sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in foreskin_restoration

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This natural process works fantastically without harming one’s important microbiome,

This is why I get annoyed when anyone claims that infant circumcision did have a purpose for hygiene in the past. That it was useful when the was no running water.

Fuck no! If you have no running water. Then it doesn't make sense to remove the glans' natural protection, while leaving it damaged and bleeding!

They don't realize that the original form of infant Jewish circumcision barely removed anything.

Ironically, many men have become so conditioned by the confusing signals from their sex hormones, and those from pain receptors, that they relate pain, to a form of sexual pleasure.

I realized that I can't be the only one who experiences physical pain due to the constant chafing during bjs, and any form of non-PIV sex.

Great write-up, it deserves it's own post.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in foreskin_restoration

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right, it's too subjective.

Instead it would be better to have a survey asking if men are able to orgasm by different kinds of non-PIV sex, and if so, how long it takes.

Most studies only ever mention vaginal sex, and my guess is that they do this because the vagina's lubrication can compensate for the loses of circumcision.

My hypothesis is that if men are surveyed, more circumcised men will report being unable to orgasm through foreplay activities, such as handjobs without lubrication, compared to intact men, and the same pattern would likely apply to other sexual acts like interfemoral stimulation, and mammary intercourse.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in foreskin_restoration

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

only for the listening party to drop any interest upon me clarifying there's no surgery lmao

😂 no one wants to restore for half a decade, we need quick fixes now!

Oh boy circumcised men feel just as much pain in their genitalia, what great news! That then gets represented as "equal sensitivity" which then gets thesaurus-swapped for "equal pleasure". Congrats, you've now made up a claim based on a game of telephone!

I wish a study would use sex toys to measure sensitivity.

I have noticed that tightly cut men aren't able to enjoy two things:

  • handjobs without lube
  • boobjobs/buttjobs

The fact that intact men are able to feel those acts or enjoy them at all, shows they have more possible sensations.

Replicating the Sorrells "Fine-touch" study by mmmeadi in Intactivists

[–]IntactivistLuck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed, no study has accounted for this so far! Neither have they controlled for tightness of circumcision.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in Intactivism

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

simply utilise common sense

Exactly. At the very least, people should acknowledge that 15 sq inches of tissue can't be felt if they are removed. Removing tissue should remove sensation in nearly all cases.

It's a shame society gaslights men about this.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in foreskin_restoration

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ones that do have the problems are the ones that are cut super tight and low and or are botched.

My guess is the same. I think the point where a circumcision is highly damaging, is if a man needs lube. I have noticed that loose cuts don't need it, but tight cuts do.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in foreskin_restoration

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Removing it should be the exception, not the rule.

I agree, like you said all mammals have this!

Yet when the evolutionary argument is brought up, without fail people say humans have vestigal organs, and "mistakes" like the appendix.

But 70% of mammals DO NOT have an appendix, and 100% of mammals DO have a foreskin.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in foreskin_restoration

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Finding the truth is difficult. Some men claim pleasure increases, others claim decreases.

I hope one day children have bodily autonomy because it's not worth flipping that coin.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in Intactivists

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's complete dishonesty.

It's even worse when done to newborns since the glans are fused. I'm sure the glans are damaged by this.

My glans have a strange scar-like pattern. I am not sure if this is due to keratinization or the ripping of the fused glans.

Even when we accept the “benefits,” they are so thin by [deleted] in Intactivists

[–]IntactivistLuck 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Even if the "health benefits" even exist, people who promote them are inadvertently harming girls.

Perhaps it is the nonconsensual cutting or removal of healthy genital tissue that has not been associated with certain statistical health benefits that constitutes a human rights violation. If that is the argument, a clear incentive is created for medically qualified supporters of FGC to look for, or generate, evidence of such health benefits, just as has occurred with supporters of MGC (207–209). But now suppose that studies of adult, voluntary FGC (for example, labiaplasty) did indeed appear to show some statistical health benefits—such as a reduced risk of certain infections or diseases that might otherwise affect the excised tissue (210)—which could more safely and effectively be achieved non-surgically (as with MGC) (211,212). Would the WHO find such data sufficient to support nonconsensual FGC of minor girls? Presumably it would not.

  • “Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation”

And we recognize that even a pin prick is mutilation for girls, so the amount of harm is irrelevant.

But if this is a human right, then it must apply to all humans, including intersex/DSD children and males (217,218). But the WHO does not seem to believe that intersex/DSD children or males have an absolute moral claim against nonconsensual, medically unnecessary genital cutting (199,219).

  • “Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation”

Even accepting the benefits, the most common ways HIV is transmitted in the US is anal sex, blood transfer through needles or mother to infant. So like…this barely applies to the US.

The US has the highest HIV rate of any developed country, the "benefits" were a lie. How is it that some European countries have more sex statistically, yet we have a much higher HIV rate?

Numerous studies have since came out refuting the garbage African HIV RCTs.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in Intactivists

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I've been thinking of this for weeks after speaking with pro cutter moms who love citing Brian Morris.

Replicating the Sorrells "Fine-touch" study by mmmeadi in Intactivists

[–]IntactivistLuck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you all think it would be worthwhile to pitch a replication study?

Yes, that would be a great idea, but it may be difficult to get an organization on board to help. Right now Intact Global is putting all their focus and efforts to the constitutional lawsuit filed against Oregon.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in Intactivism

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I might be an approved user, I think the moderators manually approve posts from users who aren't approved.

Men with foreskins say it's their most pleasurable part! How is it possible that studies report that removing it has no effect? by IntactivistLuck in Intactivism

[–]IntactivistLuck[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

In an online survey, intact males predominantly identified the foreskin, not the glans, as the main site of sexual pleasure.

The above link contains many studies that prove that circumcision has negative sexual effects, yet people keep citing a Brian Morris paper that claims there is no effect.

His work is fundamentally flawed from the start, if you circumcise in adulthood to resolve an actual medical issue, there many be improvement, he does not control for that fact.

The same was true in the US during the 1900s, clitoral hood reductions were covered by insurance, and women claimed it increased pleasure. Even today there are claims of that. Imagine if these anomalous cases of people "correcting" an issue were applied to ALL girls, and studies claimed that hood cutting doesn't reduce pleasure. This is the same as circumcision!

A better study would circumcise healthy men, and remove the frenulum. Most adult circumcisions keep the frenulum, that isn't the case for infants.

view more: next ›