" The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. "
This must be why Jews continue to circumcise to produce insensitive men and why women have cognitive dissonance continuing to state that circumcision is merely the removal of a bit of skin.
I am also fascinated by the lack of research and discussion regarding my hypothesis that male circumcision results in a lot of violence in sex and domestic relationships. But then "good" people indoctrinated in Judeo/Christian bunkum do not discuss such matters.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
15 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.It is an interesting hypothesis and to some extent mirrors the myths of the ancient Amazons who at the birth of their children cauterized the right breast of the girls so it would never grow and inhibit spear throwing or archery, but would cause a deep resentment and fuel anger.
Boy children had the lower right leg removed, so as to inhibit them from becoming warriors and to direct more blood to the penis for the sake of fertility.
Ancient myths are filled with child mutilation, always with some warped logic behind the practice for "the greater good".
It should be simple logic and reason in the 21st century to consider cutting bits off infants as barbaric, stupid and cruel, but it is not, mainly because two of the worlds major religions still advocate it.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Jan 17, 2019
1
I have argued for years that infant circumcision is abuse.
On this very site I had one lady do the nearest thing I have ever seen in written form to a fit of hysterics, telling me her son were very grateful to have had bits chopped of them when still babies, when I asked how they could possibly know the difference she informed me that the real reason she did it was that uncircumcised penis's invariably have a disgusting stench and that she did not want her future daughters in laws to suffer that.
Perhaps teaching her husband to wash his might have been a less drastic solution.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Jan 16, 2019
1
Exactly. It wasn't an elegant looking Londoner in a red jacket was it?
@FrayedBear I don't recall, I blocked her for unreasonable misandry
@LenHazell53 Is any misandry "reasonable"?
@FrayedBear True, I think I must have been half asleep when I wrote that
FatherOfNyx
Level 7
Jan 14, 2019
0
DNU
@FrayedBear Facebook/Google is known to spy on your internet activity and even listen in on your real world conversations through your phone to tailor ads to you. The cartoon wasn't from an ad, but it was weird that it popped up in my Facebook feed after I posted in this thread.
@FatherOfNyx ok. My question is what is the meaning of the cartoon?
@FatherOfNyx The links were shared to me via Facebook but I thought that I was isolated from it as I do not use the Facebook app. Agnostics.com however has to make money to operate as we members do not pay anything directly.
@FrayedBear Oh, thought that was self explanatory. It's a baby boy getting circumcised through a samurai duel with a Jewish man. That's his foreskin flopping off in the last cell.
@FatherOfNyx the last frame truncates at the baby's waist. With the goatee I thought it was an eccentric Chinese Muslim wearing a small taqiyah.
@FrayedBear Nope, just one of those violent, insensitive Jews.
@FatherOfNyx My bad. ? ?
@FatherOfNyx
I have shared another thread to this group on the discussion subsequent to finding the following : [yourwholebaby.org]
???? Another cut or uncut post. Yay
Qualia
Level 8
Jan 14, 2019
0
If we were talking about female mutilation would you make the same remark?
How about hygiene? Whoops we have!
It sounds like you wish to remain uninformed and barbaric all your life.
@FrayedBear FGM is the equivalent of cutting off the entire head of the penis.
There are actual "labia-ectomy"[sp] procedures too ...even for young girls, for "labial hypertrophy" ... but I digress. Yes we've been so barbaric and so have all the cropped & dockeds enjoying ourselves non the wiser.
@Qualia Does female mutilation end u with as many cases of the following as male circumcision does?
[yourwholebaby.org]
Would you circumcise your dog? Why not?
The article and blog are interesting. But your post and your thoughts on this ignorant. Your attack on the Jewish really takes away from the post. Someone as angry as you probably should say less if you want to be taken serious lol.
You talk about aggression and irritability but you sound the exact same ?. Are you circumcised as well?
That is a joke. As much as I see no need for circumcision it is ignorant to say it makes people violent and insensitive. Millions of Americans are circumcised and are not violent nor insensitive. From my experience theyre oversensitive like your triggered self seems to be.
I would not be surprised to an agenda for circumcision but I would not correlate it with emotional insensitivity and violence. To do so would take away from very basic psychology. It also makes one question your intelligence and makes it seem as if you're highly personal, emotional views impair your ability to think logically.
Speaking of penis sensitivity; I was circumcised and my penis sensitivity is just fine. Again, I don't think it should be done. But not because of such ridiculous reasons as it makes people irritated and untrusting of their family and violent lmao you sound soooo ignorant and bitter and angry. Look at your aggressive replies.
Go take your meds, seriously. If no meds. See a doctor because you seem on the verge of violence if not already violent.
gueronihilista
Level 4
Jan 14, 2019
1
I love ration readers who jump to conclusions on my emotional state. Thank you for your well though opinions. I have found however that arguing with "legends in their own lunch boxes" who do not read or understand what is presented to them, project onto others and are incapable of constructive suggestions for answers to the presenting problem a waste of time.
Very sensitive being circumcised but only "after" ??
Switchcraft
Level 7
Jan 14, 2019
1
My issues with the procedure are many. "Cultural reasons" are not a strong enough reason for doing something so intimate to someone ELSE. If those cultural reasons prove to be important enough, allow these individuals to choose the procedure for themselves when they are able. It is NOT my decision to make for my son.
That said, my husband was adamant that it be done. He said I had zero say, as the female parent.
Zster
Level 8
Jan 14, 2019
1
IMO pathetic on the part of your husband at many levels. Thanks for your important contribution.
Last time I got into this discussion (mostly because religion was being blamed when it's more of a cultural thing) I found studies and stories from men who claimed to have been circumcised in their adult years. A very small percentage said they experienced a decrease in sensitivity. The majority reported no difference at all and some said it increased feeling. There were a few studies and surveys and they all had similar results, the majority don't notice any difference in sensation.
FatherOfNyx
Level 7
Jan 14, 2019
1
Please read through all my responses and links to current data. Thank you for your contribution.
@FrayedBear This is a tired and recycled debate that's been going on for ages. So unless there is some new, ground breaking research, I'm good. I was simply commenting on your OP with the assumption that there will be a decrease in sensitivity.
@FatherOfNyx It is not an assumption it is proven in the paper that I have linked above that you seem unable to comprehend.
The paper extract by US researchers carried out 11 years ago stated:
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis.
Sorrells ML, et al. BJU Int. 2007.
Authors
Sorrells ML1, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, Van Howe RS.
Author information
1
HIV/AIDS researcher, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Citation
BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):864-9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.
RESULTS: The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) thing (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.
CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
PMID 17378847 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17378847/
If you have researched to the same degree and published contrary findings please supply your link.
@FrayedBear [psychologytoday.com] This is the kind of study that you need to look. These are adult men who were circumcised in adulthood. That means they have the experience of what it feels like to be both cut and uncut. Your study is looking at men who either only know what it feels like to be cut or only know what it feels like to be uncut. The majority og men that have experience with feeling both cut and uncut report an increase in sensitivity. Very few report any adverse effects.
@FatherOfNyx An interesting article. Unfortunately it seems that one of the contributors is an ageing Australian long since "scorned and buked" by his colleagues.
I notice that the survey only goes for two years. When it has gone for 20 I will pay attention to what is then said.
The question is subjective in that I'm sure that anyone still able to have sex is going to be very happy. 20 years ago I could walk pain free. 3 months ago I had the ends of my bones meeting at the knee, and mine were literally meeting at the knee as some members who have seen the x-ray will attest, cut off and an artificial joint inserted. The bones no longer rub together but I'm still in as much pain as previously. Hopefully it will abate. Similarly over time the glans of the men freshly circumcised will lose sensitivity. The degree of pleasure they lose is not known and I suspect not measurable. The sensitivity of the glans to touch stimulus circumcised or not is measurable and quantifiable just as degrees of blindness or deafness are. Incidentaly in comparison replacing my shoulder with an artificial one took 3 years to recover from. It is not perfect compared to a rel shoulder but yes I'm very happy that I now have it to enable more than 90% use of my arm. That I would not have needed it if the attending surgeon had done his job properly rather than assuming things about me and flirting with the Filipina nurses is totally relevant.
My daughter in law asked me why I didn't have my son circumcised ... I didn't think it was necessary. What more can I say?
confidentrealm
Level 7
Jan 14, 2019
2
And why expose him to the possibility of any of the following complications or death?
I was circumcised and never had a problem, and I most certainly have not been violent.
TristanNuvo
Level 8
Jan 14, 2019
2
You are one of the lucky 5998 out of the 6000 who lived. A larger number end up so badly maimed that they are permanently psychologically affected and incapable of coitus. A further number are so maimed that they can only give women discomfort rather than pleasure.
But is your circumcision cause for your violence?
Do you have a problem now knowing that your parents betrayed you when you were incapable of speaking up for yourself and have left you maimed for life? (See my response to OwlinASack below). And if so why?
@FrayedBear Sorry, that was a typo, it was supposed to say, "not" violent, thanks for noticing, I'll edit it.
Circumcision percentage in the UK is currently about 12%. In the USA in is well over 50%. Many parents in the USA have it done without even thinking about as it almost the norm. Time they were educated I think,
Moravian
Level 8
Jan 14, 2019
1
A young American woman acquaintance wrote the following blog that went viral small time some years ago. A lot more people need to read it. Thanks for your comments.
[madsciencewriter.blogspot.co.id]
As an uncircumcised man thank you for supporting the resistance to such a barbaric and disgusting Act and to all those people who say that it is a health risk not to circumcise none of the men in my family are circumsized and none of us have ever had a problem
Drsmash253
Level 7
Jan 14, 2019
1
Sadly it is a subject that besides causing a lot of maiming and loss of faculty frequently results in cognitive dissonance in those who have had the act perpetrated on them by parents they trusted or perpetrated it on their own children and so will not face the reality of the harm that they have committed. ... Unhealthy psychological states of being all round frequently resulting in the madness known as follie.
There is also the possibility of any of these that your parents wisely kept you from being exposed to:
Not all women are dismissive. I have been oppinionatedly anti-circumcision since I was about 4 1/2 yrs.
That's when my twin brothers were born and my mom explained to me what it was and why she didnt let them do that to her baby boys. Little wierd, but good.
It's interesting that it doesn't get more research. That is interesting to think that it might be linked to sexual dissatisfaction. Male sexuality in general doesn't seem to have much attention given. I guess researching the effects of circumcision on a large scale would mean possibly making us all admit what we did to so many men. Also might make a whole lot of men bitter for having it done. Easier as a society to just say it's really no big deal, just "removal of a bit of skin"
MsAl
Level 8
Jan 14, 2019
1
Ie. Subscribe to cognitive dissonance and possibly allow the true cause of a serious societal problem not be addressed because a lot of people were ignorant barbarians abusing their sons.
Thank you for your openness and willingness to discuss what many men and women are afraid to. ... A good sign of illness.
I should have posted this long ago. I can think nothing more educational than observing and reading the following glossed over by all proponents of circumcision:
[yourwholebaby.org]
I was friends with a person in the military who got circumcised in his 30’s. He told me the INCREASE in sensitivity and pleasure was well worth it !!
NEVER have I done violence towards a woman - though lord knows I’ve been tested !!
Ungod
Level 6
Jan 14, 2019
2
Interesting. Did your military friend have problems with tightening or strangulation by his foreskin preventing the foreskin retracting? In other words during coitus he would only have been feeling through the outer side of the foreskin and not the more sensitive glans. The tightening is often caused by lack of hygiene resulting in thrush. Untreated it can result in horrific injury to the penis. A one shot thrush tablet kills the infection. Over time the lack of protection by the foreskin results in desentisation.
@FrayedBear
I would hardly know, but I DO know he was quite sexually active before and after...
I hope you’re not looking for a way to justify your preconceived notions!
Now can you cite any collection of experiences to justify the idea that an uncircumcised dick is more sensitive than a circumcised one?
Because to me I have seen that removing skin makes the remaining skin more sensitive.
That has been MY experience at least!
@Ungod no what you have been told is that someone had improved sensitivity. You have not stated if that remained or with time as with a skin abrasion its sensitivity wears off. Did you bother to read the introductory article or have you the wherewithal and qualifications to have carried out research disproving the doctors conclusions made more than ten years ago?
@FrayedBear I have had a dick my entire life. And I discuss things with other dick holders and dick users!
I don’t need doctors to tell me how sensitive my dick is!
I’d like to see HOW MANY dick users say they enjoy circumsised v uncircumcised sex and which they enjoy better!
Do you have a study for that?
@Ungod Why do you need before and after studies? The study in the opening post measures and correlates sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised and the evidence is that I'm is more sensitive. FatherofNyx above has an interesting study of before and after. It is, however, fraught with bias and lacks the longevity of observation. I would also like to see how many survived circumcision to have no defect other than loss of foreskin. Your concluding statement cannot be proven one way or the other because it is subjective. It is like asking a person blind from birth if the colour of the apple they are eating improves its flavour. In addition to the physical loss, there is the loss of informed consent when circumcision is undertaken before adulthood. I notice that few have raised the issue. As for circumcision being healthier, an argument, if I remember rightly put forward by Jewish researchers, concerned their mamma's were getting chlamydia, the logic would result in all females having their breasts removed at birth in order to prevent breast cancer.
@FrayedBear
OK, so you’ve solved the controversy and there is no more to be said on the matter...
@FrayedBear
Just remember circumcision specifically means CUT AROUND, so it has no relation to mastectomy or citoral-ectomy, if that is the correct term...
A person blind from birth or even later, learns to depend on the other senses more so the color of an apple means nothing to a blind man.
But I bet he could tell you more about the taste and texture of an apple that you never thought of!
I didn’t/and COULDN’T give “informed consent” about changing my diapers, being toilet trained or being weaned from the tit either!
Just make meaningful comparisons if you have it all figured out...
@Ungod Is there a prize for the solution? What was the puzzle?
@FrayedBear
Try getting some meaningful examples!
Because you’re just showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about..
Mastectomies! ?
Why do women think they know what it’s like to have a dick?!?
???
Oh, I am so happy you told me. My whole world has now changed.
Jolanta
Level 9
Jan 14, 2019
2
new criteria on your dating profile?
Did you read the article? Were your children fortunate enough to be female? Or if a son not barbarically circumcised?
Have you also read
[madsciencewriter.blogspot.co.id]
@FrayedBear No my son is not circumcised.
@Jolanta excellent you saved him from being exposed to any of the following:
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Ethical Sluts
429 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.