Quote:
Originally Posted by storymilo
I don't understand why some people make some huge differentiation or judgement between penises based on whether they're missing some skin on the end. It's still the same part....
This isn't to say I think there's no difference (obviously there is, one has the freaking tip of it cut off) but like.... does it really matter?
|
FUNCTIONS OF THE FORESKIN:
Story, the foreskin is more than just "skin," which is knowledge that many people in the U.S., including parents and doctors, may not have since circumcision is so common here that they don't question it or think to ask about the function of the foreskin. Protecting a child's foreskin from those who wish to cut him is important for physiological and ethical reasons.
The male foreskin is a double layer sleeve, with skin on the outside and a mucous membrane on the inside, that covers the glans (head) of a man's penis and has protective, sensory, and sexual functions.
A baby boy's intact foreskin, which is almost always fused to the glans at birth much like the fingernail is fused to the nail bed, protects it from urine and fecal matter during the diaper phase,
contains numerous erogenous, fine-touch sensory receptors, similar to those in the lips, and
matures into a natural sliding and gliding mechanism that enables non-abrasive, self-lubricating sexual activity (Taylor, JR, et al. (1996) Br. J. Urology, 77:291-295).
Three of the most responsive areas of the natural, intact penis are the specialized foreskin structure called the "ridged band," the tip of the foreskin, and the frenulum, which attaches the foreskin to the glans. Recent research has found that circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis: "Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis," which is the circumcision scar on the ventral side (Sorrells, ML, et al. (2007) "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis," BJU International, 99:864-869).
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
Routine circumcision of newborn boys destroys the foreskin and causes the certain loss of its protective, erogenous, and sexual functions. The practice of tearing and cutting off the male foreskin parallels Type I Female Genital Mutilation, defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) as the removal of the female foreskin that covers the clitoris.
My advice is that newborn children be allowed to grow up intact so that as adults they can decide for themselves if they wish to undergo surgery of their most private of body parts.
CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES:
Although three recent randomized controlled trials in Africa found that men had approximately a 50% reduced risk of HIV infection in the year following circumcision, over 1% of the circumcised men still became infected with HIV (Bailey, RC, et al. (2007) Lancet, 369:643-656). Follow-up studies found that women partners of circumcised men had an increased risk of HIV infection. Results from another African study suggest that simple genital hygiene would be as effective as circumcision at reducing the risk of HIV infectin (Journal of AIDS, Sept. 2006 Issue).
Studies in the United States have found that intact males do not have an increased risk of STD infection, including HIV (Laumann, EO, et al. (1997) JAMA, 277:1052-1057 and Thomas, AG, et al. (2004) International AIDS Society). Furthermore, the U.S. has both the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection among developed nations. In the U.S., where 80% of adult males are circumicsed, the HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate is 0.6%, three times higher than in the United Kingdom, where almost all men are intact (HIV data from
www.cia.gov).
Rather than circumcising babies, who are not sexually active, parents who fear that their child may contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD) can teach him about the most effective STD prevention techniques: abstinence, safer sex (which includes consistent use of condoms, fidelity to one's partner, and reduction in the number of partners), and genital hygiene (retracting the foreskin and washing with water and drying the penis shaft daily and after sexual activity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 333
Hm, interesting. I think I already knew the answer to that question. I just wanted some reassurance. I came to the realization, though, when I noticed that when having sex with uncut guys, I stay wet, or in other words, I am wetter than if I were to be eloping with a guy who is cut. I'm sure this could be narrowed down to who I was more attracted to, but I just find that I (1) have to use lube (which I hate unless it's anal), or (2) it just doesn't feel as comfortable with circumcised males.
|
333, what you write sounds exactly like what I've read: because a circumised man lacks his foreskin, in which the glans can move back and forth, his penis rubs more abrasively against a woman's vagina, reducing the ability of her lubrication to protect her vagina from the friction. In contrast, an intact man's foreskin provides a partial sleeve in which he can thrust, so that his penis isn't chafing, chafing, chafing against her continually.