Reply With Quote
I'm not reading that . Give me the 10 peso version
As some of you know and most of you probably do not since the majority of us live in America, cir cision has become a hotly debated topic as they are starting to uncover some of the lifelong sexual, and psychological effects of this barbaric practice. I'm not going to go into great detail here, but cir cision removes over half of the erotic nerve endings in the penis and alters the male sexual response. The foreskin serves many sexual purposes and over 20,000 specialized nerve endings are lost, different from the other nerve endings in the shaft skin of the penis. It has been shown that when an infant is cir cised at birth, it causes permanent changes to his brain development and has been linked to many psychological effects. Today with stem cell research, we now have the technology to regrow organs and tissues, but this technology has yet to be put towards the issue of cir cision, a taboo subject here in America. Join the thousands of other men who want to become whole again, and undo the genital mutilation that was done to them against their will. Even if you're a female, you can still help put a stop to this barbaric practice and don't allow your sons to be put through this. Everyone IMO should support stem cell research in general, the results can really change lives. There are many pe ions around the web you can sign to hopefully get this movement kickstarted.
http://www.pe ionbuzz.com/pe ions/foreskin
The author of the pe ion has a facebook page with over 6,500 members
http://www.facebook.com/intactamerica
I'm not reading that . Give me the 10 peso version
Basically, if you're an american male and have been cir cised, it's robbed you of a lot more than you ever realized and you should really do the research (at your own risk)
I'll warn you, I was pretty upset when I found out. But with regenerative medicine, we can be restored. It's just a matter of getting around the politics and showing the medical community that men will desperately pay to have this done.
you go ahead and get your pointless flap back, I like my mushroom head
I feel bad for all the mutilated guys out there.
see that's the problem, this is how everyone in america thinks because they don't want to accept the reality that they were mutilated. many men tell themselves that it's "better. but it's not a pointless flap at all, cir cision causes you to lose 2/3 of your penile sensitivity and totally amputates the 5 most sensitive parts of the male anatomy. and what's worse, the part that's left of the inner foreskin and glans toughens up and keratinizes, further diminishing what's left over time. The glans is supposed to be an internal organ, and stay moist like the female clitoris. It is the equivalent of removing the "hood" from a woman's clit! Cir cision is the reason for so much erectile dysfunction in the United States and why we sell more viagra than any other country. It totally changes the sexual response, causing men to thrust harder and faster rather than "savoring" the moment in order to climax. this causes sex to be more of a "race to the finish" than enjoying the ride. cir cision has also been linked to premature ejaculation, because of this hard thrusting and not being aware of how close we are to ejaculating. it has been proven that amongst women who have experienced both, they overwhelmingly prefer to be with an uncir cised man. the sexual effects of cir cision are horrifying and out there for anyone who isn't scared or insecure to look.
yup, it's not as common in the black community as it is amongst whites, but you're still relatively lucky. For many years the circ rate was around 80 or 90% for whites and about 60-70% for blacks. i was amazed to learn that men are supposed to have full body orgasms like a female, where the sensation shoots all over your body. i guess i've never experienced such a thing.
Last edited by Bobby Boucher; 11-08-2011 at 01:27 AM.
So if I wasn't cir cised I wouldn't last as long?
No thanks, I enjoy my 2 minutes
it's quite the opposite actually, some studies have shown that the lack of sensitivity doesn't actually make you last longer at all. some studies show that cir cision is linked to premature ejaculation while other studies show no difference. I think it has to do with the fact that uncir cised guys don't have to thrust as rapidly, they enjoy every little movement due to their sensitivity so that they don't need to. you or i would never get off with the short, softer strokes that they are more inclined to use. this results in more contact with the clitoris during intercourse and increased satisfaction for the female.
No idea what this thread is about... I just like the Three Amigos reference.
Okay... now I read the rest of the thread. Cry me a ing river. Nobody is going to waste time, resources, and money on stem cell research for foreskin regrowth. That's idiotic. There are far more important health issues out there to worry about than whether or not every man is getting maximum penile stimulation. If you're unhappy with the practice, don't cir cise your children. End of story.
A great cause my ass.
I'm thinking about maybe using stem cell research to grow a second penis that I won't cir cise. Then I can have sex with both penises and see which one is better. Plus, I bet there would be some freaky chicks that would go for a guy with two weiners.
Pretty sure we already dedicate enough time and resources to trying to fix men's winkies.
I was thinking more on the dynamics of this and that if I was with a woman, I would proabaly dedicate the uncir cised penis to vaginal sex and the cir cised penis to the butt sex. It would seem that the foreskin on an uncir cised penis would be a harbor for fecal material so there's that...
pure ignorance. i'm sorry that you were mutilated against your will and now experience only 1/3 of what you were intended to, but this type of "well it happened to me, so who cares if it happens to others! there's nothing wrong with it!" at ude only makes the problem worse. cir cision leads to sexual dysfunction and a foreskin is a birthright.
i guess people like to be immature and joke around about a serious subject, some of you just don't get it. educate yourselves.
http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/...-masturbation/
When cir cision was introduced, it was believed that masturbation caused a lot of different illnesses. It was considered extremely immoral and many children, both male and female, have been cir cised through the years because parents found them “in the act.”
It was already known at the end of the 1800s that the removal of the foreskin, which is the only moveable part of the penis would reduce sexual sensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.
It was believed that masturbation caused blindness, mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy and several other ills. It therefore made sense to some physicians that cir cision would stop masturbation and prevent the onset of these illnesses.
Non-religious cir cision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative at udes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Cir cision, Karen Erickson Paige writes: “In the United States, the current medical rationale for cir cision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control ‘masturbatory insanity’ – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the ‘polluting’ practice of ‘self-abuse.’”
“Self-abuse” was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, “treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chas y belts or ed rings; and in extreme cases, castration.” Paige details how cir cision became popular as a masturbation remedy:
“In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Cir cision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Cir cision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the ‘vestigial’ prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause ‘nocturnal incontinence,’ hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might ‘give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.’ Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that ‘cir cision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity…it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills.’ No wonder it became a popular remedy.”
At the same time cir cisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US “Orificial Surgery Society” for female “cir cision” operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female cir cision as a treatment for masturbation.
One of the leading advocates of cir cision was John Harvey Kellogg. (yes, the Kellogg from the famous Corn Flakes!) He advocated the consumption of Kellogg’s corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that cir cision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in males.
“Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is cir cision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice.”
Robert Darby, writing in the Australian Medical Journal, noted that some 19th century cir cision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:
In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as “a source of serious mischief”, and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of cir cision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that “cir cision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse”, and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised
When it was finally realized that masturbation did not cause illnesses, the foreskin got blamed for penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.
.
I believe that relating the non-religious history of cir cision is important in understanding why the procedure came to be.
Seriously Funt? So you're telling me that you must also support female genital mutilation as well, removal of the clitoris?
seriously, tell me this doesn't make you sick. it's disgusting and appalling.
that'd be dumb. women would never want to have sex.
but I'd be OK with removing their voice box
No. I don't. Nor do I support male cir cision. I think it's unnecessary and done too often. But you're not offering a pe ion to fight the practice of cir cision. Or to educate future parents about its negative and potentially harmful effects. You're talking about a pe ion to fund research aimed at giving adult men yet another way to feel better about their s.
This.
And generally the disparity between the amount of time and money spent trying to fix various penile dysfunctions and that spent trying to fix female sexual dysfunction.
Well that response is a bit better but still not very understanding. The millions of young men who have been violated and robbed of the full sexual experience deserve to be able to become intact again. This is by no means anything less than a GREAT cause. Do the research on cir cisions and the negative effects that it has had on WOMEN. Cir cised men are more aloof and unable to bond as closely through the sexual experience, sex is worse, vaginal dryness and painful intercourse are common symptoms.
Many men have suppressed memories of the experience that you will not know existed until you research and learn what was done to you, then a lot of it starts to make sense. I know that I for one experienced a lot of rage, and it's common to have this towards your mother more so than anyone else. This is because the mother is supposed to be the one to protect her baby from harm. Look up the effects on maternal bonding, it is a widespread and common phenomenon amongst cir cised boys. I know that it now makes sense to me why I have always deeply resented my mother in certain ways and never really knew why. There is a movement amongst mothers who have also been hurt by cir cision to end this practice once and for all.
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.primals.org/articles/baker01.html
"There is another psychological benefit to keeping our sons intact. The work of Dr. Rima Laibow (1991) concludes that a man carries unconscious rage against his own mother for betrayal, abandonment, and the assault itself. In other words, the unconscious mind of the son blames his mother for his cir cision, not "the tradition," the cir cisor, or the father who wanted his son to look like himself—only the mother. It's just like some bad Jewish-mother joke.
Indeed, for a newborn, his world is mother. If she cannot protect him from violation at the beginning, a baby loses trust. And isn't lack of trust an issue in relationships between the genders nowadays? Can cir cision be a symptom of profound resentment between the genders? Can sexuality be healed on a very deep, unconscious level during the perinatal period?
A connection exists between crimes of sexual violence, rape for example, and cir cision. The first heterosexual encounter—with a female nurse prepping the infant male—as well as betrayal by the mother, is revenged in sexual assaults against women. As Marilyn Milos, Founder and director of NOCIRC says, "Cir cision is where sex and violence meet for the first time."
Ahh....Mommy issues. Clarifies a lot about this thread.
That discovery was made by a female doctor and a feminist. I would say it's kind of funny how cir cised men and the women who mutilated their boys don't want to take this seriously, but it's just too ing sad for me to call it that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
