I just wanted to add my experience on circumcision and my own thoughts.

First thing I noticed here is a normal discussion about circumcision like it is anywhere else. With all pros and cons. Some people are against, some are not. But imagine, if the discussion was here about castration !!!

Circumcision has been one of my sexual fantasies since my very early teens. I was circumcised finally 6 years ago. I have chosen very tight and low cut with frenulum completely removed. The way circumcision removes most of the of penis sensitivity. It was my free decision. I knew what the result will be. I already had plenty of fun with my foreskin and now I enjoy it without.

About sensitivity loss

Actually I have had 2 circumcisions. first one was 6 years ago and last one 1 year ago. So I can tell the difference of penis sensitivity between the different circumcision styles.

At first my circ was not so tight and some frenulum still left intact. I lost quite a lot of sensitivity with first circ. I can tell, that inner skin of foreskin is quite sensitive and foreskin tip. I did'nt feel these parts anymore. My penis felt kinda numb. I expected that and it was kinda funny too. My now exposed penis head gradually lost sensitivity too. At first it was too tender. It had to rub it very carefully. I felt it all the time in my pants rubbing against clothes. I like cycling and I felt every move in my pants I made on pedals as well.

I still had feelings from my frenulum and my penis head was not so numb as it was partially covered when soft. That kept it from desinsitising.

Second circ removed all the free skin from shaft so that it even pulls up my scrotum slightly when erect. There is no skin on penis head when soft Exposing my glans completely. There is no sign of frenulum left. It feels pretty numb there now.

I would say that there has been considerable loss of sensation.

All this numbness has not restricted me having sex or masturbating many times a day.

Orgasm feels still pretty much the same. Well, it feels even deeper, as there is not so strong mechanical stimulation signals coming from penis.

Brain is the thing that creates orgasm not foreskin on the penis. Under influence of Testosterone of course

I guess that uncircumcised eunuchs reach orgasm much easily than circumcised eunuchs, as testosterone is not helping fantasies and sexual excitement that much.

Are there any eunuchs that are circumcised after castration?

E.

John W. (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:21 am Those who were involuntarily circumcized as babies, including for pseudo-religious reasons, should sue the doctors concerned, and their parents if it was done with their knowledge or consent, and any ministers of religion involved, to their last nickels.

Yeah, but there are just a few problems with that idea. First, there are statutory limitations; you don't have to like them, but if you are willing to think about the practical problems of administring justice you will surely see that there really does have to be an end to litigation sometime. Next is that the courts are so crowded with suits of as little merit as those that it can take three or four years for them to get to trial, and the costs of litigation are not negligible. Then even if I could get a judgement I couldn't collect it; those people have been dead & their estates closed for more than 20 years. And none of them acted out of malice; they were all acting out of the best information available to them at the time, and in conformance with the cultural imperative of the time. Finally, I really, truly, do not blame them; the reasons I did better for my son than they did for me are that I had better information and for my own reasons had got myself out

thefraj (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:49 pm from under the cultural imperative that controlled them.

I consider myself very fortunate to be bor

n into a country where circumcision is extremely rare, . . . Actually you are very fortunate to have been born into a country which had the good sense to make it clear to the Puritans that their contolling obsessions were not welcome. But I bet you understand that even though you haven't said it.

Moreschi,

many , many thanks for the link to your site. There I found a (prolix but enlightening) description of the Culture/Nature dichotomy which reminded me of C. P. Snow's essay on The Two Cultures. This has helped me to understand one of the mysteries of my life: why my brother, who was born in 1930 (for my family the depths of the Great Depression) at home in a small (rural) town in north-central Iowa, was not circumcised until his late teens while I, born in a hospital in a city in 1934 (when we were somewhat more prosperous) was circumcised at birth.

.

Patient (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:18 pm Moreschi,

many , many thanks for the link to your site. There I found a (prolix but enlightening) description of the Culture/Nature dichotomy which reminded me of C. P. Snow's essay on The Two Cultures. This has helped me to understand one of the mysteries of my life: why my brother, who was born in 1930 (for my family the depths of the Great Depression) at home in a small (rural) town in north-central Iowa, was not circumcised until his late teens while I, born in a hospital in a city in 1934 (when we were somewhat more prosperous) was circumcised at birth.

Thanks. (You mean *I* get "wordy"?!?! )

I just stumbled across a survey published by JackinWorld (http://www.jackinworld.com/library/surveys/survey2.html) reguarding circumcisons (I was actually looking for something totally unrelated!). But what I found really facinating was the percentage of people circumcised, broken down by country:

U.S. : Circumcised :76.5%Uncircumcised:23.5%

California: 69.8%

Texas: 77.4%

New York: 65.0%

The South 83.3% (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia):

Canada: 58.8%

United Kingdom: 28.6%

Australia: 33.3%

This sample was taken from 603 people in March and April 1997 by people aged 21 years and under.

~Rog

Right, much much earlier. Starting around 1870-ish, it was a cure for everything, even such things as masturbation, rape, and balding.

The thing is, when doing research, scientists/doctors/whatever will always find the results they want to find. (and foreskin probably about is as likely to cause cervical cancer drinking tap water, in reality).

However, you're an adult, and it's your cock. So do whatever the hell you want with it(as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else.

Koku brings up a great point- an adult male should be able to make the decision regarding their own cock. However, that opinion should not be used to paint circumcision with a broad stroke of acceptance.

My personal belief is that circumcision of defenseless infants- or children before the age of reason- is a form of child abuse regardless of the 'reason'. Unless, of course, there is a actual medical condition that requires surgical intervention.

The tragedy is that those who are circumcised before the age of reason will never know what they are missing.

So, is this smilie circumcised- or not? Anybody?

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:51 pm Koku brings up a great point- an adult male should be able to make the decision regarding their own cock. However, that opinion should not be used to paint circumcision with a broad stroke of acceptance.

My personal belief is that circumcision of defenseless infants- or children before the age of reason- is a form of child abuse regardless of the 'reason'. Unless, of course, there is a actual medical condition that requires surgical intervention.

The tragedy is that those who are circumcised before the age of reason will never know what they are missing.

So, is this smilie circumcised- or not? Anybody?

I see no head...

wannabe_alto (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:15 pm For a number of reasons, in Canada and the U.S. (and to a lesser extent in Australia, N.Z., and other countries - overall predominately Protestant-Christian, white, Anglo-European nations) circumcision was regularly preformed on children from the 1950's to the 1970's. There is a gradual movement among many cut guys to go back to what they could have had. While Baopi's over-hang might be considered excessive by some, many would find it very attractive. Nevertheless, having said that, if Baopi's quite convinced he wants it cut back, a plastic surgeon (or, as was suggested before, perhaps a urologist) should be consulted.

It's funny how American men think it is normal to be circumcized. It is actually very rare, practiced mainly in the US and among Jewish people. It seems pretty clear to me that unless you have religious reasons (i.e. you are Jewish) you should leave things as nature intended. It was mainly introduced in US based on the idea that it cured masturbation.

What always really shocks me is the traditional Jewish way of circumcision which involves the Rabbi putting the baby's penis in his mouth -- really! If that doesn't scream perversion, I don't know what does ... here's an article about a Rabbi giving babies herpes! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/

To look at the Jewish dogma regarding circumcision, read this rabbinical FAQ: http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askr ... cision.htm

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:51 pm So, is this smilie circumcised- or not? Anybody?

Doesn't look like it to me.

Tom Fletcher (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:51 pm So, is this smilie circumcised- or not? Anybody?

I see no head...

I think an intact prepuce would both conceal the corona and produce a more pointed tip, so I vote for circumcised. But more strongly I believe the artist meant this to be ambiguous.

.