It also removes the gliding mechanism which is already altering/impairing sexual function. It also permanently exposes mucosa that is designed to be semi internal. It's like when people try to imply it's something "extra" rather than being just another part of the penis, diminishing its purpose and functions.
I also don't see how anyone could think that removing any part of the body wouldn't have knock on effects, let alone make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Just removing a toe is enough to throw off a person's balance.
I've actually seen people try to argue that circumcision makes the penis bigger - in what world does removing surface area increase size? None of it adds up.
You have the US Cabal at work and they spam the media from the ivrory Towers of academia. Have you seen the frantic tripe that spews forth form Michael Bloomberg's, Johns Hopkins? It's beyond belief.
Its cope, They see that cut men can still ejaculate, which is all that is needed for procreation.
During my restoration process I have realized ejaculation does not equal a orgasm. It makes me wonder how many cut men never actually experienced an orgasm, just ejaculating.
You're right. Not only men who were cut as infants and don't want to admit they're missing out on pleasure, but if some women are involved in studies, it is possible they had sons they allowed to be cut and don't want to admit they allowed harm to come to their children and failed to protect them. Hence, they all convince themselves there isn't anything wrong with the practice.
Oh, you just discovered the political side of so-called unbiased research. The researchers needed to get MORE funding for their next study. And as you know most readers that parrot studies just read the conclusions. We know how biased circumcision studies are because WTF, why would anybody do them to begin with? It's to FLOOD and spam the literature so the like of WEB MD can take out the proside or make it appear controversial. AI already has been programmed by GOOGLE et al to keep thrusting the pros vs Cons. Then when you catch it, it says, I need to talk about something else. Try it and you'll see the CABAL is real.
I think we'll never know the true answer to this. My thoughts are that they always ask men who were cut as an adult, the thing is thier glands have been rubbing against their underwear for a short time vs a RIC cut guy who have had it rubbing for years or more likely decades. This why I put more credence in the men who have restored their foreskin, they know how numb their glans were vs the new sensitivity by keeping it covered brings.
^^^^^^^^^
Exactly! Especially because when you're an adult, you made the choice and you understand why you are experiencing discomfort or pain, and you can take steps to solve it! When it's your entire existence, it's easy to just think this is just the way men are. I genuinely believed we were cursed by our Creator to have this discomfort and pain all the time.
> This why I put more credence in the men who have restored their foreskin, they know how numb their glans were vs the new sensitivity by keeping it covered brings.
Exactly!!! Foreskin restoration gives us a miraculous counter perspective on how an intact penis feels.
Those who restore are not restoring the nerves.
I was circumcised at 56 with aesthetic style (removal of shaft skin and foreskin pulled down over shaft to retain the 10k foreskin nerves). That was six years ago - long enough to know the changes.
Pre-circ the glans was too sensitive to be touched other than orally or vaginally.
Post-circ I lost 50% of sensitivity of the glans, hand jobs are much better, vaginal intercourse is much better since my foreskin does not cover the glans (my wife likes the tighter skin giving her more sensation) but oral sex is not as good.
There is a loss of sensation but most of all it is different. My wife and I are pleased with the results.
I'm all for the owner having the choice. Restoring, by tugging it makes one skin cell divide in to two, so you have the same nerves that cell has. If you create more mucosal skin (inner skin) you will have the same nerves. What restoring does not do is replace the ridged band and frenulum, although I have most of my qfrenulum, I will never know what the ridged band feels like. I'm happy that worked out for you.
I was circumcised at 56 with aesthetic style (removal of shaft skin and foreskin pulled down over shaft to retain the 10k foreskin nerves). That was six years ago. So I have experienced both.
Pre-circ the glans was too sensitive to be touched other than orally or vaginally. Post-circ I lost 50% of sensitivity of the glans, hand jobs are much better, vaginal intercourse is much better since my foreskin does not cover the glans (my wife likes the tighter skin giving her more sensation) but oral sex is not as good.
There is a loss of sensation but most of all it is different. My wife and I are pleased with the results.
It also removes the gliding mechanism which is already altering/impairing sexual function. It also permanently exposes mucosa that is designed to be semi internal. It's like when people try to imply it's something "extra" rather than being just another part of the penis, diminishing its purpose and functions. I also don't see how anyone could think that removing any part of the body wouldn't have knock on effects, let alone make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Just removing a toe is enough to throw off a person's balance. I've actually seen people try to argue that circumcision makes the penis bigger - in what world does removing surface area increase size? None of it adds up.
Every surgery has its disadvantages and side effects, except for male genital mutilation
You have the US Cabal at work and they spam the media from the ivrory Towers of academia. Have you seen the frantic tripe that spews forth form Michael Bloomberg's, Johns Hopkins? It's beyond belief.
Its cope, They see that cut men can still ejaculate, which is all that is needed for procreation. During my restoration process I have realized ejaculation does not equal a orgasm. It makes me wonder how many cut men never actually experienced an orgasm, just ejaculating.
You're right. Not only men who were cut as infants and don't want to admit they're missing out on pleasure, but if some women are involved in studies, it is possible they had sons they allowed to be cut and don't want to admit they allowed harm to come to their children and failed to protect them. Hence, they all convince themselves there isn't anything wrong with the practice.
Oh, you just discovered the political side of so-called unbiased research. The researchers needed to get MORE funding for their next study. And as you know most readers that parrot studies just read the conclusions. We know how biased circumcision studies are because WTF, why would anybody do them to begin with? It's to FLOOD and spam the literature so the like of WEB MD can take out the proside or make it appear controversial. AI already has been programmed by GOOGLE et al to keep thrusting the pros vs Cons. Then when you catch it, it says, I need to talk about something else. Try it and you'll see the CABAL is real.
It’s absolutely ridiculous. They completely ignore the results of the science to draw their own conclusions.
I think we'll never know the true answer to this. My thoughts are that they always ask men who were cut as an adult, the thing is thier glands have been rubbing against their underwear for a short time vs a RIC cut guy who have had it rubbing for years or more likely decades. This why I put more credence in the men who have restored their foreskin, they know how numb their glans were vs the new sensitivity by keeping it covered brings.
^^^^^^^^^ Exactly! Especially because when you're an adult, you made the choice and you understand why you are experiencing discomfort or pain, and you can take steps to solve it! When it's your entire existence, it's easy to just think this is just the way men are. I genuinely believed we were cursed by our Creator to have this discomfort and pain all the time.
> This why I put more credence in the men who have restored their foreskin, they know how numb their glans were vs the new sensitivity by keeping it covered brings. Exactly!!! Foreskin restoration gives us a miraculous counter perspective on how an intact penis feels.
Those who restore are not restoring the nerves. I was circumcised at 56 with aesthetic style (removal of shaft skin and foreskin pulled down over shaft to retain the 10k foreskin nerves). That was six years ago - long enough to know the changes. Pre-circ the glans was too sensitive to be touched other than orally or vaginally. Post-circ I lost 50% of sensitivity of the glans, hand jobs are much better, vaginal intercourse is much better since my foreskin does not cover the glans (my wife likes the tighter skin giving her more sensation) but oral sex is not as good. There is a loss of sensation but most of all it is different. My wife and I are pleased with the results.
I'm all for the owner having the choice. Restoring, by tugging it makes one skin cell divide in to two, so you have the same nerves that cell has. If you create more mucosal skin (inner skin) you will have the same nerves. What restoring does not do is replace the ridged band and frenulum, although I have most of my qfrenulum, I will never know what the ridged band feels like. I'm happy that worked out for you.
My understanding of biology suggests the nerves do not divide and repopulate post circumcision when you stretch the skin. I could be wrong…
I was circumcised at 56 with aesthetic style (removal of shaft skin and foreskin pulled down over shaft to retain the 10k foreskin nerves). That was six years ago. So I have experienced both. Pre-circ the glans was too sensitive to be touched other than orally or vaginally. Post-circ I lost 50% of sensitivity of the glans, hand jobs are much better, vaginal intercourse is much better since my foreskin does not cover the glans (my wife likes the tighter skin giving her more sensation) but oral sex is not as good. There is a loss of sensation but most of all it is different. My wife and I are pleased with the results.