Type of circumcision

Thanks Woyzeck for that, looks like I'm one of the low styles, possibly low and loose.

The link in post #3 didn’t work, the new one is :

http://www.circlist.com/styles/page1.html

by the statement in your article that "circumcision reduces sensation ". How could anyone possibly know?

This is not such a difficult exercise or experiment to do. Not if you think about it. But it will only work with uncircumcised males.

With willing participants, it is not very difficult to find some manner of device (usually an elastic ring of some sort works fine enough) that can be placed just under the corona that will keep the foreskin permanently retracted from covering the glans.

Then, all that needs to be done, is have the discipline to remain this way for several weeks and record or report the degrees of change of sensation. At first the sensitivity will be overwhelming, especially when getting dressed and underclothing chaffs at the exposed glans. That in and of itself alone should indicate that uncircumcised organs are much more sensitive. But over time, several days or a week, chaffing will become less and less uncomfortable as sensitivity of the glans is reduced by constant friction. After a longer period of time, say a month or so, sensitivity will be even further reduced and virtually no feeling will be noted by contact with clothing. It will feel just about the same as with a covered glans.

Then there is sexual sensitivity. Participants will have to report on how stimulation may change. Invariably a different technique of masturbation will be applied. Simply rubbing the glans will no longer be sufficient, as is often the case with uncircumcised males. Many uncircumcised can even orgasm by rubbing the glans with the foreskin still covering the glans. It is also possible that the frenulum will become more the focus of stimulation.

In any case, this is such an easy experiment to conduct. I've done it myself for long periods, up to several months. This because of curiosity on the one hand and to sort of experience what all the fuss is about and also to actually feel firsthand the difference. And a difference there is, but you'll have to trust my word for it.

I invite anyone to give it a try. It is so simple to conduct but I guarantee that the first hours and days will be extremely uncomfortable. You may have to stop after several hours, give it a rest and then start again for a longer and longer period ... and I predict that your masturbation techniques will begin to change since simple stimulation of the glans will be insufficient.

Since I have been circumcised since birth it's surprising I can even have an orgasm at all. As I've said before stimulation of my glans causes such an intense sensation that it quickly becomes painful so that I don't care to touch it at all when I masturbate. As for vaginal sex it's so intense that I can't tolerate it at all. Right.

Since I have been circumcised since birth it's surprising I can even have an orgasm at all. As I've said before stimulation of my glans causes such an intense sensation that it quickly becomes painful so that I don't care to touch it at all when I masturbate. As for vaginal sex it's so intense that I can't tolerate it at all. Right.

But if intercourse and masturbation is so intense and painful, what about wearing clothes? Surely friction caused by fabric is similar to friction caused by other means? Especially since some types of fabric and clothe can be roughly textured.

It's so intense that I can't even stand to wear clothes at all. If you believe that then I have a bridge you might like to buy.

The Brooklyn Bridge aside, friction is friction. With degrees of difference from say a rough washcloth or a rubbing finger ... but it is still friction, and moreover I'd say that the gentlest friction would be by (lubricated) hand or in nature's intended sheath, which is also naturally lubricated ...

There seems to be a basic disconnect here on the sensitivity issue. The foreskin is both innervated and dynamic. It moves during sexual thrusting. Remember that penile skin is the only skin on the human that lacks fascia anchoring it to structures below.

The argument about premature ejaculation is not realistic. The question should be about sensation and overall pleasure.

There is no way to compare except for subjective reporting by sexually active men who were circumcised as adults.

Check this out

http://m.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/155448/landmark-study-circumcision-doesnt-reduce-sexual-pleasure

Too political

Too political

. . . and what you cite isn't???

Everybody has an agenda on this topic.

Too political? My persistence in continuing to flog this totally dead horse is because this entire thread has become a forum for emotional and irrational conjecture. The few articles I found were summaries of scientific articles appearing in popular journals. I couldn't do any better. In general, all opinions, myself included I'm afraid, are only based on personal opinion and bias. These articles suggest that there may be benefits heretofore not mentioned of this procedure which arouses such ire.

Too political

I'd say it is, and religious too.

When I opened one of the links, the second, I got a pop-up asking if I wanted to be kept abreast of Jewish news. C'mon now, an article about circumcision from a service that collates and disseminates Jewish news ... how much more of a biased agenda can you get? So overt and blatant ...

I'm curious - is the result of a circumcision at birth like practiced in the US different from that of a circumcision later on? Is a circumcision for phimosis different from a circumcision for Muslim or Jewish faith? Is the frenulum removed in some kind of circumcisions ?

My bad. I must have copied the link wrong. In no way was I trying to proselytize you. I was just trying to shed some rational light on the subject. Try googling "does circumcision diminish sexual pleasure".

(Asking that partly because my aunt had been persuaded by her physician that the surgery her son had was NOT the kind practiced on Jews, that more skin had been left on..)

Yes Agracier I couldn't agree with you more. As Samuel Johnson said--"the pleasure fleeing, the cost exorbitant and the position ridiculous ".

My bad. I must have copied the link wrong. In no way was I trying to proselytize you. I was just trying to shed some rational light on the subject. Try googling "does circumcision diminish sexual pleasure".

It's OK, I didn't think you were. I'd be immune anyway. 😃 😃

On the sexual pleasure angle. That is not the same as sensitivity though. Even eunuchs can have a great deal of sexual pleasure, since most of it comes from the head and fantasy anyway. I always think - when being as rational as I can - that all sexual activity is so arbitrary and fundamentally silly, in the way that it is just rubbing and touching. It is the fantasy element, the personal thinking that constitutes the real pleasure ...

Dr Dan and others...

I once looked at a book for American surgeons performing routine circumcision (Micah Jacobs et al.). I said:

"This is the purpose of the circumcision – to remove the foreskin such

that the entire glans penis including coronal sulcus is revealed. To achieve this desired cosmetic

result, the correct amount of foreskin needs to be removed. The correct amount of foreskin is the same regardless of the parent’s request, the child’s religion, or the practitioner’s technique. It is the amount that just reveals the glans in its entirety, but does not denude the shaft of the penis."

So basically, he says that parents' wishes should be disregarded and the circumcision should be midway between loose and tight, just enough to denude the corona but no more (in a flaccid member, I suppose).

The book does not seem to discuss leaving more inner vs more outer foreskin (low / high).

High and loose. When flaccid maybe 25% of the glans is covered. The turtle neck look. Personally I find uncircumcised penises most attractive.

I was 5 when I was circumcised so I didn't choose the style, it would have been the surgeons preference i'm sure, as he did comment after removing the stitches that it was tight enough with no loose skin to cause problems,

My Circumcision is Low & Tight, and that is the style I prefer, though a High & Tight can look good, and is so obvious I admit, the inner foreskin remains, overall I think Low & Tight looks neater

Luckily, when I got cut, the doctor doing it was kind enough to give me options about how I wanted it to look. When my PCP sent me to him for a consultation cause my foreskin had been too tight for years, he pulled it back and forth over the head enough that I started getting hard, so he basically told me to just let that happen and he could see how much he'd have to cut/be able to keep. Kind of embarrassing, but better in the end I guess. Anyway, I told him I wanted it high and tight, and he put the scar about 1.5" back from the head, with not a lot of skin movement when it's hard.

I was cut as infant moderate I guess now my penis retracts back inside and look like uncircumcisied .

As a new member here, I'm amused and amazed at how much I've learned in a couple of days, just browsing around.

I had no idea the were variations. I thought circumcision was a "one size fits all" procedure. Of course, being uncircumcised, it wasn't something I had to consider.

I've read material on the "Intactivist" websites, and it obviously can be an emotional topic.

To experience an adult circumcision seems to be an uncomfortable procedure, so it might be a small consolation to be able to "customize" the final product, (if you have a sympathetic surgeon). Hey, we all make the best of what we have........

Mine is a high (scar about 2 cms above the coronal ridge) and medium-tight. This means the glans is often half-covered when flaccid, but it pulls tight when erect (it does grow a fair bit ...!) The surgeon said he'd do it that way so as not to pull the scrotal ac skin up on the shaft when erect. I'd prefer to have the glans always completely uncovered, so I may look at a revision. As mine was for cosmetic reasons (OK, it's a fetish), the style is important to me.

Growing up in the UK, I only ever saw the standard NHS circumcision, which leaves a roll of skin behind the glans when flaccid - just as if the foreskin has been rolled back. I first saw a US-style high and tight in a porn mag, and found it deeply erotic,

I was cut as infant moderate I guess now my penis retracts back inside and look like uncircumcisied .

The looking uncircumcised and retracted has nothing to do with the circumcision. It is generally a combination of short penis length and being overweight.

Mine is high and tight, done in the mid 1980s by a cosmetic surgeon who explained all the options and offered a choice.

I'm cut high and tight like my father, but I would choose a loser cut if I had the choice.

I'm cut high and tight like my father, but I would choose a loser cut if I had the choice.

Why would you prefer to have a looser circumcision? Mine is looser and I have always admired the "high and tight" look. I love the full exposure of the corona when flaccid.

I've never heard the phrase, but I guess I'm "low and loose" in that I'm circumcised but I have plenty of skin even when erect.

High and tight, but starting some foreskin restoration.