Extremely depressed I was mutilated as a child.

I've seen a couple botched circumcisions. But 98% of the time it's fine. And honestly most guys rather be circumcised. Uncut looks terrible. You seriously gotta move on. I have a big heart for depression. But wow. No sympathy here

itzmecorey wrote:And honestly most guys rather be circumcised. Uncut looks terrible.

Sorry but this is both incorrect and immature.

Very few uncut guys make the choice to be cut, what's the point ? Most guys were cut at birth, they don't know what they are missing and prefer to be in denial. They may say being cut is better but they have no idea what they're talking about.

When it comes to the look, how important is it seriously ? How much of the time do you like at your package and tell yourself : it's so beautiful !!
Not to mention your point of view comes from social conditioning, nothing else. In Africa, an uncircumcised vagina looks terrible too.

Lol I do like my cut package. I'm sorry. But I read this post expecting like poor burn victim or something. But I also date exclusive same sex and am 26 years old. So I have seen a number of packages and prefer cut. Idk. Sorry for seeming rude. But I would move past the fact your cut and realize its ok and in fact preferred by most in America. By most females and males I have spoke with.

BAH! I had writtena nice long reply and the server lost it on me! ANYWAY in short.

I know guys who have had the procedure done later in life, one is a guy I work with who converted to Juadism and he loves his. No biggy for them.

FWIW I am a very talkative and open person so this kind of stuff comes up more than you might think i my life.

I also would say that I have discussed this topic MANY times over with MANY people and the only ones who seem to be obsessed with it being one way or the other IME and the uncut ones so I'm not really sure who is in denial or not. As for women I have yet to meet a single one who says candidly (not knowing whether I am or not) that they prefer uncut. I'm sure they do exist but in the parts of North America I have lived in it has not seemed to be the case. the only people who seem to be REALLY convinced that one way is better is the uncut people who claim to get more pleasure because of it (having never tried to other way of course).

I'm not sure I would say based on my experienced that it is the cut people who are in denial... It SEEMS like the cut people are looking for a way to validate what is not widely considered the norm or "preferred" in our culture (despite the fact that it is more natural and totally fine) by making assumptions about the sexual pleasure others experience.

As for the whole debate about nerve endings being lost and sexual pleasure, that's total BS.
More nerve endings does not = more pleasure when it comes to orgasms. Orgasms largely happen in the brain and many people who fetishize various things can reach INTENSE orgasms without ever even touching their genitals. Not to mention the G-spot and female ejaculation which up until recently was considered a myth by most. The clitoris has WAY more nerve endings than the G-spot yet once a woman learns about her body and can have multiple g-spot orgasms I have NEVER seen or heard from women I've talked to that the clitoral orgasm is more intense it is always the opposite. I'm sure they DO exit though!
My point is just that the competitive side of it and trying to say that more nerves=better orgasm is just WAY oversimplified and frankly total garbage. I could see there being some more pleasure in terms of the immediate stimulation like a massage or something but when it comes to climaxing it just doesn't matter so long as you get there. That being said you can learn to sensitize areas of your body to achieve orgasm through them if you learn how.
Sex is in the mind my friend, a bit of skin on your pecker ain't gonna hurt it one way or the other if you do the rest of the work and love yourself.

That being said I am cut but I'd say I'm like "half-cut". I know I was but I have coverage of half of the glans on my own unit. Could be from the enlargement exercises I do (which, FWIW DO DEFINITELY WORK, but ya gotta be dedicated) they are sometimes similar in ways to the restoration exercises.

Well that wound up being a pretty long post in and of itself.

Hope I didn't offend anyone/hope it helped a bit.

Duketronix wrote:
I know guys who have had the procedure done later in life, one is a guy I work with who converted to Juadism and he loves his. No biggy for them.

I try to avoid anecdotal evidence as much as possible...I consider it as dubious regardless of the veracity of your claims. Not mention very few guys admit openly there's something wrong with their package. Also keep in my mind, keratinization (which happen without a foreskin) is like MPB : a slow and vicious process, it may take years before you realize you've lost a lot of feelings in your glans.

Duketronix wrote:
I also would say that I have discussed this topic MANY times over with MANY people and the only ones who seem to be obsessed with it being one way or the other IME and the uncut ones so I'm not really sure who is in denial or not.

From my personal experience, it's not really true, if not the opposite. "Dick cheese", "extra skin", "elephant truck", "useless piece of skin" or anything else along those lines are aggressive expressions used by the circumcised ones. It's funny that the only ones claiming the foreskin is useless are those who lost it at birth despite they have no inherent knowledge of what being intact is like.

I consider this attitude as a defence mechanism/denial : they are keenly aware that they have been surgically altered in a very private way. There are several ways for a man to deal with this issue but the safest way, psychologically speaking, is to believe at all cost that the surgery performed on them was an enhancement and that the foreskin is useless if not dangerous. For them to acknowledge that the practice is unnecessary and harmful means that they must acknowledge a painful personal reality.

Duketronix wrote:
As for women I have yet to meet a single one who says candidly (not knowing whether I am or not) that they prefer uncut. I'm sure they do exist but in the parts of North America I have lived in it has not seemed to be the case.

I understand that in a culture where circumcision is the norm, some women prefer the cut version. But these women are probably very shallow not to mention they probably have no idea what they are talking about, they are just parrotting what they heard when they saw Nip Tuck.
Anyway if you are justifying a needless genital surgery to please retarded chicks, you obviously suffer from very low self esteem.

Duketronix wrote:
the only people who seem to be REALLY convinced that one way is better is the uncut people who claim to get more pleasure because of it (having never tried to other way of course).

Just like OP, many cut guys are unhappy. Just google foreskin restoration, there are many forums, some of them have more than 10,000 members. Most of these guys have experienced both. For them the answer is clear : the foreskin does have a purpose. It's not just a personal anecdotal evidence but thousands of testimonies.

Duketronix wrote:
As for the whole debate about nerve endings being lost and sexual pleasure, that's total BS.

No it isn't. There are many respectful studies to support it. There are about 10,000 nerve endings in the foreskin, it's a fact not my opinion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847?dopt=Abstract

Duketronix wrote:
Orgasms largely happen in the brain and many people who fetishize various things can reach INTENSE orgasms without ever even touching their genitals.

Those with sexual fantasies who enjoy sex without touching their genitalia don't experience natural and normal sex imo. They try to compensate their lack of sensitivity in their penis by "intellectualizing" in their minds their pleasures. Fetishists generally experience a great deal of guilt and shame. A sexual fetish is regarded as sexual neuroses, better understood as personality disorders.

Anyway there are MANY other reasons to support being intact, it's not just about sexual pleasure.

[quote]
I try to avoid anecdotal evidence as much as possible...I consider it as dubious regardless of the veracity of your claims. Not mention very few guys admit openly there's something wrong with their package. Also keep in my mind, keratinization (which happen without a foreskin) is like MPB : a slow and vicious process, it may take years before you realize you've lost a lot of feelings in your glans.
{quote}

Of course it's dubious, but so are the claims to the contrary, unfortunately when it comes to people's own experience and that of people who are circumcised as adults that is all you will get at this point I'm afraid.

[quote]
From my personal experience, it's not really true, if not the opposite. "Dick cheese", "extra skin", "elephant truck", "useless piece of skin" or anything else along those lines are aggressive expressions used by the circumcised ones. It's funny that the only ones claiming the foreskin is useless are those who lost it at birth despite they have no inherent knowledge of what being intact is like.

I consider this attitude as a defence mechanism/denial : they are keenly aware that they have been surgically altered in a very private way. There are several ways for a man to deal with this issue but the safest way, psychologically speaking, is to believe at all cost that the surgery performed on them was an enhancement and that the foreskin is useless if not dangerous. For them to acknowledge that the practice is unnecessary and harmful means that they must acknowledge a painful personal reality.
[quote]

I see the reverse as a defense mechanism because it is rare that anyone other than uncut people prefer the cut version (in western culture) I'm sure they exist but I've never seen or heard of it myself and heard many accounts of... issues with it, not to mention you're just providing more of the dubious evidence you already negated as being useless. Shal we have an anecdote fight?



[quote]
I understand that in a culture where circumcision is the norm, some women prefer the cut version. But these women are probably very shallow not to mention they probably have no idea what they are talking about, they are just parrotting what they heard when they saw Nip Tuck.
Anyway if you are justifying a needless genital surgery to please retarded chicks, you obviously suffer from very low self esteem.
[quote]

WHOA WHOA whoa whoa there buddy no need to attack anyone here. Who has low self esteem? you're the one who just lashed out irrationally and started name calling and assuming value judgements about people you've never even met. I tried to keep it civil so don't tell me about shallow people with low self esteem please. Way to use a straw man argument (one of the basic fallacies of a poor argumentative approach btw) and show us a little more about where you're comming form with this than you probably meant to.



I ALSO mentioned that I don't think doing it to children without consent is good so I really don't know what you think you're talking about?

[quote]
Just like OP, many cut guys are unhappy. Just google foreskin restoration, there are many forums, some of them have more than 10,000 members. Most of these guys have experienced both. For them the answer is clear : the foreskin does have a purpose. It's not just a personal anecdotal evidence but thousands of testimonies.
[quote]

It's true and did you not notice that I was the person who first posted links to the foreskin restoration sites? I know plenty about it mate and IMO/IME a lot of their problems extend beyond JUST not having foreskin a lot of them aren't properly in touch/taking care of themselves/the little general in the first place. If you take proper care of your little guy and don't abuse him he'll be fine even without foreskin. Sorry mate but it's true. Don't go around commando, don't beat the frack out of him for no reason and moisturize the skin etc and he'll be fine. Of course that's not the case for all which is why I made a point of not judging anyone. People seem to have problems on both sides of the fence.

I'm aware there are studies verifying the nerve endings in the foreskin. My sentence wasn't worded as well as it could have been I admit. It was jsut a quick re-write of my OP. I wasn't trying to deny their existence, just that they are not necessary to achieve orgasm and that when we look at women and G-spot orgasms it is debatable weather they would give any kind of "better" orgasm at all. No I was saying they are not necessary to have a healthy sex life. I believe I


as for this....

[quote]
Those with sexual fantasies who enjoy sex without touching their genitalia don't experience natural and normal sex imo. They try to compensate their lack of sensitivity in their penis by "intellectualizing" in their minds their pleasures. Fetishists generally experience a great deal of guilt and shame. A sexual fetish is regarded as sexual neuroses, better understood as personality disorders.
[quote]

First off that's just anecdotal opinions which you've already discounted so I don't see why you keep giving them?
Second I never said they can't have orgasms through touching their penis AS WELL. The guilt that fetishists feel (when they do) is a cultural phenomena because people like you make value judgements about them based on your own projections of what they are experiencing not because they themselves necessarily feel it is wrong in the first place. Most often they are MADE TO FEEL it is wrong and them feel shame and guilt. Something for which people who treat them as such ought to feel shame and guilt IMO.

Further I just want to add that context is pretty important here and remind you that the whole point of this thread was because the OP was SEVERELY DEPRESSED ABOUT IT, I'm not saying I agree with circumcision I'm saying it isn't the end of the world.
I also find that there are a lot of uncut guys who are voraciously against it in a way that makes me suspect that they themselves are the ones who are particularly uncomfortable with the fact that others have been altered and they are not because they are now not the norm despite being more "natural". I find they often resort to trying to shame those who are cut with terms like "butchered" and "unnatural" and "deformed". If that is our look at all surgical procedures then I guess the surviving cancer patient has been "butchered" and the seperated conjoined twins are "unnatural" and "deformed". Its just useless hate speech and more of it IME comes from uncut guys talking about something they've never experienced than it does from cut guys. I have never personally known cut guys who really care either way unless there was a botched procedure and that can happen with anything even shaving your pubic hair (more "unnatural" stuff that our culture enjoys). If people want to be totally natural then so be it but don't make others feel like crap or try to make yourself feel like you are better because of it.

THAT is the insecurity that I see coming to the surface again and again in this debate.

It is just more anecdotal evidence but since you brought it back on the table after pretending to take it off (when it was convenient to prove only the first of your points, despite it being foundational in all your later arguments I might add) is that from those I have met who have experienced both they are not that different and the experience of orgasm does not change.

That was my main point, nerve endings or no, so long as you can enjoy sex you'll be fine.

FYI:
I'm not gonna post anymore on this thread because frankly I have spent too much time in the last two days talking about foreskin, but feel free to respond.

Duketronix wrote:
I'm not gonna post anymore on this thread because frankly I have spent too much time in the last two days talking about foreskin, but feel free to respond.

You have your opinion , I have mine. Keep in my mind I've nothing against circumcision as long as it is a man's decision. The exact same way I've nothing against women who are choosing labiaplasty for themselves. But when it comes to infant circumcision (and children too), I do have strong feelings despite circumcision (like hairloss btw) isn't the end of the world.

Anyway no matter how forceful your argument is, that still doesn't change the fact that the foreskin is a natural part of your body (every male is born with it including animals). If you're supporting this cosmetic procedure for unconsenting minors , it's up to you to provide solid arguments, not the other way round.

If circumcision were being proposed today, without its extraordinary cultural baggage, there is no way it would ever be accepted as ethical.

Circumcision is no more of a decision than considering whether to hack the kid's toes off or any other part of his body. There really is no such thing as minor surgery. Assuming all parts of the body are functioning normally then there are no "decisions" for anyone to make, except the child himself when he's old enough.

Also it doesn’t matter if it does or doesn’t take away feelings. At what point in history did a bunch of self-righteous assholes go “Wanna cut my kid’s penis skin off?” and claimed it’d be good to incorporate into his tradition? It’s needless, and it’s disturbing. Please tell me how it isn’t. You’re the one who has to explain why it’s good, I don’t need anything more than an angry “biased” rant to refute such a bizarre, ridiculous ritual.

There’s no reason to do it besides false claims of non-cleanliness. How the rest of the world has done just fine without lobbing off baby penis, I don’t know. Maybe their kids can clean themselves?