First a great link . . .
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/
And some official stats just so they're available for anybody curious . . .
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/
Here's a response from Kong to my last post . . .
***"You should instead be disappointed by your lack of factual evidence to support your claims. I have presented evidence, statistics, surveys and documents by the AMA itself, and yet you accuse me of presenting no proof. You say I quibble over presentation and wording, yet that is how you paint an emotional picture of your debate opponent, and I take offense at being construed as deceptive and extremist. If you take my poking fun of your weak arguments as snide or cruel, I'm sorry. I just feel you should have opposing facts instead of only opinions. I don't take this quite as serious as you might think, but I do have my facts and research well in reach, and I think that that is threatening to some, and leads to some folks going after me personally. Come at me with some facts, swank! Come on! Right here on the chin! ***
Actually, the only statisitcs you have presented are direct quotes from the AMA, and I'm not sure how those figures prove your claims that foreskin restoration will improve penis length and girth, circulation, sexual function, ect. Nor do they prove your assertion that the procedure routinely causes increased hair growth, smaller penis size, the 'turkey neck' effect, ect.
You take offense at being construed as an extremist? So sorry my man, but you have repeatedly suggested a small and realatively harmless procedure is consumate with human butchery and ought to be outlawed. That's not a middle ground position.
I wouldn't say my arguments are weak, quite the contrary I believe that anybody reading this would agree I've raised many questions about your claims regarding both circumcision's effects and the benefits of FR that you have failed to answer with any solid data other than your own experiences and "stuff you have seen online." Like I said, post some links to these places that you get all your information from, just so people can see where it comes from.
***"I have been portrayed as a deceptive extremist. You guys should really read through some of the hurtful and outright wrong things you have said here! So much for objectivity and being a supportive, nurturing community. Why don't you guys go put on your magical Rings of Power, pat yourselves on the back for shouting us down and leave us alone?"***
What exactly was "outright wrong," by the way? Kong, I went out of my way to try and squash your fears that you are being assaulted here. You have shown yourself to be extremely sensitive to this in other posts and I tried to get into this with a heaping measure of caution. Buck up man, it's an internet forum. Repeatedly when people have disagreed with you on threads you have complained loudly and frequently of the horrible abuse you're suffering. Honestly, it's just all a bit trite.
I'm not in the least bit threatened by FR or your view that circumcision should not be performed, I just don't agree with you. I think some of the claims you make about the benefits of FR are highly dubious and not based on anything but some subjective experience and internet hearsay. Call this an attack if you want, I don't particularly care. If I hear somebody making claims that I feel ar inaccurate and not grounded, and then advising people with this information as well, I'm going to say something. I'm sorry if you find these slanderous attacks so painful to bear.
***"If I make you feel angry, outraged or threatened, then you should have a look into your own psyche, not mine. I'm only trying to present a possible aid for a few, very specific penis related issues."***
Once more, no anger, threat, fear, anything of that nature whatsoever on my side. I have repeated over and over again that what I am contesting is your claims on the harm that the procedure does and what the benefits of FR will be. Nothing more. Do you understand this now?
Now, here are a few more quotes that may illustrate my gripes a bit better . . .
***"85% of the males in the United States are circumcised at birth. Although there is a growing movement to stop this practice and those numbers are dropping, it is still accepted as the norm here in this country. Unfortunately, it is a proven fact that circumcision removes 50% of the surface area of the penis, and cause, on average, 1/5 of the penile length to be held within the abdomenal cavity of the circumcised male."***
Circumcision on average causes 20%, or 1/5 (remember, this usually more than an inch for the average joe) to be held within the body. This is a proven fact? Prove this Kong. Right here you have suggested that the procedure, not a botched procedure, or your own case, will have this effect on any guy. Misinformation, false figures. Get me a medical stat to back this up, post the link and authors. By the way 85% is far more than are actually circumcised here, this can be double checked with the stats link at the top of the page. Where did you get that?
***"You will also notice a better flaccid hang when untaped, and common circumcision problems like hairy shaft and turkey neck balls will abate as you grow skin to replace what was taken from you at birth."***
Do you know it will remedy these for a fact? These are common problems? How do you know they are always related to circumcision in the first place? because you saw them as a result of your own circumcision? You also say it will improve flaccid size, but in the same thread somebody comments that the taping position seemed to shrink their flaccid size over time. You agreed with this and said that was why you pursued Penis Enlargement at the same time, to nullify this effect. Another broad contradiction.
After SexyJen chipped in that she couldn't really feel any difference between a circumcised and uncut penis you responded:
***"You didn't take notice of the "gliding" effect? I have talked to a couple women who have had both, and they commented on the feeling of the skin gliding, saying it was less irritating, and they did not seem to dry out.
I realize a dick is a dick, but absolutely no difference?"***
I guess not every woman you have spoken to would agree eh? For the record, damn near every woman I have asked about this, and there have been quite a few since I started debating on this board, have said they can't feel a bit of difference during the act. Now, this is purely what women have told me and absolutely not an authoratative statement, but perhaps you lads ought to do some research into what some girls you know think about it before you convince yourselves that a foreskin will make you a sexual tyranosaur.
***"It's pretty widely accepted that uncut men are bigger, as far as my reading goes, but I wonder what the actually differences are, on average. Half an inch? 2 inches? That's what I want to see."***
It is? This goes back to my "Is America the smallest nation on earth then?" question. After browsing through your threads I was interested to see that Gandolf asked you the exact same question, which you more or less tossed off in the same manner as my own. My reason for including this quote however, was to bring up the enormous amount of 'foreskin' related threads you have started. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest you're heavily preoccupied with something when you've started no less than 8 FR related threads (plus an anti-circumcision 'children's story') on most of which you denounce circumcision and blame a variety of ailments on it with little or no proof, often suggesting that it's just common knolwedge.
***"Its all relative wouldn't you say? The legs are, what, 30% of the entire mass of the body, while the foreskin is 50% of the mass of the penis. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way I do about this issue, but I would probably say that, since you are uncircumcised, you don't really know what problems a cut guy goes through because of this needless surgery."***
50% of the mass of the entire penis eh? This quote is taken from a reply by Kong to a poster who suggested that Kong's comparison of circumcision's effects on the penis to that of chopping off a baby's legs. That poster thought that was a bit sili. I do too.
***"Foreskin provides...."gliding motion" during intercourse, extra skin for big, hard erections, protection of the glans from irritants, secretion of antibiotics to protect the penis from disease, emollients to keep glans moist and supple, and pheromones to attract mates. It provides sexual pleasure so that a being wants to procreate, and do it often. It even have estrogen receptors...doctors don't even know WHAT they're for, as well as testosterone producing glands (I have a feeling it has something to do with male-female bonding-- one needing what the other's body produces).
"***
Are you kidding me? Secretion of antibiotics? Look the CDC, AMA, and nearly every other medical organization in the world agrees that an uncut penis is at higher risk for disease and infection (please see my above link for a plethora of medically verified and peir reviewed info). If it does produce some kind of anti-septic solution, which I kind of doubt, then it's to combat the greater accumulation of bacteria and other crud a foreskin obviously invites. Where did this come from? Estrogen receptors? Testosterone producing glands? Facilitates male/female bonding? Oh Kong . . . when I'm talking about BS information that you're just reading off those "ravenous" anti-circumcision websites, I'm talking about stuff exactly like this. Where did you get this info? Post a link.
A member here, GermanStallion, replied to Kong in a thread that he had more or less accdidentally restored his foreskin through his Penis Enlargement efforts, and in fact wished that this had not happened. Kong responds:
***"But why? Don't be offended, but everyone who doesn't like it seems to ring in on it...but they give no real reason except they think it's ugly or something. As I am doing it myself, I would like to hear the cons as well, because I don't want to get done with it and be disappointed I did it because of something I did not think about. Perhaps it is because there is no increase in sensitivity and pleasure. Do you have any remnant of your frenulum left? Have you noticed any increased sensitivity in the glans?
You can't say don't do it just because you don't like it."***
And why can't he? You basically advise it to anybody because you like it . . . whatever happened to being open to hearing the cons? In my case I'm not even presenting cons for the most part - I'm just suggesting it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Here's how GermanStallion responded . . .
***"Okay, I will tell you...first I don't like the smell. It is very hard to keep clean and for these many, many years, I was circumcised and it was clean and easy to take care of. Now, when you urinate, you have the constant problem of having to pull the foreskin back and then you still get the residue. Next, I have a lot of foreskin over the glans and it is not tight, very floppy. Although when I have the "turtle" effect, it shrinks very much like a normal foreskin. I must have had some of the muscus membrane left because I get a very glassy film over the glans. Is the glans more sensitive, no. I can't and don't see the differenance. I have an intact frenulum, so that was and is not a problem. Sex is good, but the foreskin isn't a positive factor. So, this is my observations. GS"***
and then some more from GermanStallion about the unlimited benefits of a resotred foreskin . . .
***"Pick your choice, but I tell you it is better circumcised. I am very sexually active. It took several years to get the foreskin totally covering the glans. You will remember what I am telling you. As for those of you who, like Supra, are restoring, you are not restored so you don't have a clue what you are going to experinece when you get restored. As to sensitivity...do I now notice a difference? Not really. Sex and sensitivity was good before and still is, but as to more sensitive...with the foreskin. I don't think so. I have had a total foreskin now for a couple years. I guess you could say that my foreskin is not as tight as an uncut man, but it surely covers totally. When erect, my glans is totally exposed. You can do the restoreing, and I wish you well. I only give you my observations, for experience. GS"***
I think I've made my point here, but on a final note, I ought to have looked into past threads on this before chipping in here. Kong I see in several others that you have gotten testy when men have responded to your FR threads to say they like being circumcised. You seemed to take this personally and as some kind of challenge to you each time. I'm not saying you posted badly or flew off the handle - but when I speak of you not dealing so well with criticism and differing views, ect., that is what I'm referring to. By the way, I never ever called you pathelogical. I said I felt there was a cetain pathology to the behavior of those who decry circumcision and trumpet the questionable benefits of FR. Suggesting there is a pathology to a behavior and calling pathological (Pathological what by the way? Nobody is just generally 'pathological'). I make plenty of comments regarding my opinions about your posting on FR, no need to make them up.
Everybody, if you want a balanced and fair look at the procedure with fully documented sources, check out the first link. It contains links to many other informational sources as well. Please take a look at some of them and the site's intro before making up your mind on any of this, don't just take anybody's word for anything that involves your penis!
Yes, guys, you ARE lucky! You are both E
