Puck

I didn't know that, either!

Yeah, I have a thing about towels because of that book. They are handy if you forget to forget to land when you fall.

Thanks Dr. Rick for the data!

As for penis'...its been my expierence that and erect uncircumsized penis looks the same as a circumsized one, the difference is when they aren't erect.

A benefit of an intact penis is that there is the movement, without the friction. The 'action' is different, and preferable in my opinion.

My first husband was over cut. The skin would actually split a bit sometimes during sex, it was stretched so taut that the action would be too much. My now husband is a much more comfortable ride for both of us.

I think that extra skin adds alot more than most people have ever given much thought to.

greyline

[qs]I think that extra skin adds alot more than most people have ever given much thought to.[/qs]

Ain't that the truth! That's what happens when tradition and custom override reason.

The extra skin is in fact about the size of a postcard.

OrderedChaos

Anyone ever try to think of this from an evolutionary stand point? If the risks of having a foreskin are so great that they should warrent cutting them off of infants, then why the hell did they evolve in the first place???? If they lost whatever purpose they served, but carried a added risk, wouldn't selection pressures push for the removal or at the very least the great reduction of the forskin?

greyline

I think you'll find the pro-circumcision lobby will say that the foreskin had a use when we were monkeys running around the jungle, but has since become a liability.

In fact, you'll find that lobby will go to any lengths to justify what they have done. It's not easy, as a doctor, to admit that the 800 circumcisions you performed were unethical. It's not easy as a parent to admit you should not have done it to your sons. It's not easy as a circumcised man to admit that your sexual function was altered and a large amount of sensitive skin was removed without your consent.

KC

As someone who was circumcised at age 5 (I had emigrated with my parents from England to the USA, and it was done along with a tonsillectomy), I do not recommend it for any reason short of a medical emergency. It is extremely painful, and the newly-exposed area takes months to adjust (hot baths or showers were excruciating).



KC

Wyz_sub10

I get that much, but I've just been told it was easier. Maybe holding it back (if she does it) is a nuisance.

Wyz_sub10

Eh.

It's easy enough to admit that it was done without my consent. But I'm quite certain that my sexual "function" wasn't altered. It's possible that the level of pleasure was, but...eh. I dunno. Just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. (That doesn't mean I won't further educate myself to make that decision for my kids, mind you. Just that I think it's a non-issue for me).

Elvithriel

If thats such a problem you could always use some tape plus alittle trick I won't explain here.

greyline

Well... I can get a little technical here and apologies for being explicit: it's much easier to give a hand job to a penis with foreskin, because there's no lubrication needed. So while giving head, it's easier to simultaneously give a handjob - you don't have to spit all over the place.

I suspect women who prefer a circumcised penis have either never tried an uncircumcised one (since in America they are rare), or have preconceived ideas about hygiene.

greyline

That's not a bad attitude to take, since there's nothing you can do about it anyway. However, sexual function is most definitely altered - I don't mean "how many times, how often and in what position" - I mean the engineering of how the penis works. In an uncut penis, the shaft moves within its own skin during sex as well as moving inside the partner (or hand). A cut penis has tight skin and works more like a (pardon me again) plain ol' dildo.