I just now noticed that like 95% of penises on this site are circumcised in the artwork.

How do y'all feel about circumcision?

I personally think it'd be weird. I mean, with how I masturbate circumcision seems like an inconvenience and uncomfortable. Though I think that if others want to do it it's fine by me.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I just now noticed that like 95% of penises on this site are circumcised in the artwork.

How do y'all feel about circumcision?

I prefer to see weird mushroom dicks over weird sausage link dicks.

Kaizer99 said:
I personally think it'd be weird. I mean, with how I masturbate circumcision seems like an inconvenience and uncomfortable. Though I think that if others want to do it it's fine by me.

99.99% of the time, its not really a choice that's offered to somebody. Its usually done for them, by decision of the parents, when they're born.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I just now noticed that like 95% of penises on this site are circumcised in the artwork.

How do y'all feel about circumcision?

If we're just talking about the art, I'm fine with it. When it comes to real life though, I really think it should be the individual's decision, and only the individual's decision.

Manasgael said:
If we're just talking about the art, I'm fine with it. When it comes to real life though, I really think it should be the individual's decision, and only the individual's decision.

Procione said:
99.99% of the time, its not really a choice that's offered to somebody. Its usually done for them, by decision of the parents, when they're born.

This, if I could go back I'd rather be uncircumcised if I couldve made the choice.

Not to mention, it's a Jewish practice that only became popular in the US because some sexually repressed doctor told parents it would keep their kids from masturbating.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I just now noticed that like 95% of penises on this site are circumcised in the artwork.

Not quite. There's 1865 posts tagged as circumcised, and 21112 tagged as uncut.

And circumcised tends to be overtagged, presumably by users who don't know what an uncut penis looks like when erect.

Artwork: First of all I'm not so sure it's actually 95% I wouldn't be surprised if it's only 70% or even lower. Almost no-one draws real circumcised penises, most characters simply don't have a foreskin at all and never had. Probably because seeing a circumcision scar isn't something most people want to see, but a lot of people don't care about foreskin either so they opt out of it completely, or the artists style is simply not detailed enough to draw a nice looking retracted foreskin so they just ignore that detail. But that's just my thoughts.

On a side not I always find it funny when someone comments about some cut cock and I just smile to myself when it's clearly not cut as if the foreskin is somehow glued to the glans of uncut guys and cannot be retracted. Doesn't happen often, but still does.

Real life: Don't get me started... But I have absolutely no issue with people getting circumcised by their own free will, I have a big issue with parents circumcising their children because of religion/tradition...

As far as art goes, I prefer uncut, but in the real world it is an unnecessary hygienic practice in modern developed countries. The trauma that may be caused to the infant is not worth it anymore. It was traditional in my dad's family, but my parents did their research and decided not to do it to us. And I sure am glad lol.

Aeruginis said:
As far as art goes, I prefer uncut, but in the real world it is an unnecessary hygienic practice in modern developed countries. The trauma that may be caused to the infant is not worth it anymore. It was traditional in my dad's family, but my parents did their research and decided not to do it to us. And I sure am glad lol.

speaking of research, this is relevant to the topic at hand

Chessax said:
On a side not I always find it funny when someone comments about some cut cock and I just smile to myself when it's clearly not cut as if the foreskin is somehow glued to the glans of uncut guys and cannot be retracted. Doesn't happen often, but still does.

Real life: Don't get me started... But I have absolutely no issue with people getting circumcised by their own free will, I have a big issue with parents circumcising their children because of religion/tradition...

that side note sounds like phimosis to me.

and for irl: agreed, i too find it horrible that someone would put their children through something like that. if the person is older, consents to it, and knows what they're getting into then yeah, ok. that's their choice to make about their own body.

as for why i disapprove of this stuff...theres some good reason if you check the "10 Reasons NOT to Circumcise Your Baby Boy" section of that "say no" page i linked.

as for the religious section there. well, if anyone here ever happens to see my comments on youtube and reddit about religion (same username as here) then you'd know that i really don't have that high of an opinion on religion or the things it can make people do. >.> for the topic at hand here though, i would ask the following questions: what kind of monster would bring a life into this world only to bring it harm and allow it to potentially die in a risky and completely unnecessary procedure? is your belief system so important to you that you would put IT before your own flesh and blood?

to me, that would be unforgivable.

"circumcision" is the only tag I have blacklisted, just because of how much I hate the practice. Having the irreversible choice made for me as an infant caused me a lot of emotional trauma growing up, and it still gets to me quite a bit. Suffice to say, I wouldn't wish what I've felt over it on my worst enemy, and I honestly wish it was illegal to perform on babies and children without life-threatening medical necessity.

I'm also a bit baffled by your 95% claim, because like Genjar pointed out, "uncut" is a very popular tag, and my experience on this site has most non-animal penises either intact or ambiguous. I don't think I've ever seen an accurately-depicted circumcised penis in any post here.

I'm not a fan of circumcision by any means. But I think it's an exaggeration to call it "genital mutilation" if you see what that normally incurs. Circumcision, on the other hand, just does not have any great detriment on bodily functions.

Like I said, not a fan, but people act like it's some completely merciless act of brutality that will leave them traumatized forever. Give me a break, guys. I would not do it to my own kids, but it's foreskin, not a finger or eyelid or, you know, the head of the penis, which is what it sometimes sounds like people think is being removed.

treos said:
i would ask the following questions: what kind of monster would bring a life into this world only to bring it harm and allow it to potentially die in a risky and completely unnecessary procedure? is your belief system so important to you that you would put IT before your own flesh and blood?

to me, that would be unforgivable.

I think you're misrepresenting the thought process here, and it's not as if deaths from circumcision are that common of an occurrence. These parents are not being malicious. Ignorant or misguided, I wouldn't be so quick to dispute, but...

Before anyone tells me that infant circumcision is wrong, save it. I agree with you. But don't liken it to things that are on a whole different level. I think a more nuanced approach is appropriate, focusing on individual liberty instead.

foreskin > you

circumcision is mutilation by definition, it is irreparably removing part of the body, and for no medical reason

Fenrick said:
I'm not a fan of circumcision by any means. But I think it's an exaggeration to call it "genital mutilation" if you see what that normally incurs. Circumcision, on the other hand, just does not have any great detriment on bodily functions.

Like I said, not a fan, but people act like it's some completely merciless act of brutality that will leave them traumatized forever. Give me a break, guys. I would not do it to my own kids, but it's foreskin, not a finger or eyelid or, you know, the head of the penis, which is what it sometimes sounds like people think is being removed.

I think I would honestly have rather lost a finger than my foreskin. It did leave me traumatized. Contrary to popular belief, the glans isn't the most important/sensitive part of the penis. It mainly serves to sense temperature and pressure. Parts contained in the foreskin comprise the primary sensory structures, the ones for actual detecting tactile sensations among other things, and they're entirely lost forever with circumcision. It does negatively impact the function of the penis. You're losing not only some of the most nerve-dense tissue in the human body, but you're also removing the structures required to detect certain KINDS of sensations. There are certain things a cut penis can never feel.

Additionally, you lose the gliding action which makes sex more comfortable for both the giver and (probably more significantly) the receiver. It's a natural lubricating agent that makes pretty much any kind of penile stimulation much easier and more comfortable. Once the glans is exposed to the outside world permanently, it desensitizes itself significantly because of the constant stimulation it receives. An intact glans is much more sensitive, but like I said, the primary sensory structures are contained in the foreskin.

It's absolutely a horrible thing, and it's the first thing I would magically change about my body given the chance.

gaunt0 said:
I think I would honestly have rather lost a finger than my foreskin. It did leave me traumatized. Contrary to popular belief, the glans isn't the most important/sensitive part of the penis. It mainly serves to sense temperature and pressure. Parts contained in the foreskin comprise the primary sensory structures, the ones for actual detecting tactile sensations among other things, and they're entirely lost forever with circumcision. It does negatively impact the function of the penis. You're losing not only some of the most nerve-dense tissue in the human body, but you're also removing the structures required to detect certain KINDS of sensations. There are certain things a cut penis can never feel.

Additionally, you lose the gliding action which makes sex more comfortable for both the giver and (probably more significantly) the receiver. It's a natural lubricating agent that makes pretty much any kind of penile stimulation much easier and more comfortable. Once the glans is exposed to the outside world permanently, it desensitizes itself significantly because of the constant stimulation it receives. An intact glans is much more sensitive, but like I said, the primary sensory structures are contained in the foreskin.

It's absolutely a horrible thing, and it's the first thing I would magically change about my body given the chance.

You still haven't explained how having it cut before you were capable of forming any memories whatsoever has left you traumatized.

Furrin_Gok said:
You still haven't explained how having it cut before you were capable of forming any memories whatsoever has left you traumatized.

It's not the event itself that I mean, but who knows what subconscious effects that has on a young brain. It's having to live circumcised that's been traumatizing. The emotional baggage that comes with it has been very substantial with me, to say the least.

gaunt0 said:
It's not the event itself that I mean, but who knows what subconscious effects that has on a young brain. It's having to live circumcised that's been traumatizing. The emotional baggage that comes with it has been very substantial with me, to say the least.

Okay, the knowing that you were forced through it, that I can understand.

Furrin_Gok said:
Okay, the knowing that you were forced through it, that I can understand.

It's not only the loss of agency, it's also learning about what I'm missing and what I'll never have, while most men in the world will get to have it. I understand that injustice happens all the time in the world, but I dunno... my body is all I truly have. It's a very fundamental violation, and one that damages a very basic human joy: sexual intimacy.

gaunt0 said:
I think I would honestly have rather lost a finger than my foreskin. It did leave me traumatized. Contrary to popular belief, the glans isn't the most important/sensitive part of the penis. It mainly serves to sense temperature and pressure. Parts contained in the foreskin comprise the primary sensory structures, the ones for actual detecting tactile sensations among other things, and they're entirely lost forever with circumcision. It does negatively impact the function of the penis. You're losing not only some of the most nerve-dense tissue in the human body, but you're also removing the structures required to detect certain KINDS of sensations. There are certain things a cut penis can never feel.

Additionally, you lose the gliding action which makes sex more comfortable for both the giver and (probably more significantly) the receiver. It's a natural lubricating agent that makes pretty much any kind of penile stimulation much easier and more comfortable. Once the glans is exposed to the outside world permanently, it desensitizes itself significantly because of the constant stimulation it receives. An intact glans is much more sensitive, but like I said, the primary sensory structures are contained in the foreskin.

It's absolutely a horrible thing, and it's the first thing I would magically change about my body given the chance.

can't say i know much of the trauma you spoke of (if anything traumatic did happen related to this topic then i certainly don't remember it.). but other than that i'd definitely have to agree with you in regards to not being able to feel as much down there as a result. :/

gaunt0 said:
It's not only the loss of agency, it's also learning about what I'm missing and what I'll never have, while most men in the world will get to have it. I understand that injustice happens all the time in the world, but I dunno... my body is all I truly have. It's a very fundamental violation, and one that damages a very basic human joy: sexual intimacy.

yep, again, i agree with you. :/

boy, this isn't all that nice a topic to think about tbh. for a number of reasons. kinda makes me feel a tad awkward talking about this stuff.

treos said:
boy, this isn't all that nice a topic to think about tbh. for a number of reasons. kinda makes me feel a tad awkward talking about this stuff.

It definitely isn't spoken out against nearly enough, in my opinion, especially by the people actually affected. I usually avoid public revelations about it like this, because yeah it does feel a bit shameful to talk about, but I think it's important to spread the word. It's a sensitive and vulnerable topic, and it inspires some ugly passion. People don't like to be told that they're inferior. People don't like to talk about something horrible happening under our noses. Usually you see a lot of cut guys being fine or even happy about how they are, but I honestly think that attitude is born from ignorance, either willfully because it's hard to face, or just unintentionally. As far as I can figure, circumcision is pretty objectively terrible for a lot of reasons, but general cultural attitudes, especially in the US, make it hard for me to feel totally convicted about that sometimes. That doubt, and lots of people telling me it's not a big deal, make it even harder for me to deal with.

If you can feel good about being cut, that's great for your personal happiness, but I certainly can't feel good about it... and people feeling good about it is exactly why it continues to happen to infants who don't deserve it every day. I couldn't be complacent in that, even if I was able.

I don't know how it would compare to the fore-skin included dick, but if you squeeze tight enough that the hand no longer slides against the skin, but not much tighter than necessary, you can get a sliding sensation still. The glans is also still fairly sensitive to direct contact, but mine may just be different than normal--its' sort of got little bumps and ridges like a fingerpint, only the outward ridges are a lot thicker than those on the finger, and when those get brushed around, it's definitely something that can be felt.

Is that normal, or is it supposed to be entirely smooth?

I was circumcised at birth. Wish I hadn't been.

Though I had a very likely chance of phimosis as I aged. So I dunno.

Furrin_Gok said:
I don't know how it would compare to the fore-skin included dick, but if you squeeze tight enough that the hand no longer slides against the skin, but not much tighter than necessary, you can get a sliding sensation still.

I was cut too tightly to force any skin over the glans, so it's not even in the same ballpark at all. It's basically impossible for me to comfortably masturbate without some kind of lubrication.

Furrin_Gok said:
The glans is also still fairly sensitive to direct contact, but mine may just be different than normal--its' sort of got little bumps and ridges like a fingerpint, only the outward ridges are a lot thicker than those on the finger, and when those get brushed around, it's definitely something that can be felt.

Is that normal, or is it supposed to be entirely smooth?

Your glans may be "sensitive," but it should be much moreso had it been allowed to live in its natural protective environment.

I too have the fingerprint-like glans texture, and I've actually gotten mixed information about that particular issue. I've heard it suggested that its a result of ripping the foreskin from the glans, either for circumcision or otherwise retracting the foreskin as an infant, because early in life the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans, and will detach itself with time. I've seen intact penises with the cracked glans texture as well, and those non-circumcision retractions may account for them. It's important not to retract the foreskin before it's naturally able to retract.

However, I should note that the majority of intact penises I've seen have a very smooth and shiny glans texture, with no cracks. I believe this to be the natural and sensitive state of the glans, and it even looks so much better too in my opinion.

Knotty_Curls said:
I was circumcised at birth. Wish I hadn't been.

Though I had a very likely chance of phimosis as I aged. So I dunno.

Phimosis cannot be diagnosed at birth, and is almost always curable with non-surgical methods.

gaunt0 said:
I was cut too tightly to force any skin over the glans, so it's not even in the same ballpark at all. It's basically impossible for me to comfortably masturbate without some kind of lubrication.

Your glans may be "sensitive," but it should be much moreso had it been allowed to live in its natural protective environment.

I too have the fingerprint-like glans texture, and I've actually gotten mixed information about that particular issue. I've heard it suggested that its a result of ripping the foreskin from the glans, either for circumcision or otherwise retracting the foreskin as an infant, because early in life the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans, and will detach itself with time. I've seen intact penises with the cracked glans texture as well, and those non-circumcision retractions may account for them. It's important not to retract the foreskin before it's naturally able to retract.

However, I should note that the majority of intact penises I've seen have a very smooth and shiny glans texture, with no cracks. I believe this to be the natural and sensitive state of the glans, and it even looks so much better too in my opinion.

Alright, thanks for the info.

After reading through all of this, I wish I hadn't been circumcised but 12-year old me didn't know any better as I was taught that it was for sanitary reasons not realizing that it was actually a means of trying to make masturbation difficult to some.

But eh, at least I can still fap okay... A bit rough but still okay.

gaunt0 said:
If you can feel good about being cut, that's great for your personal happiness, but I certainly can't feel good about it... and people feeling good about it is exactly why it continues to happen to infants who don't deserve it every day. I couldn't be complacent in that, even if I was able.

-_- i just remembered someone i encountered here (who is now perma banned iirc) who actually thought this was a good thing, not mutilation (yes it is!), and there was nothing wrong about it.

goodbye and good riddance to someone like that. (i have things such as gore blacklisted for a reason. :( )

treos said:
mutilation (yes it is!)

No, it isn't. If somebody went from being really fat to being skinny and had flaps of skin, it wouldn't be mutilation to cut those flaps off and stich them shut. While this is a "flap" that the body is supposed to have, it isn't mutilation. You are deprived of sensitivity, but not actual limb.

Furrin_Gok said:
No, it isn't. If somebody went from being really fat to being skinny and had flaps of skin, it wouldn't be mutilation to cut those flaps off and stich them shut. While this is a "flap" that the body is supposed to have, it isn't mutilation. You are deprived of sensitivity, but not actual limb.

I would absolutely classify it as mutilation, but it's more or less just an argument of semantics. Nowhere in the definition of mutilation, either formal or applied, is it implicated that a limb need be removed for something to be mutilation. It's any sort of intentional bodily harm.

I know who Treos is referencing, and they argued over genital_mutilation being implied with gore, the verdict was yes. This was over the tag, not RL.

I'm pointing this out here, in case people wish to argue about RL gore/circumcision...

Manasgael said:
When it comes to real life though, I really think it should be the individual's decision, and only the individual's decision.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm just curious. But, what is your opinion on abortion?

gaunt0 said:

Phimosis cannot be diagnosed at birth, and is almost always curable with non-surgical methods.

i mean i have a big dick now

it's a hindsight thing

Fenrick said:
Like I said, not a fan, but people act like it's some completely merciless act of brutality that will leave them traumatized forever.

I know at least one person who says that a botched circumcision has left them with pain and messed with their sexual identity. "Traumatized forever" describes this person perfectly.

Knotty_Curls said:
Though I had a very likely chance of phimosis as I aged. So I dunno.

gaunt0 said:
Phimosis cannot be diagnosed at birth, and is almost always curable with non-surgical methods.

According to my Japanese research material (doujins), phimosis is actually "good": getting it cleaned is portrayed as a fetish. Anybody who is circumcised doesn't get to know that "pleasure".

There is not too much of it on this site but here's one:

post #103142

Knotty_Curls said:
i mean i have a big dick now

it's a hindsight thing

I fail to see how that's relevant. Are you implying that removing penile skin somehow made your penis larger? By definition, it got smaller.

Lance_Armstrong said:
I know at least one person who says that a botched circumcision has left them with pain and messed with their sexual identity. "Traumatized forever" describes this person perfectly.

Botched circumcisions are so sad. I suppose I'm at least lucky that the worst complication I have (besides the complication of being circumcised itself) is just a very strange and uneven scar. It's not pretty at all and I hate looking at it.

Lance_Armstrong said:
According to my Japanese research material (doujins), phimosis is actually "good": getting it cleaned is portrayed as a fetish. Anybody who is circumcised doesn't get to know that "pleasure".

Really? From my Japanese knowledge, I was under the impression that phimosis was shameful in Japan, because it's perceived as child-like and unmanly. This is why a lot of Japanese porn has men that attempt to always keep their foreskin retracted, and never really utilize the gliding motion. I've definitely seen plenty of doujin and other illustrations where a character is ridiculed for having phimosis, or the appearance of a fully covered penis.

gaunt0 said:
it's perceived as child-like and unmanly... where a character is ridiculed

You've listed even more fetishes.

Lance_Armstrong said:
You've listed even more fetishes.

I mean, that can be a fetish. I don't think it is for most people though.

gaunt0 said:
Botched circumcisions are so sad. I suppose I'm at least lucky that the worst complication I have (besides the complication of being circumcised itself) is just a very strange and uneven scar. It's not pretty at all and I hate looking at it.

I must have had a good doctor. I have no scar or anything. As for pleasure, I mean, it's the only thing I've ever known, so I don't mind. I mean, I think it feels great to masterbate.

And I personally think foreskin looks gross, so whatever.

Garrett said:
I must have had a good doctor. I have no scar or anything. As for pleasure, I mean, it's the only thing I've ever known, so I don't mind. I mean, I think it feels great to masterbate.

And I personally think foreskin looks gross, so whatever.

You have a scar, it just may be on the more discrete side, or you don't know what to look for. Unfortunately, circumcision is not all I've ever known, because I've learned about the things that were taken from me. My eyes have been opened and they can't be shut again. Sure, it feels good, but it's like a completely colorblind person saying the world looks amazing in greyscale even after they learn about the concept of color. That may be true, but there's so much missing. As for looks, I'm willing to bet that's only because you grew up without one. If you grew up intact and without significant societal bias, you'd probably hold the opposite opinion. Personally, cut penises are a huge turn off for me because I just think they look tragic and broken. They usually appear quite dry and they're just not appealing to me at all, I'm afraid. I recognize that this might make me seem shallow, since it's not something most people chose for themselves, but unfortunately I simply can't control my own attractions.

gaunt0 said:
You have a scar, it just may be on the more discrete side, or you don't know what to look for. Unfortunately, circumcision is not all I've ever known, because I've learned about the things that were taken from me. My eyes have been opened and they can't be shut again. Sure, it feels good, but it's like a completely colorblind person saying the world looks amazing in greyscale even after they learn about the concept of color. That may be true, but there's so much missing. As for looks, I'm willing to bet that's only because you grew up without one. If you grew up intact and without significant societal bias, you'd probably hold the opposite opinion. Personally, cut penises are a huge turn off for me because I just think they look tragic and broken. They usually appear quite dry and they're just not appealing to me at all, I'm afraid. I recognize that this might make me seem shallow, since it's not something most people chose for themselves, but unfortunately I simply can't control my own attractions.

No, I have scars on my arms from falling in a theater, a scar on my forehead from an accident, a scar under my left eye from being bitten by a dog, and a scar on my left cheek from the same bite. But there is nothing on my dick that looks like that. Like, what is a circumcision scar supposed to look like?

Garrett said:
No, I have scars on my arms from falling in a theater, a scar on my forehead from an accident, a scar under my left eye from being bitten by a dog, and a scar on my left cheek from the same bite. But there is nothing on my dick that looks like that. Like, what is a circumcision scar supposed to look like?

The scar is located where the skin on the shaft abruptly changes color. It results from the fusing of the remnants of the inner and outer foreskin during the healing process. The darker, browner skin on the bottom of the shaft is outer foreskin, and the pinker skin above that is inner foreskin. Between the two is where the scar is.

gaunt0 said:
You have a scar, it just may be on the more discrete side, or you don't know what to look for. Unfortunately, circumcision is not all I've ever known, because I've learned about the things that were taken from me. My eyes have been opened and they can't be shut again. Sure, it feels good, but it's like a completely colorblind person saying the world looks amazing in greyscale even after they learn about the concept of color. That may be true, but there's so much missing. As for looks, I'm willing to bet that's only because you grew up without one. If you grew up intact and without significant societal bias, you'd probably hold the opposite opinion. Personally, cut penises are a huge turn off for me because I just think they look tragic and broken. They usually appear quite dry and they're just not appealing to me at all, I'm afraid. I recognize that this might make me seem shallow, since it's not something most people chose for themselves, but unfortunately I simply can't control my own attractions.

Y'know, I have to wonder: How can you be certain you're lacking sensitivities? How can you claim "Your eyes were opened?" I guess it's a bit of a philosophical conundrum, but you can't really how what you have would equate to what you never did. Maybe a person who was circumcised in infancy has the same sensitivities as somebody who never was, and the loss is only due to remembering the pain of it for those who got it by their own choice.
I mean, mind over matter. You think you'll feel less, you'll feel less.

gaunt0 said:
The scar is located where the skin on the shaft abruptly changes color. It results from the fusing of the remnants of the inner and outer foreskin during the healing process. The darker, browner skin on the bottom of the shaft is outer foreskin, and the pinker skin above that is inner foreskin. Between the two is where the scar is.

Oh hey, lol. I see the clear difference in skin color. I always wondered why that difference was there. Welp. Oh well, I don't really care. Getting depressed and angry won't help anything, it'd just make me miserable.

Furrin_Gok said:
Y'know, I have to wonder: How can you be certain you're lacking sensitivities? How can you claim "Your eyes were opened?" I guess it's a bit of a philosophical conundrum, but you can't really how what you have would equate to what you never did. Maybe a person who was circumcised in infancy has the same sensitivities as somebody who never was, and the loss is only due to remembering the pain of it for those who got it by their own choice.
I mean, mind over matter. You think you'll feel less, you'll feel less.

That part at the end I agree with. Lol. I mean if it felt any better I think I'd have to get help or I'd have a serious masterbation problem.

Furrin_Gok said:
Y'know, I have to wonder: How can you be certain you're lacking sensitivities? How can you claim "Your eyes were opened?" I guess it's a bit of a philosophical conundrum, but you can't really how what you have would equate to what you never did. Maybe a person who was circumcised in infancy has the same sensitivities as somebody who never was, and the loss is only due to remembering the pain of it for those who got it by their own choice.
I mean, mind over matter. You think you'll feel less, you'll feel less.

I base my conclusion on biology, some studies, logic, and testimonials. The foreskin is very nerve-dense, so you're literally removing sensory tissue. It's going to have an effect on your ability to sense and be sensitive. There's been at least one study that found that structures removed by circumcision have the lowest sensory thresholds, and thus the most sensitive parts of the penis are in the foreskin. The hardening of the glans without the foreskin is trivial to observe: I can run a towel over my glans with little to no discomfort, while the same stimulation would be very intense for a bare intact glans. I'm also able to wear pants without my glans going crazy all day. It's been dulled by exposure. The gliding action on its own is very pleasurable, and a different kind of stimulation than the friction cut people are accustomed to. Men who have been circumcised as adults have reported very substantial losses in sexual sensation. In the interest of being unbiased, I will add that some men also report no substantial difference, but I'm willing to attribute that to choice-supportive bias, since it doesn't fit with the other evidence.

gaunt0 said:
I base my conclusion on biology, some studies, logic, and testimonials. The foreskin is very nerve-dense, so you're literally removing sensory tissue. It's going to have an effect on your ability to sense and be sensitive. There's been at least one study that found that structures removed by circumcision have the lowest sensory thresholds, and thus the most sensitive parts of the penis are in the foreskin. The hardening of the glans without the foreskin is trivial to observe: I can run a towel over my glans with little to no discomfort, while the same stimulation would be very intense for a bare intact glans. I'm also able to wear pants without my glans going crazy all day. It's been dulled by exposure. The gliding action on its own is very pleasurable, and a different kind of stimulation than the friction cut people are accustomed to. Men who have been circumcised as adults have reported very substantial losses in sexual sensation. In the interest of being unbiased, I will add that some men also report no substantial difference, but I'm willing to attribute that to choice-supportive bias, since it doesn't fit with the other evidence.

The glans hardens, yes, yet you still feel a "Gliding sensation." That may just be the body learning to say "Okay this is going to be how exposed it's going to be, so stop listening" until you conscious mind says "This should be pleasurable" and your body tells it to wake up.
I hold an optimistic view on these things, thinking that it doesn't necessarily make a difference, but I also know that I could very easily be wrong.

Your own thoughts on the matter are legitimate, and it sucks that you have a loss of sensitivity. I've given my philosophical statement, and if you're still set in stone, then it must be true for you. At that point, one can only hope that advances in medical technologies allow the regeneration to what should have been, including the revival of the killed of nerves.

Furrin_Gok said:
The glans hardens, yes, yet you still feel a "Gliding sensation." That may just be the body learning to say "Okay this is going to be how exposed it's going to be, so stop listening" until you conscious mind says "This should be pleasurable" and your body tells it to wake up.

"Gliding action" refers specifically to how the foreskin moves over the glans. You're not going to feel it without a foreskin. You also still seem focused on the glans, when I've already said that the primary sensory structures of the penis are in the foreskin, not the glans. The glans mainly serves to sense pressure and temperature, not tactile sensations. Your brain is not going to feel things it lacks the nerves to feel. Nothing is going to trigger those sensations. You can be optimistic all you want, but the reality is that circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis, and without those parts there is a lot of things the penis can no longer feel.

Garrett said:
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm just curious. But, what is your opinion on abortion?

My opinion on abortion, for the intents and purposes of this thread, is that it doesn't belong in this thread.

Manasgael said:
My opinion on abortion, for the intents and purposes of this thread, is that it doesn't belong in this thread.

Aight.

I honestly don't understand how some people can say that circumcising an infant for non medical reasons is not mutilation. It truly baffles my mind. If an adult does it then whatever, but come on, you're slicing the body of a child just because you want to?

Look inside yourself and really think about what you're doing, not just gloss over it, but try to analyze your thought patterns and why you think it would be a good idea. Break it down into pros and cons then analyze what you came up with. After that, if you still somehow manage to justify yourself circumcising infants for the sake of tradition or some other irrational cause I can't help but to feel sad for you.

As a fetish in fictional stuff: Don't care, who gives a fuck what people fap to.

As an IRL practice: Get yourself circumcised if you really want to or have a legit medical need... but fuck you if you mutilate a child without their consent. The practice of circumcising children "because religion" or "because tradition" is pointless, barbaric, needlessly risky to their health, and should frankly be fucking outlawed.

This isn't saying you need to feel shame or feel bad about being circumcised though; It's not like ~99.9% of people had a choice in the matter... just don't fucking do it to your kids simply because you were, and don't go around trying to defend the practice as a way to justify it having been done to you... which happens an ASTOUNDINGLY high percentage of the time when this topic comes up on forums.

Okay, guys, circumcision is not risky to physical health. Complications are very rare, and I believe mutilation is a bit strong of a word. Most of my friends are circumcised and have had no issues healthwise, sexually, or emotionally. This doesn't invalidate the problems of those who have suffered from this, of course, but I feel that perhaps it has become a focal point for other stresses and magnified. It would be easy to blame feelings of sexual inadequacy on the fact that one is circumcised. However, I make no assumptions about you fellows here.

Aeruginis said:
Okay, guys, circumcision is not risky to physical health. Complications are very rare, and I believe mutilation is a bit strong of a word. Most of my friends are circumcised and have had no issues healthwise, sexually, or emotionally. This doesn't invalidate the problems of those who have suffered from this, of course, but I feel that perhaps it has become a focal point for other stresses and magnified. It would be easy to blame feelings of sexual inadequacy on the fact that one is circumcised. However, I make no assumptions about you fellows here.

It is unclear to me how a circumcised person, assuming they place value on sex and intimacy, can learn about what was taken from them and have no issue with it. I'm not a psychology expert, so I won't speculate much more on what's going on with the people who are fine with it, but the concept is pretty foreign to me. The harm is clear. It has been one of the most emotionally damaging things in my entire life, for reasons I've talked about above, among many others. Maybe that makes me weak and the others strong, but now that I know what I know I don't see any way out of feeling terrible about what happened to me, and the eternal consequences of it. Mutilation is not too strong of a word; you're removing an important and functional part of a person's body without their consent for negligible health or cultural reasons, and it absolutely is damaging to the sexual function of the penis, whether people are satisfied with what they're left with or not. As for if it has been "magnifying other stresses" or not, again, I don't know enough about psychology to comment. I just know what I've learned about circumcision and what I feel, and it's been really horrible.

Crispix said:
and don't go around trying to defend the practice as a way to justify it having been done to you... which happens an ASTOUNDINGLY high percentage of the time when this topic comes up on forums.

When people like gaunt0 come out of the woodwork to talk about how they were emotionally traumatized by something they couldn't possibly remember, then people are going to call bullshit on it. The anti-circumcision crowd has earned a reputation of being as sensationalist and irrational as other alarmist medical movements like the vaccine = autism movement.

Beanjam said:
When people like gaunt0 come out of the woodwork to talk about how they were emotionally traumatized by something they couldn't possibly remember, then people are going to call bullshit on it. The anti-circumcision crowd has earned a reputation of being as sensationalist and irrational as other alarmist medical movements like the vaccine = autism movement.

If you read my posts, you shouldn't think that I'm talking about the circumcision event itself, so I don't see your point.

gaunt0 said:
If you read my posts, you shouldn't think that I'm talking about the circumcision event itself, so I don't see your point.

Yeah, I know you backpedaled when called out on it. Doesn't make it any less irrational though.

gaunt0 said:
Mutilation is not too strong of a word; you're removing an important and functional part of a person's body without their consent for negligible health or cultural reasons, and it absolutely is damaging to the sexual function of the penis, whether people are satisfied with what they're left with or not.

yep, pretty much all of that was part of that big argument i mentioned before.

Beanjam said:
Yeah, I know you backpedaled when called out on it. Doesn't make it any less irrational though.

I didn't backpedal out of anything. I was never talking about the circumcision event itself in my original posts; people just assumed I was. I specifically said the trauma took place "growing up." I never said anything about how I felt as an infant. All of the things I've been talking about are consequences of having to live as a circumcised adult, and that's all I've ever been talking about.

gaunt0 said:
I didn't backpedal out of anything. I was never talking about the circumcision event itself in my original posts; people just assumed I was. I specifically said the trauma took place "growing up." I never said anything about how I felt as an infant. All of the things I've been talking about are consequences of having to live as a circumcised adult, and that's all I've ever been talking about.

Yup, as you say, "growing up." If you think just the idea of having surgery as an infant could give you trauma growing up, then you have no idea what the word trauma means.

Beanjam said:
Yup, as you say, "growing up." If you think just the idea of having surgery as an infant could give you trauma growing up, then you have no idea what the word trauma means.

Your argument is only one of semantics then. This "surgery as an infant" wasn't just some discrete event that never needs to be considered again; it has permanent side effects on my body, which are very capable of affecting me today. It left me to deal with having less of myself, and missing out on a world of sexual benefits forever for no good reason. What word would you rather I use to describe all the persistent negative and hopeless feelings I've had my entire adolescence about being circumcised? "Trauma" seems pretty fitting, but I guess that's just me. It has been emotionally traumatizing.

idk if it causes trauma or not, i think that its pretty damn stupid to cut a piece of baby's dick off for absolutely no reason

gaunt0 said:
Your argument is only one of semantics then. This "surgery as an infant" wasn't just some discrete event that never needs to be considered again; it has permanent side effects on my body, which are very capable of affecting me today. It left me to deal with having less of myself, and missing out on a world of sexual benefits forever for no good reason. What word would you rather I use to describe all the persistent negative and hopeless feelings I've had my entire adolescence about being circumcised? "Trauma" seems pretty fitting, but I guess that's just me. It has been emotionally traumatizing.

How would you possibly know the difference? At best someone convinced you you were missing out on "a world of sexual benefits." Either way it was "trauma" of your own making.

Beanjam said:
How would you possibly know the difference? At best someone convinced you you were missing out on "a world of sexual benefits." Either way it was "trauma" of your own making.

I've already explained why I think what I do in my previous posts. A "you couldn't possibly ever know for sure" argument isn't going to fly with me, just like I don't think "what if you're the only sentient human and everyone else is just a figment of your reality" is a worldview worth serious consideration. Sure, I can't definitively know anything for certain except the fact that I exist in some form. But there's evidence. There's testimonial. Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine that removing nerve-dense tissue is going to reduce someone's sensory ability? It makes complete sense. I refer you to my post (196780) where I talk about why I believe this in more detail.

In any case whatsoever though, it's still a human rights violation to amputate part of someone's body without their informed consent, assuming it is at all feasible to wait and receive it. Foreskin isn't some health risk; it's a useful part of the body. If someone wants to get it removed, they have to make that choice on their own. Everyone deserves the option to make that choice for their own body, and once its done for them, it can never be reversed. That's a very tough pill to swallow.

gaunt0 said:
I've already explained why I think what I do in my previous posts. A "you couldn't possibly ever know for sure" argument isn't going to fly with me, just like I don't think "what if you're the only sentient human and everyone else is just a figment of your reality" isn't a worldview worth serious consideration. Sure, I can't definitively know anything for certain except the fact that I exist in some form. But there's evidence. There's testimonial. Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine that removing nerve-dense tissue is going to reduce someone's sensory ability? It makes complete sense. I refer you to my post (196780) where I talk about why I believe this in more detail.

Yeah, no, I don't buy that you were interested in all that growing up.

Beanjam said:
Yeah, no, I don't buy that you were interested in all that growing up.

Well, I'm sorry that you think I'm lying for some reason. I had access to the internet, and I was very curious. It's not even close to being improbable that I learned about these things as a teenager.

gaunt0 said:
Well, I'm sorry that you think I'm lying for some reason. I had access to the internet, and I was very curious. It's not even close to being improbable that I learned about these things as a teenager.

Yeah, the internet has always been a great place to find trustworthy information and not sensationalism coupled with political extremism. Perfect place to learn about things that will shape your outlook on life.

Beanjam said:
Yeah, the internet has always been a great place to find trustworthy information and not sensationalism coupled with political extremism. Perfect place to learn about things that will shape your outlook on life.

At this point, it doesn't matter much to me whether you believe me or not. I respect your skepticism. Skepticism is how I personally managed to break out of the narrative in the US that circumcision is good and preferable. I've presented my perspective and my experiences and my knowledge, and that's all I can really do. People are free to make their own minds up. I'll be happy to continue to monitor this thread and further clarify and elaborate, because I think this is very important to talk about.

Sounds to me like you weren't skeptical enough. Assuming your trauma wasn't bullshit, I don't see how you could have possibly been being very "skeptical."

Beanjam said:
Sounds to me like you weren't skeptical enough. Assuming your trauma wasn't bullshit, I don't see how you could have possibly been being very "skeptical."

There is still a significant pro-circumcision attitude in this country, and that's what I'm referring to when I talk of being skeptical.

Out of curiosity, what incentive do you have to defend the institution of circumcision? Are you just being contrary for the purpose of debate, or do you have some reason to support circumcising infants?

Think the vast majority of furries are from the USA, of which circumcision is still standard practice.

gaunt0 said:
Out of curiosity, what incentive do you have to defend the institution of circumcision? Are you just being contrary for the purpose of debate, or do you have some reason to support circumcising infants?

My incentive is to get you to admit that your childhood wasn't so great that the circumcision debate was a significant trauma added to it.

Also, I hate political movements that are purely based on loaded terms. Abortion is not murder, circumcision is not genital mutilation.

Beanjam said:
My incentive is to get you to admit that your childhood wasn't so great that the circumcision debate was a significant trauma added to it.

What do you have to gain from convincing me of what I did or did not feel? That's such an oddly personal goal that I'm not even sure where it came from. You don't know what I've felt, and I'm not going to lie just to appease you.

Beanjam said:
Also, I hate political movements that are purely based on loaded terms. Abortion is not murder, circumcision is not genital mutilation.

How is it not genital mutilation? You're cutting a healthy part of someone's body off against their will. That's mutilation no matter which part it is. It even causes functional damage, which is just the cherry on top. Other kinds of mutilation don't even need to go that far (such as wrist cutting).

gaunt0 said:
What do you have to gain from convincing me of what I did or did not feel? That's such an oddly personal goal that I'm not even sure where it came from. You don't know what I've felt, and I'm not going to lie just to appease you.

If just you're going to hide them behind the "you can't prove I didn't feel this way" defense, then you should just keep them out of the debate.

gaunt0 said:
How is it not genital mutilation? You're cutting a healthy part of someone's body off against their will. That's mutilation no matter which part it is. It even causes functional damage, which is just the cherry on top. Other kinds of mutilation don't even need to go that far (such as wrist cutting).

Oh give me a break. Circumcision is not anything remotely like the female genital mutilation you're trying equate it with. Even by your own absurdly biased assessment of what it does, it still doesn't do anything even remotely like what that does.

And even if you don't like it, it still does serve a hygiene purpose. If you're going to start calling it mutilation, then you better also start calling piercings and tattoos mutilation too.

This back and forth argument you two are having is frankly nearly pointless. Yes, it sounds like gaunt0's claims of personal traumatic experience are a lot more severe than most people who've been circumcised. However, disputing his claimed personal experience does nothing for either side of the discussion whatsoever.

Here's what is probably his core argument:

gaunt0 said:
[...]In any case whatsoever though, it's still a human rights violation to amputate part of someone's body without their informed consent, assuming it is at all feasible to wait and receive it. Foreskin isn't some health risk; it's a useful part of the body. If someone wants to get it removed, they have to make that choice on their own. Everyone deserves the option to make that choice for their own body, and once its done for them, it can never be reversed. That's a very tough pill to swallow.

If you want to argue with him on this topic Beanjam, why not discuss that specific central point? Would be way more productive than this current back-and-forth you guys have going which is basically starting to amount to rote repetition and thread derailment.

Crispix said:
If you want to argue with him on this topic Beanjam, why not discuss that specific central point? Would be way more productive than this current back-and-forth you guys have going which is basically starting to amount to rote repetition and thread derailment.

To be frank, no one would give a shit about that if it weren't for the blatant emotional manipulation tactics exemplified in this thread.