a "religious" practice since Abraham.
Jesus, his male family members and disciples would all have been circumsised. The early Christians all were; St Augistine and other Fathers of the Church maintained the circumcision was not just a religious ceremony but a sacremental rite. St Thomas considered it a figure of baptism.
I'd recommend anyone interested to read this history:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=70&Itemid=48Non religious circumcision only started to become popular in the late 1800's in English-speaking countries...
Just about in every example, James. The famed figure of 'David' comes to mind.
I just searched images.google.com for "David" and the presumably Greek fellow is clearly circumcised...
I was meditatng in great peace inside a mosque in Tunisia one day, when a young boy was brought in and taken inside a room. I didn't understand what was going on. But I "got it" when - no aneasthetic - he started screaming his head off! 😮 He was about 3-4 years old! Barbaric.
I'm from Kashmir, which is far more "backwords" then Tunisia (I was born in a mud hut that my father built on the top of a mountain) - I remember my circumcision clearly and there was no pain.
I just searched images.google.com for "David" and the presumably Greek fellow is clearly circumcised...
I may be right or wrong, but I don't see it....
Mind you, I assume you didn't mean this one?
To put the cat among the pigeons, doesn't Mother Nature know what she's doing? So men are born the way they are meant to be?
Again re the cat and pigeons, it may be that one asserts and supports simply how they are, from a personal view? Me, I was born without any unnecessary ops like that, and I'm fine thank you! :p
V
On the history of circumcision some, such as Bruno Bettelheim in Symbolic Wounds, believe that the practice of circumcision and other male initiation rites originated as an imitation of female menstruation and childbirth which were seen as magical events 🙂
To the OP, www.norm-uk.org presents an anti-circumcision viewpoint, whereas Gordon Muir of the London Urology Clinic, presents a middle way at a cost, but, I am told, is a very nice man.
Regards
Tucker
I may be right or wrong, but I don't see it....
No not that one - the one above and below in the list you get in images.google.com for "david" - can anyone else help V here?
To put the cat among the pigeons, doesn't Mother Nature know what she's doing? So men are born the way they are meant to be?
Again re the cat and pigeons, it may be that one asserts and supports simply how they are, from a personal view? Me, I was born without any unnecessary ops like that, and I'm fine thank you! :p
Mother nature does, but man seems to me to be a sort of an unnatural, part artificial, part robotic, part devilish creature that really has little in common or connection with nature.
Do you know any other "naked" animals?
Does any other animal wear clothes?
Does any other animal make it "illigal" for you to go about your normal, natural daily business without making and wearing clothes?
Does any other animal have a zillion rules and hangups concerning its basic reproductive process and reproductive organs?
Do you know another animal that considers it his purpose in life to destroy its habitat, an aim that he pursues with missionary zeal devoting most of its energetic output towards the planets destruction?
To the OP, www.norm-uk.org presents an anti-circumcision viewpoint
Yes. They describe themselves as: "NORM-UK is a charity originally formed by men who didn't want to be circumcised. "
I hope the thread-starter will continue to get good advice. And forgive these asides too, as the situation is clearly serious to the couple.
No not that one - the one above and below in the list you get in images.google.com for "david" - can anyone else help V here?
I hope and pray you did realise I was joking? :confused:
Nope, I trust Nature. I was born fine, have always been fine, you can wash down there fine, and I'd guess the cut makes you less sensitive. Whatever else could it do but that?
As for images, I wonder if there's a close-up LOL of the classic David figure (?), as I'd put my money on me being right and he's normal and not operated on. You find this, in contrast to what you say James, throughout art - the thousands of cherubs from classical paintings have had no unnatural op, for example.
Right now I live in Coventry. The new cathedral was built here in the early 1960s. Outside, it's got a statue of Saint Michael defeating Satan. I love the statue of Michael to this day - very impressive, but as a kid - tee-hee - we all used to go and catch a quick look at "Satan", who is on his back, defeated and chained and naked: the architect saw no need to snip him either. I suspect that it's still a tee-hee sight to youngsters here. 😀
V
I hope and pray you did realise I was joking? :confused:
Thats why I asked for help for you....
Nope, I trust Nature. I was born fine, have always been fine, you can wash down there fine, and I'd guess the cut makes you less sensitive. Whatever else could it do but that?
Whatever suits you - so long as you accept that another person may like to be circumsised, another might like piercing, another something else...
As for images, I wonder if there's a close-up LOL of the classic David figure (?), as I'd put my money on me being right and he's normal and not operated on. You find this, in contrast to what you say James, throughout art - the thousands of cherubs from classical paintings have had no unnatural op, for example.
The difference between circumsised and un-circumcised is that circumsised you can see the glans (head or tip) of penis when it is resting, ie not errect. Uncircumsised, the glans would be covered by the foreskin. Now if the the thousands of cherubs display the glans, then it implies that the foreskin has been removed - ie the image corresponds to early Christian ideas of Abrahams "Covenent with God".
Presumably, if you could see such images of demons/devils - they would be shown with a foreskin.
Right now I live in Coventry. The new cathedral was built here in the early 1960s. Outside, it's got a statue of Saint Michael defeating Satan. I love the statue of Michael to this day - very impressive, but as a kid - tee-hee - we all used to go and catch a quick look at "Satan", who is on his back, defeated and chained and naked: the architect saw no need to snip him either. I suspect that it's still a tee-hee sight to youngsters here. 😀
Can you find an image somewhere of this?
I would have thought that this is as you would expect Satan to be depicted in Judeo/Christian symbolism - Satan = bad Angel, with foreskin covering the penis head.
