And so the debate continues...!
I will reply to every issue you raise, as well as highlight in red the passages that reveal your preconcieved biases. I make no false claims concerning my beliefs. I am totally anti-circumcision, with only the allowance that any adult male who wishes to mutilate himself has the right to do so. You claim to be open-minded while the opposite is in fact true, and so slant your arguments to mislead others less educated than you in the matter. For shame!
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.
What crucial information have I left out? I presented actual passages from the AMA's study of the subject, both the pros and the cons. Maybe you were waiting for me to say, "Circumcision is thus totally cool. All the really hip guys do it, so you should too!" And why do you label what is a basically human rights oriented activist group "ravenous"? I found that very enlightening. We're not monsters! Why try to paint us that way? You must feel threatened by the idea, for some reason.
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!).
Medically unnecessary + possible complications = why do it?
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?
Considering the vast number of men this is done to, that .0001% equals quite a few people who have suffered for it for no real medical benefit. You see it as acceptible suffering at the altar of conformity. I see it as sad and unwarranted. To say that one is in the clear because one's penis didn't get necrosis at the time the procedure is performed is absolute folly. You totally sweep the lifetime of possible complications under the rug. How many men must speak out on the benefits of FR before you will begin to consider that the sacred procedure of circumcision is not quite as wonderful as we have been lead to believe?
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.
Penis Enlargement is still considered impossible by the medical institution. Yet, you are a member here. How many lone uneducated lay persons must say "Hey, this snake oil doesn't make me feel any better" before the attitudes of the group begin to change? With "unrealiable" first person reports mounting, the medical institution is going to have to re-evaluate both Penis Enlargement and foreskin restoration benefits. Just wait. It'll happen. Just like we no longer believe that diseases are caused by "aires" and "demonic possession". I also believe that a better example of pathological behavior is self-mutilation, not attempting to repair damage that was inflicted on our privates without our consent. I am not hurting myself. I am healing myself. How is that pathological? That's almost amusing!
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?
Considering that the average penis is 5.5 to 6 inches, 10% is actually somewhat marginal. Factoring in the different percentages of circumcised males per nation, I think anyone would clearly understand how hard that claim would be to prove one way or another.
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.
I can't do anything to defend myself against personal attacks, really. If you trust me and think I am honest, or not, that is beyond my control. I don't really think I am crazy, overly enthusiastic or deluded, but if it makes you feel better to think I am, go right ahead. I realize that taking a stand on an issue makes you a target, and believe me, I have taken my licks over it!
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.
There are cosmetic procedures being developed to un-circumcise men. So far, they are crude, brutal and terribly risky. Most involve cutting the skin loose at the base and grafting tissue there, either from the thigh or the scrotum, but the complication rate is very high! There is no other tissue on the human body that is like the tissue of the penis. Most doctors will suggest stretching if a man wants to restore.
Couldn't a man just slowly stretch the skin...and release this hidden length? Dude, that's exactly what I'm talking about!!! OMG!!!! Thinking that the foreskin is just a bit of skin at the tip of the penis is completely ridiculous. It is a structure that is actually about 15 to 20 square inches in size, and includes the frenelum, glands, sex specific nerves and the ridged band. Don't be deceptive. It's not just a useless flap of skin.
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?
I'm not sure about some of that. I haven't been a female since a few past lives ago.
I only know what I've read. I think the difference for women is subtle, where for a man it can be monumental. Every individual is, of course, unique. All I know is that since my glans dekeratinized, sex HAS become epiphanical! As far as women saying that cut/uncut doesn't matter, just bear in mind that most of them say size doesn't matter, too. I am sure, when dealing with creatures that are much larger and stronger than them, women have become very circumspect and political about things that might wound the fragile egos of their male companions. If I had read any surveys saying the opposite, I would of course change my stance, but I haven't. The only people who tell me that women like their men cut are the cut men themselves. The anonymous female surveys are quite telling, from what I have seen.
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?
It's something very hard to explain to a person who hasn't experienced it themselves. When your penis resensitizes, you don't start firing off cumshots uncontrollably whenever stimulated, but instead begin to discover a very large realm of subtle and intense pleasure, a broader range. Your sexual senses become exquisitely focused, both specific and broad. Like putting glasses on a nearsighted man. Like I said, it is hard to explain. The only way you could dispute this subjective statement is to do it yourself and relate your own subjective experience. Of course, if you did that, us ravenous intactivists would have your soul in our maniacal clutches! Bwahhaaahahahah!
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.
No. There are only certain things I blame on circumcision, and then I qualify that with "overly-tight" or "botched" circumcision. Don't make me sound like a zealot when I only offer the possibility of it as a cause. Some of you guys are way too knee-jerk when I say the C-word. My advice is always based on studies I have read. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is advice based on research and not just my
OPINION! I think the only reason some people object to FR, when there are guys here pushing stretches, jelqing, clamping and hanging heavy weights from their penis, is the very FACT that it is DRIVEN INTO OUR MINDS by our culture! All I do is stretch my skin a little and tension it with tape. Why does that freak you out? Its a well-documented medical fact that light tension causes the body to generate new tissue. Why are you scared of some of us doing that? And how can you know for fact that what I say about the benefits of this is BS? If you know better, disprove me!
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.
If you know of any negatives concerning FR, fill me in. I'm not biased. I'd really like to know if there are problems with it. I just haven't heard any besides the smell.
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.
Gee, how many sources do I need to quote? You accuse me of bias, but I can accuse you of the same thing. I just have more than opinion to back me up!
