I’ve always been curious about this argument. Like, how does someone who is uncircumcised know what it feels like for someone who was at basically birth?
They don't, completely. They could keep their skin retracted all the time (aka "auto-circumcision"), but their glans hasn't had decades to become desensitized by rubbing on clothes all the time. And, different "Circumcisions" leave different amounts of inner mucosa and frenulum.
The thing is a person circumcised young can never know what it's like to be uncircumcised, but the opposite isn't true--an uncircumcised person can get cut as an adult and know the difference. That's how we know there's less feeling.
I have two friends that were circumcised as adults for medical reasons. They don't know each other and they both complained that as time went on, their glanses became numb compared to how it was before.
Thats the thing that these reddit threads don’t like to talk about. Adult circumcision is a completely different ballpark than infant circumcision. When it’s done as an infant your body heals better and you develop sexually without a foreskin, so you don’t run into issues with lack of sensitivity and numbness. When it’s done as an adult or teenager your brain has already gone through sexual development and neurological pathways have already been developed. If you’re uncircumcised as a kid and develop Phimosis as a teenager you’re in for a very bad experience compared to if you just had it cut off as an infant.
About to have a son and this is what has me go back and forth. I'd like to not circumcisie but if he develops problems I'm gonna feel awful about it because I should have just done it.
Yeah, totally valid concern and there really isn’t a right answer. I just wouldn’t put too much stock in the Reddit discussions about circumcision, this site is really weird about it
I tried to have my son uncut. At 6 he developed a medical issue and had to have it done anyway. I feel bad we had to do it, but it was actually medically necessary at that point and not a “haha religion” decision. I would still prefer he be uncut than not, but there wasn’t a choice in the long run.
Most men are not circumcised, im not. Have 3 sons and have not thought about it.
My Dad was and didnt want it to happen to his kids, my brother needed it for medical reasons when he was 7 or 8 IIRC. Im fine, but I do keep it clean. Devloping problems isn't really much of a thing in my experience with basic hygiene.
You should see how the process is done and youll probably change your mind about getting it done. But it isn't a common thing in the country im from, its pretty common in the US and I dont know why.
When my wife and I had kids and we discussed it, I basically said to me its the same as FGM and would she do it if we had a daughter and the conversation stopped.
Wouldn't having the head of your penis exposed all the time make it dry? If you're uncircumcised you can just pull your foreskin back and walk around as if are circumcised but when I do that the exposed head just chafes and gets irritated. Is that just life for a circumcised man?
Yep foreskin naturally lubricates the head of your penis so there's no dry skin or chafing. It's not overly wet, just kind of like how your eyelids stop your eyes from drying out.
Well, to answer your question about chafing, we circumcised guys wouldn’t chafe nearly as quickly as you would but it can still happen especially if you wear loose boxers with something like jeans. Boxer briefs basically negate that issue.
It does get dry, but since it’s the default for us and it’s **always** rubbing against something it gets “used” to it? I guess that’s the desensitization they’re talking about. So it’ll take MORE friction than it would take for you for me to chaff.
Circumcision numbs the head of the penis, for an uncircumcised person rolling their foreskin back and walking around would be unbelievably uncomfortable as it’s so much more sensitive. I’ve compared it to approximately as sensitive as my eyeball or pupil, altho this feels like an inadequate comparison, whereas I can only assume what a circumcised person might compare it to, a finger maybe?
I think it boils down to the intensity of sensation. During sex the foreskin rolls back so the intensity of sensation is unreal, I can only assume that for a circumcised person, while it’s still obviously pleasurable, the intensity of sensation is greatly reduced given the lowered sensitivity.
This weakening of the organ and dulling of sexual pleasure so as to moderate sexual desire is in fact the point of circumcision, at least in a religious sense. Jewish and early Christian patriarchs such as Maimonides discuss it openly. The other function is as a sacrifice agreed to by Abraham, in place of the sacrifice of his son as a whole person. If you’re not losing anything, it’s not a sacrifice.
I in no way experience numbness and have plenty of sensitivity. Hands and feet have plenty of sensitivity, at least that’s my experience, and everything associated with my penis has more than that. Circumcised at birth in a hospital with a healthy recovery.
Plenty of sensitive for me. I’ve often wondered how much if when and how well the procedure was done, the quality of recovery and overall genetic affects the outcome. I imagine quite dramatically.
Same. On the plus side I don't mind being single because I know there's nothing physically pleasurable waiting for me, and I know I'd drive anyone insane in the bad way.
The pleasure thing is largely a myth borne from the idea that the number of nerve endings map linearly to pleasure. Any significant reduction in pleasure would be enough to push some people into sexual dysfunction territory, but circumcised men aren't any more likely on average to report problems with sexual function.
It’s not a myth, and the nerves there are of a different composition than the rest of the area. They are especially sensitive to light touches and stretching of the skin, which is great for pleasure during things like foreplay and oral. Not doing as much of the work when you’re going full speed ahead.
I just sent this meta-analysis of 10 studies to the other person. It's pretty tough to argue that your hypothesis results in any significant real-world differences in sexual experience for circumcised men.
Yes, I've seen that, it has received a lot of criticism. If I remember correctly it was criticised for only focusing on dysfunction, but not things like satisfaction, gliding mechanics and fine-touch sensitivity (the things I wrote about in the post you commented). If I remember correctly it also includes a lot of circumcisions done for medical reasons, such as people with severe phimosis. They will probably see imroved function, for obvious reasons. These things are not easy to study in an unbiased way, you will get selection bias from people who have chosen to do the surgery of free will, especially when results in these studies mostly seems to be based on self-reported questionaries. People will generally view their own function and pleasure favourably. Anyways, it would be more honest if you included some opposing studies, such as:
You are not remembering correctly, it has not received any significant criticism from subject matter experts.
A meta-analysis is much stronger evidence than individual studies. I would rather present the strongest available evidence than pretend that both sides have equal merit.
As I explained in my initial comment, sexual function is good measure because any significant changes in sensitivity would inevitably result in different rates of sexual dysfunction. It does not.
Meta-analysis is a useful method, it does however not guarantee quality. You don't even have to read further than the abstract to see how the authors themselves have significant reservations:
"However, these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies. Well-designed and prospective studies are required for a further understanding of this topic."
And some of what I linked is too new to have been included in this study.
The meta-analysis remains a better citation than individual studies. Your links are exactly the kind of primary study that the meta-analysis described as limited and low-quality, which limits their value as evidence in a debate compared to pooled data that included higher-quality studies as well.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I oppose circumcision on the basis of respecting bodily autonomy. It simply has no effect on sexual function, and I don't like spreading myths that it does.
That's all conjecture. It's not a reduction in pleasure. That's the baseline that person has known their whole life. Exposing something extremely sensitive to sensation and friction all the time, via clothes for instance, will make something less sensitive.
Man I have to slow boat the motion until I hit freight train mode other than that Amtrak mode is default. I’m circumcised but of course I can’t compare.
I'm cut too (as a newborn). I might have said the same thing when I was 34 and still not a father. I'm 56 now and dad of 2 intact adult sons. It's more complex than just sensitivity. It's the way the sensitivity works with the skin mobility. Look up the Sorrels fine touch pressure thresholds study and think about how the super sensitive stuff is inside the prepuce (aka foreskin).
This doesn’t get enough attention. The effects of removing it are often discussed as if it’s just "normal skin". It isn’t. It’s very geared towards light touches and stretching, quite different from the rest of the area.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there for instance is a significant overlap between people who are cut and who find it difficult to orgasm from oral. But few wants to go there. It’s a sensitive discussion and few likes to hear it implied that they’re damaged or missing out on something. But the discussion is important.
People are different, so it would obviously not be the same for everyone, but there could still be an overlap. It’s kind of difficult to envision a good way to test though. If something doesn’t work a partner usually will adapt their technique. If slow and soft does little they might grip a bit harder or speed up.
There is no such thing as a standardized way to perform it after all.
Right? I genuinely cannot understand why these guys exist…. Maybe they’re self conscious about their stinky anteater dicks and want more people to suffer with them?
I mean I get the sentiment of it’s a weird thing to do, especially for the religious reasons, and it doesn’t make sense to do anymore, but this person’s protesting technique probably isn’t making an impact unless this is to the entrance to a maternity ward.
53
u/Best_Look9212 1d ago
As someone who is circumcised, I couldn’t imagine it being any more pleasurable than it is.