Post by @Deceptichum@quokk.au

Earlier in this thread 3 posts

@Arcadeep@lemmy.world on lemmy.world

I didn't even know I was circumcised at birth until like halfway through highschool and I didn't really care after finding out. And having now seen penises that are uncircumcised, I'm kinda glad I was. From my perspective, it didn't hurt and I didn't even know until 17ish years later. Everything works perfectly normally. All of that was a buildup to a genuine question of why do you feel so upset by it? I don't mean to be argumentative or dismissive, just want to see the point of view from someone else

@homes@piefed.world on piefed.world

we all have our own feelings about it. I'm not trying to say that the way you feel about your own circumcision is right or wrong, or how any man who decides - _on their own, as an informed adult_ - is right or wrong to do so. but I would vehemently argue that it is an adult man's decision to make, not a parent's decision to make for their infant son-- unless some medical condition makes it necessary to do so at that time (which are quite rare). and, yes, I understand that there are religious considerations, but, as an atheist, I'm not so sympathetic to that, either, as I classify all genital mutilation in the same category, regardless of age or gender: it is a decision to be made by the subject of the procedure, and only when they are a consenting, informed adult.

@snooggums@piefed.world on piefed.world

As someone who was circumcised for the 'medical hygiene' reasons when it was more popular I am sick and tired of seeing all circumcision lumped together as mutilation. Sure it was probably unnecessary as I am not aware of having a condition that made it necessary in my case, but it was well done and everything has been positive for me. Those that get it done for medical reasons being called mutilation would be offensive. It certainly should end as a practice, especially as a religious practice done by non-medically trained people, but stigmatizing people who had it done as being mutilated is insulting. Edit: your downvotes won't convince me that I am a victim of mutilation because doctors were wrong about the hygiene benefits five decades ago

lumpenproletariat @Deceptichum@quokk.au

· 6mo ago

Replying to

Conversation (22)

Showing 15 of 22 cached locally.

7 comments are reported by the remote server but not cached here yet Sign in to load more

Fluffy Kitty Cat

@fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net · Apr 13

Religion is not an excuse for child abuse

Arcadeep

@Arcadeep@lemmy.world · Apr 13

Without arguing either for or against the practice, losing feeling is an outdated idea. It's been studied and shown that circumcised men are just as sensitive as uncircumcised

SwingingTheLamp

@SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip · Apr 13

Thread reply

That is non-figuratively impossible. You can't feel anything with nerve endings that have been removed.

965

263

Mr. Satan

@mr_satan@lemmy.zip · Apr 14

Thread reply

Nerve endings in the foreskin are not that sensitive to sexual stimuli, I would consider that as much loss of sensitivity as amputating a leg is loss of sensitivity.

wonderingwanderer

@wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · Apr 14

Thread reply

Even the glans loses sensitivity. On an uncircumcised penis, that whole area is basically a mucus membrane. On a circumcised penis, it becomes dry an rougher, like the skin on your knuckle. It absolutely does reduce sensitivity.

Also,

I would consider that as much loss of sensitivity as amputating a leg is loss of sensitivity.

You wouldn't say doctors should amputate babies' legs to reduce risk of gangrene, would you? How is that even an argument? "Oh, those nerve endings don't matter cause it's just like losing a leg, nbd." What the fuck?

Mr. Satan

@mr_satan@lemmy.zip · Apr 15

Thread reply

On a circumcised penis, it becomes dry an rougher, like the skin on your knuckle. It absolutely does reduce sensitivity.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I didn't notice loss in sensitivity since my circumcision. Healing was a bit of a pain, but other than that I experience just as much pleasure as before.

How is that even an argument? "Oh, those nerve endings don't matter cause it's just like losing a leg, nbd." What the fuck?

The point is: it's a bit facetious to call nerve loss from removing a part of a body a loss of sensitivity. You got a piece of skin removed, of course it's not sensitive, it's gone. As for the skin under the foreskin, it didn't got removed, why would it lose nerve endings?

From what I experienced, again anecdotal so not a study, I highly doubt loss of sensitivity argument. Just to be clear, I don't think babies should get circumcised, but I wouldn't use an argument I feel is weak to argue against it.

CannonFodder

@CannonFodder@lemmy.world · Apr 13

Thread reply

The brain is weird and whacky the way it works. It has a sort of auto-gain. The less nerve stimulus over time leads to a higher sensitivity of remaining nerves. Often when people lose a limb, they still feel pain in it - the lack of nerve signals causes the remaining nerve endings to be amplified so much that despite not even having pain receptors, the noise signals are perceived as pain. So a human growing up with a cut forskin simply adapts and the brain perceives more sensitivity from the other nerves to produce the same levels of sensation.

SwingingTheLamp

@SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip · Apr 14

Thread reply

That, uhh, sounds nice and all, but I don't believe it. This doesn't even make sense on the face of it: Why does removing one body part lead to phantom pain signals, but removing another body part lead to improved sensation? Do people who lose fingers develop better sensation in their remaining fingers to compensate? Wouldn't it stand to reason then that some men would get phantom foreskin pain?

965

263

CannonFodder

@CannonFodder@lemmy.world · Apr 14

Thread reply

There's plenty of signals coming from the nerve bundles in the area. Phantom pain seems to need larger sets of nerve bundles removed/unstimulated. Is s not fully understood, but that seems to be how it works. People who lose fingers often do get increased sensitivity on other fingers and they can also get phantom pain.

wonderingwanderer

@wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · Apr 14

Thread reply

So a human growing up with a cut foreskin simply adapts and the brain perceives more sensitivity from the other nerves to produce the same levels of sensation.

That is just false. You sound like someone who isn't circumcised.

Without the foreskin intact, the glans is subject to friction throughout the day as it's in contact with the inside of one's clothes. This reduces sensitivity over time and builds thicker, drier, and rougher layers of skin. Whereas the glans of an uncircumcised penis is basically a mucus membrane, on a circumcised penis it's more like the skin of a knuckle, but thicker.

CannonFodder

@CannonFodder@lemmy.world · Apr 15

Thread reply

Yeah that sounds bad. But it's completely untrue. Like the skin on a knuckle? Haha. If you have to make up stuff why even bother? Conversly, if your dick is really like a knuckle, you should really see a doctor about that.

Fluffy Kitty Cat

@fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net · Apr 13

Thread reply

How does that even make sense?

dreamy

@dreamy@quokk.au · Apr 14

Thread reply

Source?

Mr. Satan

@mr_satan@lemmy.zip · Apr 14

As a man that got circumcised in adulthood, I can't confirm any loss of sensitivity.

wonderingwanderer

@wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · Apr 14

This is true. I was circumcized as an infant, and when I started having sex around 19, I wondered why it didn't feel as good as it was supposed to. I thought I was doing something wrong. So I tried harder and harder, inexperienced as I was, and didn't learn how to make sweet, gentle love until much later. Even then, it was more for my partner's pleasure, because my dick just isn't that sensitive. It caused a lot of problems in my relationships early on. Frustration and feelings of inadequacy on both sides, because I was "~~hard to satisfy~~" literally unable to feel satisfactory pleasure...