Circumcision Scars

SirConcis

A comment about ridged band:

The ridged band is an invention of the anti-circ folks. Prior to the anti-circ folks, it was never mentioned in medical books, even european medical books.

What happens is that when the frenulum does not allow full extension of the skin down, it causes a portion of the foreksin to remain looser on teh dorsal side, while the frenulum side is fully stretched (due to short frenulum). This means that the loose skin on the dorsal side has a portion with WRINKLES.

Uncircumised people with long frenulums (or those who had it removed) find they have no "ridged bands" because their foreksin retracts all the way back more evenly and doesn't leave any wrinkles on one side.

Of course, when you have skin that is wrinkled up, the amount of nerve endings per square cm is higher than when you take the same skin and stretch it out.

Same thing applies to the frenar band. It is a result of the frenulum not allowing the skin to move all the way down.

Circumcision doesn't necessarily remove "the frenal band", it simply results in allowing that skin to stretch out smoothly during erection. (same with removing frenulum or doing the z-plasty on frenulum to make it longer).

The Greek Dude

Well, as an uncut guy I know from personal experience that cut guys - and women - make fun of you and make you feel bad about yourself. They're trying to "turn it around" on the cut guys to make THEM feel bad about themselves as a sort of revenge; "Now you know how I feel!"

The only reason i'm ever interested in "debating" with people is to find out people's true beliefs and fears; I believe that you get to see the real person when they're unnerved, and they lose the conscious false front.

Edit: And even if it were mentioned in medical books or scientific studies, the anti-circumcision guys wouldn't even want to hear it unless it said "it's been discovered that the foreskin is the source of all human life and pleasure, and stimulation of the rigid band induces instant and repeated orgasms that last for hours."

(Space for Rent. PM for details)

E-man

I understand that. While I have never condomed the "eye for an eye" approach, I really can't expect everybody to take the abuse the recieve and turn the other cheek. However, that still doesn't make it okay. Its not okay for anyone. It looks like the solution is pretty clear

The Greek Dude

Yup.The psychological exercise of debating can be used to bring up a good point, and I think this is a great way for both sides of the debate to heal. . .


. . .especially the circumcised guys, because they were CUT! Get it?! I made a joke. Why aren't you laughing? Okay, i'll shut up.

(Space for Rent. PM for details)

Ed69

The Greek Dude

It sounds like you need counseling, not just a skin graft. I've noticed a lot of guys like you projecting their hatred and insecurities on others, and you're right; you will never heal this way. Regardless of your personal choice, you owe it to yourself - and those around you - to find peace with your mind and body.

(Space for Rent. PM for details)

Ed69

Been to a counselor and guess what she said."Stop debating with those people because they don't get it!"I get my peace from my wife who helps me with restoring.She tells me how grate it is with the new skin I have.As long as people like you still think it's a joke you'll still light my fuse.

Go back to post #59 and read again.I'm done here.My wife wants to play.

cutedorkwho

wait chicks dig scars right? :)

The Greek Dude

Well then, there ya go. If both you and your wife love your "new skin," then what the hell does it matter what I - or anyone else thinks?

It's 4 in the morning, i'm bored out of damn mind so I figure: I'll post a non-biased bit of research anyways. You're absolutely welcome NOT to read it, Ed69.


-------------------------





Penile Sensitivity and Sexual Satisfaction after Circumcision: Are We Informing Men Correctly?

------------------------


So, basically they've concluded that it's different for everybody, but that 38% of the 150 men, or 57 of the men actually became MORE sensitive, while only 18%, or 18 of the men had any noticeable loss in sensitivity.

(Space for Rent. PM for details)

onan_mann

Hey Greek Dude... keep plowing your nose into the snow, there, bud!

Sweet dreams.

yadevavhah@yahoo.com

Hey bro,im also happilly cut!wouldnt change it for the world,and as for scars...i have none!and ive put my unit through hell!being a pumper for the past 16 years for me being cut is the only way.

The Greek Dude

It's actually raining here, so this would be impossible. I can do this in the Winter if you'd like?



It's daylight. I usually go to sleep at night, but thanks for wishing me a pleasant rest.

(Space for Rent. PM for details)

dxjnorto

Greek you are obviously a North American. People around the world don't make fun of the natural male. I sympathize with you some - naturally normal in a circumcising culture. But not much. Most non-intact guys have never seen an intact penis up close and personal. (Most guys are straight and most guys of the age of sexual maturity in the U.S. are cut.) You on the other hand ought to know better.

There's a picture of the ridged band on Foreskin :: Prepuce :: Ridged Band - donno how it could be an invention. You say you have a ridged band, so I guess it's real? Just because no one has described something before doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means someone is actually doing some research on the penis, instead of cutting bits of it off and saying it has no effect at all. It's still just as big, just as sensitive and just as functional as before

What is comical is how whatever you say is just the plain ol' facts, while intactivists have to prove that normal is normal. Some things are self-evident and normal is one of them.

If you'd rather not have your whole penis, you can go and get it selectively amputated however you want - assuming the doctor will do what you tell him to - they kind of do a one-size-fits-all job. Maybe they do a better job on adults, since there's more there to work with. Of course, according to this researcher, "...nerves regenerating after surgery seldom, if ever, cross the scar, as it is an impenetrable barrier to the delicate growth cones sprouting from the proximal nerve stump...":

The Frenular Delta

Since your natural parts are so insensitive to begin with, you better get a circumcision quick since The key word here is "recently." I'm linking to my sources. Where do you get your crap anyway?

The Greek Dude

People i've talked to that've had it done. The tingling is caused by stimulation of the newly exposed nerve endings by bloodflow, and passes over time. It's a side-effect and nothing more.

The reason this whole argument is completely useless, is because of something college students learn about in psychology class. It's called "confirmation bias," and it means that you have a pre-conceived notion in your head (in this case, it's that "being circumcised is bad and pleasureless"), so you're going to cherry-pick your information to back up your own belief. This also applies to the pro-circumcision crowd. So, this is usually going to be useless and settles absolutely nothing.

This thread was intended to discuss circumcision scars: whether people like them, whether they feel pleasurable, how noticeable they generally are etc. If we're not going to have anything to add to this topic, then what's the point in bitching at each other?

(Space for Rent. PM for details)

SteveHd

The topic:

Routine infant circumcision -- a result of truth decay.