February 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm #27631
Does anybody have thoughts either way on circumcision?
i say leave it as nature intended,
are there any detriments sexually speaking?February 19, 2008 at 7:12 pm #27632
I lean towards leave things as nature intended–i.e. uncircumcised.
There are a few health benefits toward circumcision–mainly having
to with being able to keep the foreskin clean. Uncircumcised males
have to make sure that the area under their foreskin remains clean and
doesn’t have a lot of moisture build up, or it can lead to yeast infections,
similar to what women have to suffer with.
If a male gets repeated yeast infections, or repeatedly tears his foreskin
through sex or something, then it may be advisable to have it removed, i.e.
be circumcised–although it seems kind of unnecessary to just remove it as
a blanket rule.
There is a question of whether circumcised males have less sensitivity
(and thus less sexual pleasure) than uncircumcised ones–since some of the
sensitive skin is removed, and since the sensitive head of the penis becomes
slightly desensitized by continual contact with clothing (as opposed to being protected under a foreskin sheath)–of course the jury is sort of out of this one.
There is a rumor that circumcision was started as a practice for this
expressed purpose–to decrease sensitivity so that boys would be less
likely to masturbate (for some kind of puritanical purpose). Although this
seems kind of silly, because probably the majority of men in the US are
circumcised, but I know relatively few of them that don’t masturbate!
Overall, I’d say there are arguments for and against it, but again
my personal opinion would be to say, don’t circumcise unless there
are medical reasons why it would be beneficial–as in the above discussion.
StevenFebruary 21, 2008 at 11:49 am #27634
thanks for the reply…
my concern is more toward the general sexual cleanliness end and various “types” of sex and partners..
it seems that circumcision comes off as cleaner for those “other” types of sex (fellatio) and is preferred by many.. without many detriments or advantages either way otherwise…February 21, 2008 at 3:11 pm #27636
If someone is uncircumcised and they take a little care in
cleaning under the foreskin and assuming they don’t have a
yeast infection, then there should be no problem–and as I
said if there is repeated yeast infections or repeated tearing
then a circumcision might be necessary.
As for people preferring circumcised men for fellatio, that’s
just a personal preference. I’ve actually met people that
would prefer the man to be uncircumcised and find it to be
a turn on!
Anyone “turned off” toward fellatio, etc. because a man
is uncircumcised needs to drop their hangups. They really
just have ridiculous psychological issues. After all, if you
perform oral sex on a woman, the woman has nothing BUT
folds of skin and moisture down in and around their
vagina . . . and far more than any you’d find in a foreskin
on an uncircumcised penis.
Granted there are people that won’t perform oral sex
on women for that very reason, but if you ask me, those
said women should tell their partners to get over it, or
find a different partner that will actually be willing to
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.