Circumcision ruins the glans (NSFW)

Parents who circumcised their sons better hope they never find out what a normal penis looks like.  Who wouldn’t want a deeply-colored, smooth, silky glans penis, especially when compared with a dried-out circumcised penis head with a scar on the shaft where protective, functional, erogenous, nerve-rich tissue once resided?

If you’re a woman, notice how similar the intact glans penis is in texture and color to your glans clitoris.  Then look at the circumcised glans penis.  Imagine your clitoris was stripped of its protective hood, being exposed to rub against your underwear for its entire existence.  It’d eventually adopt the same leathery texture that the circumcised penis head exhibits.  Do you think your parents should have had the right to do that to your clitoris?

ablated

A_Foreskin_Retraction_Series A_high_resolution_collage_of_glans_penis
Male_foreskinPenis_glans_closeup002
An_image_of_frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penisAn_image_of_the_ridged_band_of_prepuce_second_image

VS.

gomcoErect_crcumcised_penisSlightly_aroused_state_of_a_human_circumcised_penisClose_up_detail_of_a_semi_erect_circumcised_penis,_birdseye_view

Penis_with_circumcision_scarsCircumcision_ScarPhumanmale

I’ve seen the “gloss finish” (intact; very similar to the always-protected glans clitoris) vs. “matte finish” (circumcised) metaphors being used more often in message boards to describe the difference in appearance of the glans penis. The difference is truly striking and truly sad.  I truly believe that if more parents were exposed, visually, to the difference, firsthand, very few would choose circumcision for their son.  The difference in glans texture is striking.  NO ONE–I REPEAT, NO ONE–SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO MAKE THIS ALTERATION TO THEIR SON’S GLANS PENIS OR THEIR DAUGHTER’S GLANS CLITORIS* APART FROM ABSOLUTE, UNDISPUTED NECESSITY.

We need to create a collage–one side erect intact penises (foreskin retracted) showing the glossy, supple glans and larger urethra and the other side erect circumcised penises showing the dried-out, leathery glans, oftentimes restricted urethra, and the scar, and make it a mandatory part of “informed consent” for parents. Is not the alteration of the appearance and texture of your son’s glans penis 30 years from now not a major effect of what you are about to do to his penis?

*If you have a clitoris, or your partner does, note the similarity in texture between your/her foreskin-protected glans clitoris and the foreskin-covered glans penises pictured above.  Now imagine if its protection was taken away so it resembles more the pictures of the circumcised glans penises.  You think you/she would like that very much?  Didn’t think so.

With the exceptions of the pictures of the rainforest and desert and the meme, the images above were simply found on Wikimedia Commons by typing “penis” into the search bar.

About notyourstocut

Genital Autonomy For All. Her Body, Her Choice. His Body, His Choice.

67 comments

  1. LostHisTail

    Everytime I hear, “a circumcised penis is more aesthetically pleasing bla bla bla” I want to say No, you fool. A circumcised penis looks downright ghastly.

    And of course let’s not forget (which I know you didn’t) a damaged part is still better than that part not even being there and replaced by a scar.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I also hope the myth that “you can’t tell the difference when they’re erect” is dispelled, and quickly. Any honest person with an eyeball can look at the photographs above and know that there is a HUGE difference when erect.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. LostHisTail

    Yes! How could I forget that one. Even informed folks sympathetic to intactivism will say this and it drives me up a wall.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Anon

      I’m ashamed to say that I’ve said this, knowing it was false (I’ve had a number of partners both circumcised and intact) in a last-ditch attempt to persuade parents who were hellbent on cutting their sons because they believed that foreskin over the glans looked ‘weird’. All I wanted to convey to them was that the foreskin usually retracts on an erect penis, so if you were to stand back, a very, very long way back, they have a similar basic shape. But no, they’re not the same – it’s like the difference between the inside of your mouth and the back of your hand. This is a great resource.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. concerned cynic

    During my teen and college years, when I used a locker room, I always would slide my foreskin back to completely expose the glans, before slipping out of my shorts. My goal was to avoid being scorned for having a weird dick. This worked like a charm. Nobody ever commented that my dick looked weird or that I was uncircumcised. And I once heard a jock heap scorn on a nerd for being uncircumcised. I continue to believe that the inexperienced American eye merely expects the tip of the penis to be an exposed glans. Once that is out of the way, the snarky part of the brain shuts down. The most reliable way to tell whether the man lying in bed next to you is circumcised or not is to give him a handjob. If there is a lot of play in the penis skin, he most likely is intact. But there are men who’ve gone under the knife who still have a lot of movement in their penis skin.

    Like

  4. Pingback: The WHO’s definition of FGM does not account for the historical American practices of female circumcision and clitoridectomy | Not Yours to Cut

  5. Pingback: On Slate’s findings on circumcision and sex | Not Yours to Cut

  6. I think it is important to note when the foreskin is still adhered to the glans, circumcision tears apart the foreskin from the glans which creates varying degrees of scarring to ALL the mucosa which means all of the glans surface. It is inaccurate thinking that the circumcision scar is just the cut line when it really is the cuts line and everything to its end. None of these men’s glans have the same extreme slippery texture like intact penises. My experience has been those cut men who do have glans as slippery smooth as intact, have been circumcised after their foreskin was naturally retractile BTW when the foreskin is torn, this tearing is audible as the muscle fibers give way, like small rubber band being over stretched and ‘snap’. That the body so firmly tries to resist & protect should mean “STOP” what is being done. Not normal. Not right. Not necessary. Not the Family Penis.

    I would like to see a study done that measures the surface smoothness of men’s glans, both cut and intact. And toss in clitorises too.

    Like

  7. Pingback: What about all the happily circumcised men? | Not Yours to Cut

  8. What we know about human genital anatomy:

    “What we call “male circumcision” amputates the mobile portion of the penis and thousands of the most specialized pressure-sensitive cells in the human body; Meissner’s corpuscles for light touch and fast touch, Merkel’s disc cells for light pressure and texture, Ruffini’s corpuscles for slow sustained pressure, skin tension, stretch, and slip, and Pacinian corpuscles for deep touch and vibration are found only in the tongue, lips, palms, nipples, fingertips, the clitoris, and the Ridged Band of the male foreskin. These remarkable cells process tens of thousands of information impulses per second. These are the cells that allow blind people to “see” Braille with their fingertips. Cut them off and it’s like trying to read Braille with your elbow. Information from tactile sensitivity gives humans environmental awareness and control. With lack of awareness comes lack of control. Luckily, for those who have them, Nature has mandated that these four types of mechanoreceptors do not age-degrade like the rest of the body’s cells. To say that amputation of the clitoris or the mobile roller-bearing portion of the natural penis and consequently thousands of these specialized nerve cell interfaces does not permanently sub-normalize one’s natural capabilities and partially devitalize one’s innate capacity for tactile pleasure is grossly illogical denial of the bio-mechanical and the somatosensory facts of human genital anatomy.”

    (Gary Harryman)

    Like

  9. Elon Muskydick

    HEY ASSHOLES, there’s a reason that the population of India is exploding through the roof. It’s because no Indian gets circumcised, so they just bang all day instead of being productive and improving their country. Why would they when they can retreat to their huts and have orgasm$/seizure$/chew khat whenever they want? See also, Africa, AIDS, terrorism, research showing those o(h!)rgasmic Ruffini’s corpuscles are extremely vulnerable to viruses like HIV, while keratinization/normal cells protect against viruses.

    ‘Merica. We’re the best, fuck all the rest.™

    Not even being sarcastic, dumbasses.

    Like

    • LOL. And shall we study how to toughen up the female genitalia as well by keratinization and excision of tissue? The same cells in the fold of the foreskin that are hypothesized to be entry points for HIV are also found in the folds of the vulva. And the vulva, of course, has more exposed mucosal tissue that provides entry points for HIV. Gotta keratinize the hell out of that shit, right?

      But let’s get back to reality–who the FUCK would want a dried-out, leathery, keratinized glans penis or glans clitoris? Just look at them. Fucking disgusting and drier than the Sahara. Poor scarred little things with less pleasure.

      In any case, it’s completely obvious that pleasure-rich, nerve-laden foreskins with silky smooth penis heads underneath them have caused an HIV/STI epidemic in Europe and Japan while dried-out scarred-up mutilated dicks have saved America from HIV/STIs. Haha NOT. Fucking clown.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lawrence Newman

      So you approve of female genital mutilation so that women can be more productive …..

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Lawrence Newman

    The glans penis has virtually no erogenous qualities apart from a slight scattering of fine touch receptors at the corona. But for all intents and purposes, the glans may as well be made of plastic because it doesn’t feel good. The foreskin is where almost all erogenous nerves are located, which has been confirmed by neurological analysis. Cutting off the foreskin turns the penis into a non-erogenous numb dildo. The extent of the sexual damage is correlated with how much foreskin is cut off, but most circumcisions are periah-style now and remove the ridged band and frenular delta. This is disastrous, as evidenced by the 4-5 times higher ED rate of circumcised men. I was cut in my teens. It ruined my life.

    Any doctor who defends circumcision should be sacked. Circumcision should be banned. It has never been a medical procedure; it is a religious/cultural act of sexual suppression. The average male circumcision is far more damaging in terms of sensory and functionality loss than any form of FGM.

    Anyone who insists FGM is more damaging than MGM … I invite you to provide us with neurological evidence of this. I’ll be waiting a long time.

    Like

  11. Shavann

    Sorry but all this sexual talk only more firmly resolves in my mind to have any future sons circumcised. The penis is a tool for reproduction first and foremost. Sexual pleasure and masturbation are sins not to mention just down right disgusting. Our American forefathers did a very good thing when they popularized routine male circumcision in the United States! Fornication is nasty period and inventing a sure fire way to prevent it is a huge improvement for society.

    Like

    • I assume you will be having your daughter circumcised as well since the vagina is a tool for reproduction first and foremost, not to mention the fact that sexual pleasure and masturbation are sins not to mention just downright disgusting.

      P.S. You realize that our American forefathers had foreskin, right?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Daniel

      Fucking sicko psycho freak!!! You will ROT IN HELL you piece of SHIT!!!!!

      FUCK YOU FOR DAMAGING MY BODY!!!!

      FUCK YOUR HATEFUL EVIL GOD TOO!!!!!

      Like

  12. Pingback: Foreskin Restoration: An account and Justification

  13. Anonymous

    A vagina is not the main female reproductive organ. That is the cervix and ovaries, which cannot be altered for obvious reasons. The vagina is merely an access channel that some barbaric cultures feel the need to destroy and sew closed. Only God knows how those caveman expect women to menstruate and urinate like that,let alone have any sexual relations which definitely won’t be pleasurable, if it is even possible at all. At least a circumcised man can have sex. A “circumcised” woman cannot, because she no longer has an orifice.

    Like

    • Stop minimizing genital mutilation with language like “at least.” We fully admit that there is a range of genital mutilations performed on both genders, ranging from a pinprick on the clitoral hood all the way to the form of FGM that you are describing as well as male castration, which destroys not only sexual but also reproductive capabilities. And the fact that male castration–which is by any objective standard the most extreme form of genital mutilation–exists does not mean that we should minimize the harm done by other forms of genital mutilation (“at least they can still reproduce”).

      The fact of the matter is that ALL genital cutting should be illegal to do to children apart from true medical need, but currently only females are protected from unnecessary cutting (even forms less invasive than male circumcision) in childhood. Our movement is at its core a call for equality: that all children, regardless of gender, be guaranteed the right to grow up with all of their genital tissue, not just whatever portion their parents, culture, and/or religion deem appropriate.

      Like

    • Most circumcised women can have sex, just as most circumcised men can. Some males die from circumcision. Some males lose their penises to circumcision.

      And I refuse to call circumcised sex actual sex because when your penis is numb, it becomes something else entirely.

      Like

      • Jaja

        I have worked with patients (as a RN) who were circumcised during adulthood, their penis did not become numb and they said actual sex which is “circumcised sex” as well did not change in a negative way.

        Like

        • I read an article the other day about a woman who choose labiaplasty in her 20s and was very satisfied with the results. Good for her. And good for men who choose circumcision in their 20s and are very satisfied with the results. They made informed choices about their own bodies.

          This doesn’t change our position on infant labiaplasty or infant circumcision one bit. The fact that a very small percentage of women have problems with their labia, and opt for labiaplasty rather than less invasive treatment measures, and are satisfied with the results of the surgery, is no justification for giving parents the right to choose labiaplasty for their daughters.‪

          In the same vein, the fact that a very small percentage of men have problems with their foreskins, and opt for circumcision rather than less invasive treatment measures, and are satisfied with the results of the surgery, is no justification for giving parents the right to choose circumcision for their sons.

          Like

          • Jaja

            I am not talking about just an article about a man, but from life experiences with these men who I have had deep conversations with and this was a reply to him. I am not pro-circumcision but I am just saying what I commonly have heard from men I have personal experience with and deep trust and read in studies. You can have your choices and personal beliefs though.

            Like

            • This site could care less what grown men and women do to their bodies. Informed adults can choose to have their foreskin or labia or clitoral hood or anything else cut off. We don’t care.

              What we do care about is guaranteeing all children–not just girls–the right to grow up with all of their genitalia.

              Like

            • Most men will not admit to being sexually dysfunctional. Men are proud. I refused to talk about my teenage circumcision for years. I always knew it took away all my pleasure and gave me ED. I had to carry that around with me. It was a form of denial. Now I’m older and wiser and without ego, I can say publicly, the foreskin is where all the erogenous nerves are, and cutting it off causes sexual dysfunction (ED and lack of pleasure). It was done to me after experiencing my foreskin. I’m not making this up. It’s on my medical records. Because this issue never goes away for me, I decided to research the subject. It turns out that my experience isn’t uncommon because neurological facts back my experience up. Histological analysis shows the glans penis is like the eyeball, covered with free nerves, which are protopathic, i.e. sense pain and pressure. In contrast, the foreskin contains thousands of fine touch receptors, which cause the pleasure.

              There isn’t a hard scientific study, i.e. neurology, that disproves what I’m saying. As an RN, you have never been taught about the function/neurology of the foreskin and neither has any medical student. They ignore the foreskin because to admit the truth would be to cause mass outrage among the public. Circumcision forced on kids is also technically illegal. When it’s done on adults or adolescents for ‘phimosis’ , it’s medical negligence, since it isn’t needed and contravenes the first do no harm principle of medical ethics.

              It’s astonishing that I know more about this than a nurse with years of training. But that says it all about medical training when it comes to this dirty little secret.

              Like

            • Stevenjson

              fuck you Jaja. It’s not your right to mutilate others. FUCK YOU !

              Like

        • torosan

          You do realize, that a man getting cut as an adult… has no real comparison on sensation, to those cut as children. When cut as a kid, you have years of callousing and rubbing on clothes to toughen up the skin and reduce sensation. Cutting the skin off a protected penis and asking if it is still sensitive or not… of course it is still sensitive.. duh.

          Like

          • Jaja

            I actually have experience with men who got circumcised many years ago as well. More than 20 years ago even and they still said that there was absolutely no loss in sensation. Their words. These were men who had no fight in this, just speaking from their experience. “Callousing” can be prevented on any body part, thankfully, by taking care of it.

            Like

        • Well either you’re lying or they are lying. I suspect YOU are lying. Magic penises do not exist. No penis exists in which the glans is erogenous and the foreskin isn’t. Histology shows the foreskin contains all the erogenous nerves.

          Like

        • Daniel

          As an RN you are a failure as a human being. You violated you oath. You shit on the science you supposedly study. You are a sick low life coward who deserves all the pain and torture you advocate for children. Would you believe a person who told you 3/4 of their taste buds were cut off but they don’t notice their deficient lunch??? Are you THAT fucking DUMB????

          My God you sicko!!!! You should be tortured like you want for CHILDREN!!!!!

          Sicko psycho!!!

          Like

    • koko13

      circumcised women can have sex.
      circumcised women have orifice.
      you are just moronic scum.

      Like

  14. LostHisTail

    @Anonymous

    “let alone have any sexual relations which definitely won’t be pleasurable, if it is even possible at all. At least a circumcised man can have sex. A “circumcised” woman cannot, because she no longer has an orifice”

    An aggressively “periah style”-circumcised man “no longer has an orifice” because his preputial ORIFICE has been totally obliterated (and replaced with a scar) along with the pleasure-receptivity it would have provided! It is downright cruel to tell him “at least he can have sex” when, on top of the lifelong disfigurement some scalpel-wielding CAVEMAN imposed upon him, he has a 4-5 times higher chance of needing ED drugs to even function sexually.

    Like

    • J

      The thing is that you are just stating an opinion, you can’t measure another person’s pleasure since it is mainly mental. I said sex is just as much pleasurable for them as it is for someone who is not circumcised. There is no accurate link between ED drugs and circumcised men. War torn countries and obese nations tend to have higher use of drugs but that’s the only link found.

      Like

      • You cannot measure another person’s pleasure, but you can draw conclusions on the effect on sexual pleasure of excising erogenous tissue. So what other erogenous tissue do you believe may be excised from a man’s (or a woman’s) body that would leave their capacity for sexual pleasure not diminished in the least?

        Like

        • J

          But they have done studies on men circumcised during adulthood and general consensus shows there is no loss in pleasure. I don’t want to ignore these men just because I am against infant circumcision. Either way, sexual pleasure is heavily psychological and mental for both men and women.

          Like

          • I wouldn’t say that there is a “general consensus” with respect to these studies.

            There is also a selection bias, just like with women and labiaplasty. Those men who do not find much sexual value in their foreskin are more likely to pursue circumcision, and those women who do not find much sexual value in their labia are more likely to pursue labiaplasty.

            The effect on sexual pleasure in men who chose to be circumcised will be very different than the effect on sexual pleasure of a group of 10,000 random intact men who were circumcised randomly (not an ethical study, but the point remains).

            There is also the possibility of many man never exploring the full sexual capacity of their foreskin. I’ll give a personal example: my (male) nipples. I did not discover the capacity for sexual pleasure that my nipples had until I met my wife, who was very experienced in the art of nipple stimulation. I went 30 years thinking that my nipples were useless tissue and not the erogenous hot buttons that I now know them to be. I can’t help but think that, given the lack of education regarding the foreskin, that many intact men who were circumcised as adults had similar ignorance about the erogenous potential of their foreskins. I would argue something similar for African women who undergo clitoridectomy and claim that nothing was lost.

            Sure, sex is mental, but I can say for certain that if I lost some of my erogenous tissue, that my capacity for sexual pleasure would be diminished somewhat.

            Also, this post is somewhat related: https://notyourstocut.com/2015/03/31/on-slates-findings-on-circumcision-and-sex/

            Like

            • J

              I would say the studies done on more men and generally more random studies done on this subject do point to these unbiased men (since they really have no fight in this) saying that there was no negative result in terms of sensation/feeling. Some said there was in fact positive ones which could also be related to a mental state. (Gets based in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Kenya). We don’t know how erogenous tissues work, I get very high sexual pleasure from my feet (not usually erogenous) being touched to the point of orgasm but feel more pain when my vagina and clit is probed a little too much. It’s not just about sensitivity, since each person is different which is my point.

              But these adult men were sexually active with their genitalia before circumcision so that’s what they were comparing to, a nipple is different because a nipple is never even touched to begin with…it is not usually used or is anywhere near sexual acts.

              Like

              • “more random studies”

                Like what? Men circumcised as adults by and large chose to be circumcised. That’s not random at all. Asking 1,000 men who chose to be circumcised and asking them if they lost any pleasure from circumcision will likely lead to vastly different results from randomly circumcising 1,000 men and asking if they lost any pleasure from circumcision.

                It’s the same thing with women and labiaplasty. Studies on the subject indicate that the majority of women who have undergone labiaplasty and/or hoodectomy state that their sexual pleasure is unchanged or better after the procedure. But again, these women chose these procedures. I highly doubt that if one were to cut the clitoral hoods off of 1,000 women that the vast majority of them would state that their sexual pleasure is unchanged or better after the procedure. The fact of the matter is that most people with foreskins and clitoral hoods derive some sexual pleasure from them.

                “since each person is different which is my point.”

                Exactly. Men who choose to be circumcised, just like women who choose to undergo hoodectomy, may very well derive very little pleasure from their foreskins and clitoral hoods. But it would seem that these are the exception rather than the rule and that the majority of people who have these parts derive some sexual pleasure from them.

                Like

  15. Anonymous

    Funny how they always compare healthy best-case examples of uncircumcised glanses with the most dried-out circed glanses i’ve ever seen. Happens e.g. when you often use an aggressive shampoo or soap as lube.

    There’s nothing wrong on giving a child the best medical treatment available.
    9 out of 10 men circumcised as adults report an increased sexual pleasure, since the foreskin nerves trigger premature ejaculation. You can reach a higher plateau of plasure when circed.
    You have to remember that nature intended the penis for reproduction and pleasure was only a stimuli to head for climax. So uncirced is optimized for fast climax and circed is optimized for pleasure.
    CDC and WHO have disproved almoust every piece of junk-science the no-circ-goof’s released, so better stay on your ethic debate on principles of RIC instead of trying to reason on this level.
    And don’ forget: RIC is like Vaccination. There are people out there going nuts because they think vaccination gave them autism…
    The most people only get problems when the fanatics suggest them long enough that they should have them.

    The foreskin-fanatics certainly know how to do psychological warfare…
    Like the “circumcision, the more you know, the more you’re against it” slogan. Subliminal suggesting people to not research it since they would be “against” it anyways even though the contrary is the case if you really read the full studies.

    Like

    • “Funny how they always compare healthy best-case examples of uncircumcised glanses with the most dried-out circed glanses i’ve ever seen.”

      Nope. You’ll notice the disclaimer: “With the exceptions of the pictures of the rainforest and desert and the meme, the images above were simply found on Wikimedia Commons by typing “penis” into the search bar.”

      “9 out of 10 men circumcised as adults report an increased sexual pleasure”

      Likewise, over 90% of women who underwent labiaplasty are satisfied with the results of the surgery. This does not mean that if you randomly labiaplastied 100,000 women that 90,000 would be satisfied with the results. There’s a huge selection bias in studies that point to these statistics as support for the notion that circumcision does not affect sexual pleasure.

      Moreover, other studies conflict with your statement, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

      “CDC and WHO have disproved almoust every piece of junk-science the no-circ-goof’s released, so better stay on your ethic debate on principles of RIC instead of trying to reason on this level.”

      The CDC’s position is at odds with the rest of the developed world. Most European medical groups recommend against circumcising males. Moreover, in Japan, male circumcision is extremely rare. And guess what? These countries don’t have higher rates of anything.

      The WHO’s position is only relevant in high-risk areas.

      You could really link any non-essential body part or tissue to infection or disease and make an argument for amputation as the CDC has. https://notyourstocut.com/2015/12/10/lets-be-honest-here/

      “And don’ forget: RIC is like Vaccination.”

      Huh?

      Like

  16. LostHisTail

    “Funny how they always compare healthy best-case examples of uncircumcised glanses with [b]the most dried-out circed glanses i’ve ever seen”[/b]

    Wrong. Those are just the typical garden-variety infant botch jobs you will see online ALL the time (because many guys “proudly” post dick pics not realizing they’re just being walking advertisements for genital mutilation). You basically just CONFIRMED the point of this very post! Congratulations, you win the award for Most Incompetent Circumfetishist.

    Like

  17. Pingback: سنت بدوی ختنه_(بخش دوم)مهبانگ | مهبانگ

  18. Jaja

    Nobody is a fool, I have met many people who prefer circumcised penis but they don’t shame uncircumcised men. It’s so weird how people are trying to shame either one…

    Like

    • Not try into shame. Just pointing out the very real keratinization that happens to the glans post-circumcision and the very real scar that circumcision leaves on the penis in hopes that more parents will be persuaded to respect their sons’ bodies in the same way that they respect their daughters’.

      Like

      • Jaja

        It’s shaming, this is obviously an anti-circumcision site and people who are heavily against it will say these things. I have had personal relations with circumcised men and keratinization has never been an issue.

        Like

        • Just wait until they’re middle-aged.

          The glans penis and glans clitoris are mucous membranes. Like it or not, a layer will develop over the glans penis and glans clitoris if they are permanently exposed for a long period of time. Just look at the difference in glans texture shown in the pictures. And no, these are not cherry-picked.

          We’re simply showing one of the side effects of removing the protective covering of a mucous membrane in hopes that parents will stop cutting off a perfectly normal, healthy, functional, protective part of their child’s genitalia.

          We guarantee girls the right to all of their genitals from Day 1. Why shouldn’t boys be guaranteed the same?

          Like

          • jaja

            I have spoken with men in their 40s and 50s and they still had very good satisfaction. In regards to 70s, 80s…every man tends to have less functioning or less healthy look than when they were young. I tried to look into studies about what you said and could not find any. It’s obvious that it differs for each man. I was just trying to be honest. I don’t think saying that they were satisfied means I am trying to be for circumcision for every baby.

            Like

  19. Jaja

    And I have slept with both, I have noticed smoothness and nice color in both.

    Like

    • That may be your experience, but the fact is that a permanently-protected penis head will be smoother and more richly-colored than a permanently-exposed penis head.

      The same thing happens to a clitoris when the clitoral hood is removed.

      Parents should not have the right to have a part of their son’s penis or daughter’s vulva removed.

      Like

  20. Jaja

    @Kenya yes, I agree. I can’t find that much info on it but know some women like my sister who did it from word of mouth.

    Like

  21. Pingback: Ruined GLans | Blog Velanidi

  22. Dr. Bloodmoney

    I do not live in the US. However where i live i know of a General Practitioner who went from being a regular Doctor at a public hospital to opening up a private clinic where they only perform circumcision (because he thought he wasnt earning enough money), and when asked secretly shouldnt he as someone whose responsibility is to protect patients according to the oath “do no harm unnecessarily”, should he not inform of the ill effects of circumcision and try to dissuade men from mutilating their own bodies, even if they adults, he replied very candidly and bluntly, if i honestly do that then who would pay for the big beautiful house i live in and the luxurious car on my driveway. However publicly he has said that circumcision is harmless, and a circumcised penis is better than an intact one. Its absolutely horrible how Doctors or Surgeons, who are hellbent on making tons of money off of gullible people, can operate legally this way. Genital mutialtion is a crime and should be made illegal full stop.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: