I've just come accross a scientific article where the author says that the purpose of circumcision is to impair the man's ability to have sex with women.
Can anyone say from their personal experience whether circumcision does make having sex more difficult? Most men have either been circumcised or uncircumcised all their lives. And of course they haven't had both kinds of sex experiences. But perhaps there are some men who have had both kinds of sex experiences. Perhaps some scientists need to get together and do an objective study of circumcised and uncircumcised men having unprotected sex with the same woman. And it would have to be the same woman because otherwise the comparison between the two groups of men wouldn't be valid.
I can say. I was circumcised at birth in 1962. I got married in 1990. Starting in 2001, I began tensioning my skin and I now have as much slack skin as an intact man. Explicit pic before restoration: http://tlctugger.com/images/Before-3%20mo.jpg Explicit pic after 3.5 years of foreskin restoration: http://tlctugger.com/images/42_Months.jpg I am still married to the same woman, who is now 19 years older than when we met, and pre-menopausal. Our sex is better than ever. Even during those times of the month when she doesn't lubricate very prodigiously, if she wants intercourse, insertion is easy because of the lubricating effect of the gliding skin tube, and I would say also because my glans is soft and supple instead of dry. I can't vouch for all the claims in the article (and it only means to present ideas that are consistent with evolutionary thought, not proofs of anything) but I will say that before restoration I could go at intercourse an hour before climaxing, and then "finish" only if I really concentrated. Now it's the opposite. I can climax quickly if we're short on time, or if I concentrate I can go as long as she likes. So if I hadn't undergone a vasectomy in 1997, I might have an evolutionary edge now due to my restored foreskin. Cheers, -Ron
Wilson apparently sees no problem lumping circumcision in with all other forms of genital mutilation and then calling the resulting study proof that circumcision has the same root cause as all other forms of genital mutilation. That right there says enough for me to stop listening to him. However, I'll just add that sexual excitement is a function of hormone levels, and I don't see anything in the article suggesting that Wilson is even aware that hormones exist.
I have tried it both ways, and did not find insertion to be more difficult after circumcision. Reaching orgasm is definitely more difficult, but that may be due to getting older rather than the reduction in sensitivity.
one of the "design purposes" of the foreskin is to aid lubrication and the thrusting of the penis into the vagina. The foreskin acts like a sheath for the penis to move in. Circumcision makes the penis more like a ramrod. So, Yes, it does aid the sex act including penetration and thrusting. There's a good book on this topic written by an M.D. But I can't remember its name at the moment.
The book you're talking about is probably one of the following: "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision" by Paul Fleiss or "Sex as Nature Intended It" by Kristen O'Hara
Here is a list of [ invalid url ] by cultural transmission.That's not going to happen, and what if that woman was atypical? You could get a usable result statistically with different people if the sample was large enough, but there are many confounding factors, including, so far, the prejudices of researchers. [ invalid url ] were determined to find that circumcision made no difference, and so, by not measuring the foreskin, that's what they found.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 4:36PM
Yes, getting circumcised means you will only be able to move your junk at glacial speeds. Say no to genital mutilation.
