Forskin restoration Smell

Hopful, I wasn't posting in response to your comments at all my friend. I know you suggested nothing of the kind. Sorry for any confusion!

No Problem absolutly non taken

Honestly, this business about some kind of massive medical conspiracy about making huge industry profits from foreskins . . . it's ridiculous. Speaking as somebody with three doctors in my immediate family who aren't the type to BS about the realities of the profession, this is just sili. You really think the average ob/gyn is just raking in profits off of some hushed up circumcision scam? This is internet propgandizing and conspiarcy theorizing at its silliest.

If you replace the word "circumcision" with the word "nose job", I think this argument wouldn't quite stand up to examination. Both are medically unnecessary prodecures! If I were to say "Every child should have a nose job at birth", you would probably be the first to call me a nut, and to inform me how unecessary and wrong it is to cosmetically alter a person's appearance like that at birth, without their consent. The fact that this practice is so widespread, and so unnecessary, does in fact suggest a calculated campaign to keep people uneducated and misinformed. When my wife was pregnant, no one explained the pros and cons to us. No one gave us so much as one educational brochure. Just a release form, and a weird expression when I expressed concerns about it with my second child, as if to say, "What are you, some kind of weirdo? We do this to everybody!"

Ditto for the 'taking off 2 inches' argument. I've called BS on this before as well. Look I'm not coming after anybody here, but think about the actual physiology of this claim. Then read up a bit about the actual procedure. Having a fold of skin that covers the head of the business removed does not shrink an average penis by a 1/3 of its true potential. I would say ask any urologist or doctor about it, but if you honestly believe that the entire American medical community are members of some dark cult bent on crippling the sexual potential of all American men for a few extra dollars a year, you likely won't have much faith in what they tell you.

I got this information from several sources...both medical papers published on the internet by real life doctors and from a study done by a condom company. The fact is, satistically, uncircumcised men are bigger than circumcised men. A tight circumcision can cause 20% of the penis to be held inside the abdomenal cavity, due to insufficient skin to accomodate the erection, scarring and adhesions. Your argument is based on your opinion. Mine is based on published medical reports...and my own personal experience, going from 5.5 inches to 7.5 inches doing FR and light Penis Enlargement. I don't mean to suggest that EVERY circumcised man is the same, but the facts are indisputable. I have cited sources on this in some of the other threads I responded to here on MOS, if you feel you want to dig for them.

So far as women going crazier for the uncircumcised penis, this is purely opinion. There are writings, some of them well known texts and readily available, from the classical period on up when, a circumcised penis was a rare thing in the world, descibing it as a coveted prize amongst women for the pleasurable sensations it provides. The argument of a foreskin feeling better because of 'gliding' or something is not only subjective to the individual, but goes against the conventional wisdom that friction and nerve stimulation are the basis of sexual pleasure for both parties.

Granted. I won't argue with this. If you want to feel your circumcised penis is better for being cut, go ahead. I like to think that my wife enjoys my cut peter, too! However, she has told me that sex is much more comfortable now that I have less of a curve and more slack, and that she is not as sore afterward. Maybe that is why you all get so upset with this. I do not mean to imply that your penis is subpar because of its absent foreskin! I can see both sides of this argument. Still, you have to admit that nature designed a penis that way for a reason. I think this really boils down to "more friction versus less irritation". I'm not sure. I don't have a vagina. I only go by what I have read and what my wife has said.

The stuff about Judiasm, I'm not too sure of either. I'm no theologin but a few out of context quotes on the internet can be made to sound like they support any number of odd theories. It sounds more reasonable to me that circumcision, like kosher practices and many other ritualized parts of the religion, came about as hygenic and health measures that were linked to god and faith in order to get people on the wagon. Anthropologists have shown that Jews were far from the first culture or religion to perform the procedure anways.

If you're not sure, don't comment. I've researched it. Granted, I didn't live then, but the information is there if you care to search it down.

I just think it's goofy to bluntly suggest that all circumcision screws you up sexually, because that just isn't the case, and there are many many fully developed and fully pleased cut men around to attest to this. Frankly most of the people I hear talking about how evil it is tend to be circumcised guys who are generally unhappy with their penis to a degree and blame their natural size at least in part on the procedure.

Am I unhappy because of the damage that was done to me by circumcision or am I just blaming a circumcision because I am unhappy with my "tiny, ugly" penis. That's kind of circular and demeaning! I'm not unhappy with my penis at all! I love it! I just want to have a foreskin again. Doesn't mean I'm mentally disturbed. It makes me very excited when I look in a mirror and see how much bigger it is and how low it hangs now. When I have sex, it feels good. When I orgasm, it's so powerful it leaves me shaken. In the long run, it doesn't matter if you were circumcised or not...because its reversible.

Now Kong, clearly I'm mostly disagreeing with you here, and I've seen you get a little testy in other threads when this happens, so please don't take it personally. It's my two cents (actually more like twenty-five by the size of the post) and I just have to chip it in. Obviously you're a huge advocate of FR and have some strong feelings on the subject, even running your own forum about it. I just felt a discenting opinion ought to be up, as there are two sides to every story and I think some of what you claim as absolute truth might be a little frightening or upsetting to perhaps a young person or any cut guy really.

Not testy at all! I love a good debate, and you are very intelligent and well spoken. I think most of your arguments are based on opinion, but that's okay. Like I said before, it's reversible...so why be frightened or upset? If you think you have a tight circ and would like to see if you can improve your sex life and increase your penis size, give it a try. If their best argument is "It smells funny" and "It looks weird" then what have you got to lose? 85% of the male population is uncircumcised.

And P.S. - In America I've had a hell of a lot more women tell me they prefer a cut penis and don't like them otherwise, a small few tell me they don't mind uncut, and none I have known say they prefer it. Now, this may be American bias because it's the culture over here, but it's also something to think about for any Americans who are all of a sudden feeling sick to their stomachs over having been circumcised as a baby.

Frankly, I'm doing it for me. Even if my wife didn't like it, I'd still continue at this point because of the increased pleasure and stronger orgasms. Thankfully, after 10 years of marriage, my wife also finds it novel and exciting. I have, after all, altered my penis signifigantly. It's like a whole new cock for her! Its bigger, straighter and, in another year or two, will be almost totally restored to factory specs! Wheeeee!

The two main points I always like to touch on concerning circumcision are these:

1) It's medically unnecessary and sometimes harmful.

2) It's done without the informed consent of the subject.

Those two things should be enough to have it banned by the AMA or outlawed by the United States government. If they were applied to any other procedure, it would be. Now, I ask you, in that light, why does it still continue?

Thanks for the reply Kong, but if I may do so I would like to refine a few of my points in light of your commentary.

I believe likening the procedure to a nose job is a false analogy, as many physicians believe it has very specific hygenic and health advantages. The fact that a nose job and circumcision both create an asthetic change do not mean that the procedures are performed for the same reasons or are otherwise similar.

So far as the statistics and medical studies definitavely proving that circumcised men have larger penises, I did not find any of these online though I heard the claim made on numerous anti-circumcision websites. I generally have low regard for these sights as they are usually run by lay people and not medical professionals, and only quote certain data that may have dubious origins or use out of context figures to support their claims. On several sights I saw contradicting figures quoted for basic statisitics on the operation, leading me to believe they are either using outdated, crummy, or all around made up sources in some cases. That being said, does this mean that American men have the smallest penises in the world on average since most of us are circumcised? I just don't beleive the 'size decrease' theory is medically provable without some kind of massive emperical study, and all that I know of human physiology and anatomy leads me to believe that it holds no water.

Removing skin from the head would have to scar and heal in gross deformity as to somehow restrict the penis's natural ability to grow. Also, this implies that the penis somehow extends out from the abdominal region as it grows, rather than enlarging and lengthening as do other natural apendages through normal cellular growth. The 'inches lost' theory suggests the circumcision scar is so tight it is literally forcing penis back into the body and shortening it. In the same stroke anti-circumcision people complain about the 'webbed penis' or high-riding scrotum problem, yet this suggests that the skin is being stretched from the base when the penis is extended. Anybody into Penis Enlargement obviously understands that skin is elastic, and if this were the case then over a period of time the skin on the penis, if it were being tugged in this direction, would relax and lengthen, allowing this supposed 'trapped' penis to extend naturally. All in all it just doesn't make much sense medically, and I do believe that surgeons would have realized this was occurring, if it were actually occurring that is, in so many men and developed a procedure to relax the skin on the penis, allowing an instant and effective lengthening operation (this would certainly be viable if as many men have been shortchanged out of penis size by circumcision as the popular claim seems to be).

While reading up on this business I came across many journals independently kept by men who restored their foreskins, and none that I came across mentioned any kind of dramatic size increase. Also, many reported little difference in sexual pleasure for partners or themselves, just the basic difference of having a foreskin. They're out there to read for anybody that has got the time.

Now, I'm not suggesting you haven't reaped these benefits, but you are a consumately open-minded guy, so perhaps you will open your mind to the idea that part of your results may be psychosomatically linked to your overall enthusiasm and other Penis Enlargement related activites.

I did not research the statement you made about circumcision being invented to drive a spiritual wedge between man and woman; I have no doubt you found this information some place, though I am curious to know more if you've got a link or something. The point I was trying to make is that the procedure was almost certainly first performed as a hygene and health measure, then codafied into religion over the years. This is how a good many religious practices came into play, and I have little doubt it's the true origin of circumcision, I don't much care what some ancient goat herder/prophet came up with to put it in scripture.

I didn't mean to imply you hate your penis or are otherwise unhappy, though in review I have blatantly done so. However, you might be willing to agree with me that it is human nature to find things to blame for the parts of our natural selves that we don't care for or wish to change. I find the thought that by slowly regenerating a little flap of skin over the glans of my penis I might be able to increase it in size by 20% and have a dramatically more fulfilling sex life, but frankly I don't think that will happen for me. It's not an unappealing idea to wonder if in fact I shouldn't have been a bit bigger afterall, but In that case I would be in the top 0.5% of all penises size-wise, and I once again doubt this is the case.

This leads me to wonder, would America have an exponentially larger average penis size than the rest of the world if we were to stop circumcising tomorrow? There are many surveys that show only minimal differences between the average penis size over here and other nations, so since we're the most circumcised, would he dominate the world in schlong stats if we just cut it out (at least one pun had to show up . . .)?

Another thing I take some issues with are the outlawing of the procedure and the complaint about how it is forced upon babies. First of all, nearly everything that happens to children is not their decision, and there are medical reasons why doctors perform it as early as possible. These include the fact that it is far cheaper to perform on an infant, infants are at the greatest risk for the infections that circumcision drastically reduces the chances for, and infants have the best ability to heal effectively. Also, you point out that it is reversable, and so ultimately the child will have the option of undoing what has been done if they choose to do so. I would still wager that the vast majority of cut men here in the states are thankful to be that way and haven't got a whole lot of interest in changing things.

I didn't mean to put you on the defensive by asking you not to take this personally, that was poor tact on my part, though you of course replied very cordially nonetheless. I have jsut followed a few of your threads where you've had a bit of a rough go of it with people flaming, questioning you, ect., and I just didn't want you to think you were under attack again. I very much appreciation your enthusiasm and contributions on the board, and if you take a look over at the deep thoughts section I think you will find that you and I are on teh very same page politically. On circumcision however, I suppose we must agree to disagree.

I posted this before, but once again for anybody looking to see some facts about the procedure that are compiled by a repsected pediatrician and expert in the field, here's a link http://www.medicirc.org/

I am eighteen. Because of circumsision I have ED that would be getting worse. I have experienced horrible anxiety and depression cause of circ. It has horrible hindered my starting size and my gains. I have a shriveled up cock and balls when claccid as a result of poor blood flow that has given me a low testosterone level which leaves me weak, non confident, and tired all the time. I almost cry sometimes.

Sorry to hear of your troubles Jason1 - but how do you know it is all a direct result of your circumcision? Have you always had these problems your entire life? How would circumcision prevent blood flow to your penis and lower your testosterone? Why not get on a restoration program if you are convinced that circumcision is the root of all your troubles?

Swank, your arguments are based on opinion and preconceived ideas. You say that the benefits of FR are psychosomatic, and then post a link to a circumcision website so that we can all go and get these nasty, anti-American thoughts out of our collective minds. That's laughable! That page is nothing but an advertisement for circumcision. From now on, don't insult my intelligence! Here are some of the things that the American Medical Association said about circumcision:

That UTI's are not a sufficient medical reason to circumcise.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the increased relative risk in uncircumcised infants, the absolute incidence of UTI is small in this population (0.4%-1%).18 Depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI.16,19 In this case, a large relative risk reduction translates into a small absolute risk reduction because the baseline prevalence is low. One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That penile cancer is not a sufficient medical reason to circumsize - nor is a foreskin the only risk factor.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, this study also found that the absence of neonatal circumcision increased the risk for penile cancer by a factor of 3.2 Other identified risk factors for penile cancer are phimosis (occurring exclusively in uncircumcised males), genital warts, infection with human papilloma virus, large number of sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.23-25 Nevertheless, because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Circumcision cannot be viewed as a protection against HIV.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of these findings, behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That the complication rate (.2% - .6%) is similar to the UTI rate (0.4%-1%). That complications can be serious!


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two large series detected a complication rate between 0.2% and 0.6% in circumcised infants.28,29
Bleeding and infection, occasionally leading to sepsis, are the most common adverse events requiring treatment. In the majority of cases, bleeding is minor and hemostasis can be achieved by pressure application. Other untoward events can result from taking too much skin from the penile shaft causing denudation or rarely, concealed penis, or from not removing sufficient foreskin, producing an unsatisfactory cosmetic result or recurrent phimosis.30,31 Other postoperative complications include formation of skin bridges between the penile shaft and glans, meatitis and meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts in the circumcision line, lymphedema, hypospadias and epispadias, and urinary retention.32 Case reports have associated circumcision with other rare but severe events including scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis and meningitis, urethrocutaneous fistulas, necrosis (secondary to cauterization), and partial amputation of the glans penis.5,30,32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Summing up of the above statements.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life. The circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to HIV infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases. The low incidence of urinary tract infections and penile cancer mitigates the potential medical benefits compared with the risks of circumcision. In the case of sexual transmission of HIV, behavioral factors are far more important in preventing these infections than the presence or absence of a foreskin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That circumcision hurts and that anesthesia is used about 45% of the time.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on recent survey data, 54% of pediatricians, family practitioners, and obstetricians perform at least 1 circumcision per month. Of physicians performing circumcision, 45% use anesthesia, most commonly dorsal penile block with lidocaine (71% of pediatricians, 56% of family practitioners, and 25% of obstetricians). Those physicians who reported not using anesthesia cited concern about adverse effects and a belief that circumcision does not warrant anesthesia.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the clear evidence that newborn males generate brisk pain responses during circumcision, and the availability of methods to reduce pain during the procedure, a recent survey of residency training programs found that 26% of programs that taught circumcision provided no instruction on the use of local anesthesia. In programs that taught circumcision, pediatric (84%) and family practice residents (80%) were more likely than obstetric residents (60%) to learn about anesthetic techniques to prevent pain associated with circumcision.62 Significant regional variation occurred within and across medical specialties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That the majority of parents who circumsize do not base their decision on the medical facts.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.63-67 Studies from the 1980s suggested that the presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions.64-66 This finding was recently confirmed.68 In another contemporary study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision.67,68 Major factors in parental decision-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygiene.

My friend, UN-BRAINWASH yourself and let the truth in and stop spreading these old myths and beliefs! Circumcision was started here in the 1880's by a nut doctor named Kellogg, to "treat" masturbation, and the medical industry has been creating reasons to do it ever since to keep the money rolling in.

That's the truth.

One of the functions of the foreskin seems to be in regulating the depth of the man's thrusting during lovemaking, and it may also help ensure a woman's vagina remains well lubricated. Two enterprising scientists set out to discover if the removal of the penile skin in circumcision has any impact on the pleasure of the man's sexual partner.

They asked 138 sexually experienced women about their preference for men with a foreskin or without a foreskin as sexual partner. Of that group 20 (14.5%) preferred circumcised sexual partners while 118 (85.5%) preferred non-circumcised sexual partners. This means that about 6 out of 7 women preferred non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of 7 preferred circumcised partners.

As reported by the women, circumcised men tended to have more premature ejaculation problems (defined as coming within two or three minutes more than 50% of the time during lovemaking) than uncircumcised men. And the women were less likely to have a vaginal orgasm during sex with a circumcised man - presumably because there was not enough stimulation on the woman' s G spot. The same was true for multiple orgasms.

Women were also more likely to say that their vaginal secretions lessened and their discomfort increased as intercourse progressed with circumcised partners. This was true whether the women preferred circumcised or uncircumcised men as sexual partners. There seemed to be a definite feeling that sex was more enjoyable as a complete experience when the man had a foreskin - presumably because there was less discomfort, so it became a more satisfying emotional experience as well. (I am circumcised and it is certainly true that my girlfriend finds her vagina getting very sore when we make love in certain positions. However, a simple application of lubricant is an easy way to solve that problem.)

When women were grouped based on the foreskin status of their most recent partner, women with uncircumcised partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, and they were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower and uncircumcised partners higher. The women overwhelmingly agreed that the mechanics of lovemaking was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while according to 71% of the women, uncircumcised men tend to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tend to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more.

The authors concluded that women preferred vaginal intercourse with an uncircumcised man rather than a circumcised man. They stated: "There may be many reasons for this. When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own 'bedding' of movable skin.....The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin next to the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions. When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin (which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis) to contact the corona of the glans (which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans). The intense stimulation from all these nerve endings discourages the man from withdrawing his penis further, resulting in the short thrusting style that women noted in their uncircumcised partners....."

By contrast, "the skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured as a one-way valve, pulls the vaginal secretions from the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn. Unlike the anatomically complete penis, there is no sensory input to limit withdrawal. Because the vast majority of the fine-touch receptors are missing from the circumcised penis, their role as ejaculatory triggers is also absent. The loss of these receptors creates an imbalance between the deep pressure sensed in the glans, corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum and the missing fine touch. To compensate for the imbalance, to achieve orgasm, the circumcised man must stimulate the glans, corpus cavernosa, and corpus spongiosum by thrusting deeply in and out of the vagina. As a result, intercourse with a circumcised partner reduces the amount of vaginal secretions in the vagina, and decreases continual stimulation of the mons pubis and clitoris."

A weakness of the survey is its preoccupation with vaginal intercourse, and several women commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some women commented that uncircumcised men appeared to enjoy intercourse more than circumcised men, and as a result wanted oral sex, masturbation and anal sex rather less than circumcised men - who were presumably looking for greater sexual stimulation to compensate for the loss of the foreskin's nerve endings.

To sum it all up, the scientists concluded that the "anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during lovemaking......the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions about parents providing 'informed consent' for circumcision operations on their baby boys."

Jason1 said:

I am eighteen. Because of circumsision I have ED that would be getting worse. I have experienced horrible anxiety and depression cause of circ. It has horrible hindered my starting size and my gains. I have a shriveled up cock and balls when claccid as a result of poor blood flow that has given me a low testosterone level which leaves me weak, non confident, and tired all the time. I almost cry sometimes.

Click to expand...

PM me Jason and we'll talk! I know what you're going through, and I can tell you some things you can do that will help! It's not some miracle fix or phony product to buy that doesn't do anything. I have already fixed alot of my problems from circumcision, and you can too!

I have been restoring for six months now. I have increased in size doing FR and light Penis Enlargement from 6.5" to a little over 7.5" (measuring from the top, guys!) My circumcision scar has moved from halfway down the shaft when flaccid to just behind the head. My girth has increased as well. I have increased blood flow because I am growing new veins and cappillaries as well as skin tissue, and my flaccid NBP hang is starting to exceed 4.5", which is 1 inch longer than the average (yay!). I have gone from slight ED and bouts of premature ejaculation to NO erection problems EVER and very rare premature ejaculation. I am also now able to fuck more than once in a row, something I never did before.

I am on my sixth month and have experienced a sudden loosening of my penis skin. I never realized how stiff and immobile my skin was (from circumcision adhesions and scarring) until it all came loose! It's so weird and cool, being able to move the skin all the way up and down the shaft so freely! I never had that before. I literally had a dildo dick, guys, and did not know that til a week ago, when it all came loose.

I have also lately been having extremely powerful orgasms. My glans is shedding again a little, so I'm not sure if its skin mobility, dekeratinization or increased blood flow that is causing me to cum so hard.

Is FR just another Ring of Power?

Nope. It's alot of hard work, fucking aggravation being taped all day, and irritating skin stretching exercises. But it's also FREE and DEFINITELY WORTH IT! If you want what I have, start tugging. Fuck the establisHydromaxent!

Nice to hear you could do so much for you personal plesure

AncientChina said:

Sorry to hear bro.

I still fail to understand how a bad circ job can cause a lowering of testoserone? Kong, anyone? Does anyone know how that is possible? To me it sounds like it could a couple of other things as well not relating ot circumsizition. I guess Jason1 would know best. What do you think Kong?

Click to expand...

It can't... how much skin you have on your penis has absolutely NO affect on your test levels.

I am doing FR. Because of circ my glans and inner foreskin are all dried out resulting in a decrease in the quality and quanity of nocturnal erections. Now the skin is so tight that I can't get a full erection anyway. Without nocturnal erections then you're balls don't get the fresh oxygen rich bloodflow that they deserve during that time. During the day my flaccid is all dried and shriveled up resulting in a poor bloodflow during the day and that will give a low sperm count and a low test level. So please don't tell me I'm wrong cause my life is the one that sucks because of it. Ask me about any other aspect of my original post and I'll explain how they are "possible".

Jason1 said:

I am doing FR. Because of circ my glans and inner foreskin are all dried out resulting in a decrease in the quality and quanity of nocturnal erections. Now the skin is so tight that I can't get a full erection anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree that FR will help you with this...

Without nocturnal erections then you're balls don't get the fresh oxygen rich bloodflow that they deserve during that time. During the day my flaccid is all dried and shriveled up resulting in a poor bloodflow during the day and that will give a low sperm count and a low test level.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to tell you but your balls don't get blood flow from you penis... whether you get erections or not, your ball will still get blood flow. I'm not arguing that you may have low test levels, what i am arguing is your notion that poor bloodflow to your penis is causing it.

You are wrong. Than why does testicle massage give you a fuller flaccid? The whole area is connected in many ways. That is the reason and I am not debatable. Why do you want to tell me what I'm doing is wrong. You don't know shit. I didn't just make these things up.

Go find one of Road Hoggs' posts.

I don't give a goddam what Road Hogg posted, why don't you do a little reading up on anatomy asshole!!

They may work symbiotically, but they are not physically connected.

Kong old buddy, it's not really cool to call somebody brainwashed then spout off a huge list of carefully selected quotes that leave out some crucial information, as well as extensively quote some survey, no doubt from one of the ravenous pro-foreskin groups out there, without any link or authorship provided. There's two sides to every story, so here we go again.

For the record - The American Medical Association does not denounce the operation, they simply state that it may not be medically necessary (duh! damn near the whole world is uncircumcised and they're okay), which I have never suggested was the case. They make no comment on decreased penis size, sexual dysfunction, better 'loads,' or increased sexual stamina, as so many websites swear are provided by a foreskin. All they point out is that the 0.2-0.6% rate of complication from circumcision is comprable to the 1% rate of UTI's in infants, one of it's most commonly cited prevention factors, and thus hardly a required procedure. They don't deny that an uncircumcised penis has a lower chance of contracting many STDs and the HIV virus, but also point out that it's not a guranteed protection of any sort and behavior is a far more importnat factor (this doesn't negate the fact that a cut johnson is safer!).

Sorry my man, but with your use of quotes one might be lead to believe that the AMA has condmended circumcision, but that is far from the case. They have ruled nothing except that parents ought o be provided with non-biased medical literature about the procedure and that painblockers ought to be used routinely, not half the time. That laundary list of frightening sounding medical conditions that you included in the 'complications' of circumcision section - you can look those up and see them occurring in such terrifying percentage rates of 0.0001% of all cases, and that's approaching the high end. You're not likely ot have any serious medical complication from being circumcised, and if you do have a problem it will likely manifest soon after the procedure. If you're alright now, you're in the clear. Seriously, how many people do you know who have suffered from penile necrosis?

By the way, the AMA is all doctors my man, and they're not pushing circumcision on anybody. So much for the cash conspiracy. Basically what you have done here is contended stuff that I never really pushed for in the first place. I'm not denying the medical wisdom of the rest of the world and suggesting the circumcision is a real health advantage in the modern world, although there are a few marginal benefits, I'm just contesting the claims that it can increase your penis size and that it is also a dangerous and traumatizing procedure that limits a man's sexual potential. So far I've seen no evidence of this, just a lof of first person reporting from people who are aghast at the continued use of the procedure and their own parentally-inflicted butchery. It's usually the people most pissed about having it done to them that rally against the procedure and claim that artificially reversing it's effects has given them a new lease on life. I've been reading at a lot of these anti-circumcision websites and groups and there is a definate pathology to the behavior.

That being said, you missed out on some of my main questions.

1. Survey after survey shows there aren't really differences in national penis size. Why aren't American men smaller since close to 80% of us are still cut at birth? If circumcision really limits the potential size of your penis, shouldn't the Europeans and damn near everywhere else be kicking our asses by at least 10-15% in size?

Look I hate to get personal, but you claim to have imrpoved girth from it, but you also have said repeatedly on this forum that your girth 'fluctuates' all the time by about a half an inch. That is strange to begin with, but then how would you know? I suppose you know your own penis, but like I said before, I believe your enthusiasm and passionate nature occassionaly sweep you away with these things.

2. If foreskin restoration can 'unlock' the trapped inner penis, why haven't doctors just developed a simple skin loosening graft or incision for circumcised men? Surely it would be an easy and cost effective thing that men would line up and pay handsomely for; and the inner penis could easily be identified with ultrasound, giving them a good estimate on exactly what they would get out of it. Likewise, couldn't a man just slowly stretch the skin on his shaft, creating a looser fit, and release this hidden length? The whole 'size-gain' business from manipulating a bit of skin on the tip of your penis is still ridiculous and wishful thinking in my opinion.

3. On sexual pleasure - you have listed one 'study' from a website that found nearly 100% of women prefer circumcised men for sex (really, I've never met any, please list the source) and your own experiences. What of the women that prefer it for sex? You may be interested to know that not all circumcised penises behave the same way, and the skin on many is tight enough to stay retracted during thrusting, did god cheat them out of their natural potential to be non-circumcised super lovers? This business about increased g-spot stimulation and all this? Don't you see the great error? Not all vaginas are the same, and not all will respond the same way to a penis, circumcised or not. What if the penis isn't stimulating the g-spot in the first place? What if she's strictly clitorally sensitive? What if a woman prefers increased friction? Do all women prefer the same type of thrusting all the time? It's such a preposterous claim! I would bet that plenty of women can't even tell the difference once penetration has occurred.

That thing that you quoted makes it sound as if the addition of a tiny foreskin and perhaps a bit less friction during the act can take a fairly routine and doggish sexual act and elevate it to spiritual epiphany for man and woman based soley on the virtue of a foreskin. Now, who's wearing blinders when it comes to this discussion my friend?

4. And the stamina bit, though you seemed rather bothered by it, one thing you can find on the www.medicirc.com site is several published human sexuality studies conducted by medical doctors and experts on human sexuality that confirm over and over that a circumcised penis is less sensitive, and that this genreally allows a man to have sex for greater amounts of time before ejaculation. The logic seems faulty to me - a foreskin makes sex exponentially more pleasurable - but you automatically gain greater stamina with no effort? Well, one could argue that it was all mental, but you already laughed when I said that the benefits could be partly in your head. How do you respond to this I wonder?


Listen my man, my gripe here is that you accuse anybody who doesn't see it your way on circumcision as being brainwashed, but commit the classic error of not examining your own beliefs. In various threads on here you have blaimed all kinds of sexual problems and penis related issues on circumcision when there is really little or no medical evidence to back up such claims.

In the case of guys like Jason1, they may be easily convinced by your enthusiastic and assertive posting that the root of all their problems is simply circumcision, causing them to rule out other causes and perhaps not get effective treatment for themselves. Your approach to the issue is alarmist and purely one-sided. Any potential benefit of being uncircumcised you seem to believe without question, but any reported negative effect you loudly condemn with a similar lack of evidence other than hearsay.

The bottom line is - the procedure isn't any kind of requirement for a healthy penis - 9/10s of the world's population can tell us as much. But it also isn't responsible for the myriad of problems - and less than desirable penises - that it's recently been blaimed for out in internet land. It's a cultural thing, and essentially harmless. If you want to put things back the way they were, I say go for it and more power to you, but I don't think it's right to say with abosulte authority and little or no medical evidence that somebody will get a better sex life and a bigger dick out of it. Are you willing to personally sign your gurantee to every man who starts FR that they're going to see size gains and women will unanimously proclaim them to be better lovers, as well as experiencing drastically better sexual pleasure themselves? Because that is essentially what you have claimed it will do.