• MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    While I whole heartedly disagree with the practice of circumsizing babies. (babies can’t consent therfore an unnecessary procedure is just flat out unethical) It’s not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.

    There is a bit of conflicting data out there so there is still some debate over the fact but right now the data leans heavily toward there being little to no adverse affects on sexual pleasure. And in fact some anecdotal evidence actually seems to show that the opposite may be true; that circumsized penises may actually be more sensitive to sexual stimuli.

    Again though, I can’t stress enough how much I believe circumsicion is wrong.

    Source

    Edit: hey guys. Coming back to this and uh, have learned some things. I’d like to retract this statement pretty please. Please forgive me.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The studies around this are very often heavily biased.

      The main reason it was pushed in the states in the first place was because of an anti-masturbatory craze.

      Growing up (like 25 years ago) it was a bit weird how lotion was so strongly shorthand for masturbation in American TV and movies. Didn’t really get it until I learned a lot of circumcised guys prefer or even require lotion for masturbation.

      • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I’m circumsized, but apparently they didn’t go too short, as I’ve never needed lotion to jerk off. I would hate to get it in the urethra anyway…

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      5 months ago

      Curious study. I personally only have my self as a test subject, so it’s quite subjective, however I use the foreskin quite a bit for stimulation, not really as an erogenous zone, more of a way to slide it in, it also helps prevent lubricants from drying up, since without at least spit it just hurts. It’s REALLY sensitive under there and fucking hurts when rubbed by just about anything else, if I didn’t have foreskin, it would have to become significantly more numb before I could rejoin society. Actual sex might not be as affected, but masturbation as I know it would cease to be.

      • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s really interesting actually. Might be why there’s reports of things being more sensitive after adult circumsion. You’re removing a protective layer that’s been covering that super sensitive part of you all your life. All of a sudden it’s gone and now that part is exposed.

        This is gonna be a silly anology but I wonder if it’s anything like playing guitar. When you first start, your fingertips hurt a bunch but as you play you build up calluses in addition to the fingertips just becoming partially numb so it stops hurting as much.

        • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          5 months ago

          If I remember correctly, the top layers of the glans keratinize (in a similar way to your hands may form callouses) causing a long term loss in sensitivity. Adult circumcisions are probably more sensitive post op because the glans is left completely exposed when it was once covered and hasn’t had the time to adapt. I’m uncircumcised and the thought of boxers brushing up against my bits while my heads’ exposed sounds fucking awful haha

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m circumcised, and my glans is the least sensitive flesh on my body.

        When I scrape gently with a toothpick, I can feel it more clearly on the bottom of the heel of my foot than I can on the head of my penis.

        It’s supposed to be ultra sensitive, yet the only way I can determine it’s being touched is visually, or by sensing the vibrations of contact deeper in the shaft.

        • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Damn, wouldn’t think I’d be that insensitive. Yea no for me, just pulling back the foreskin and putting it back into my pants as is kinda hurts.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yes it really blew my mind when I actually did the experiment. I suspect it’s the same for others as well. Until I tested it, I wouldn’t have predicted it at all.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’s not really true to say science shows that the foreskin is erogenous or even that circumcision affects sexual pleasure.

      https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

      “The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/

      "This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality. "

      Source

      Heads up, that source is written by Brian J. Morris, who is rather infamous having a circumcision fetish, and has a habit of peddling shitty studies meant to skew cultural acceptance of circumcision. Nine times out of ten, when people post pro-circumcision studies, they’re from him. He is downright obsessed with it, constantly pumping out studies and publications solely about circumcision.

      https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Circlist

      Take this above link with a grain of salt, it is literally from intact wiki, but still.

      Here is a more educated breakdown:

      https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078529309478838272.html

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      there isn’t conflicting data, there’s people without foreskins not knowing what they’ve lost and people with foreskins who don’t know how to jerk it properly.

      as someone with a foreskin i can tell you with the utmost certainty that it is an erogenous zone and makes the experience infinitely better, it is unfathomable to me how circumcized people are even capable of masturbation and intercourse, it’s like trying to swim without feet.

      • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        Wasn’t it the point of religious nutter ? To prevent kids and people in general from masturbating because they think it is sin ? IMO it ls very obvious that it reduces sexual pleasure.

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      Cymraeg
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Brian Morris is a sadistic fundamentalist Christian creep and a fraud

      There’s also this comment that goes into it well

      He was also an advocate for female circumcision (which is illegal in most of the non-muslim world and is mostly used as a mechanism to prevent women from having sex or to remove the pleasure from sex, it’s a very cruel act)

      In the same thread you can find this (the link doesn’t work anymore though)

      Another person already wrote about the academic bias that Brian Morris has, and how he’s trying to tilt the body of research to support circumcision. It’s also important to note that Brian Morris has a circumcision fetish, he gets sexual pleasure from seeing people getting circumcised and he is a member of the Gilgal Society, a circ fetish group. His name has been included in Gilgal pamphlets and in some of his early research papers he thanked the Gilgals for providing information and support.

      You can verify some of the information I wrote on this page https://www.circumstitions.com/morris.html

      I recently found a sub called r/DebunkingIntactivism (a “pro-circumcision” sub) and it’s… it’s fucking nutters. The people there talk like they’ve completely lost their minds. It’s basically where a bunch of insecure circumcised dudes go to fume over other people not being mutilated, and make “slurs” for them and stuff. Anyways the few weirdos that are active in that sub love to cite that guy and only that guy a lot.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        Cymraeg
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Here’s some posts from that weird fetishist cult community btw. These guys are obsessed… maybe Morris’ alt accounts? lol

        spoiler

      • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeaaah. Seems I’ve unintentionally sited some weird fucking guy. That’ll teach me to not look into the writers of a study before I post about it. Fucking yikes…

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’ve gotta be batshit insane to deny such an obvious fact. You gonna show me a study that says the sky may or may not be blue next?

      • iaMLoWiQ@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        The sky isn’t blue, it just appears to be blue because of space.

        • syaochan@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          No, it appears to be blue due to blue light being scattered more than longer wavelengths.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Like how we don’t say that blue glass is blue because it’s really just the light that’s blue?

          Appearing blue when looked at is what it means for something to be blue.

          If you’re gonna be that type of pedantic, just jump straight to “nothing has color but light”.

          • iaMLoWiQ@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sounds to me that lemmings never go outside and converse with people. Damn people here are pedantic as a motherfucker. The only joke you know is the one staring back at you in the mirror.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Or your joke was just so unfunny that it wasn’t recognizable as a joke and was mistaken for your honest opinion.

              If no one laughed at your joke, maybe it’s because it wasn’t funny.

      • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean. I provided an actual source for my statement with aggregated data supporting my point. You, however, have not.

        Sounds like you need to be educated.

        And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          And also the frenulum is not the foreskin.

          While the other user hasn’t explained why it is relevant, they are correct in that it is relevant. This is because circumcision usually removes the frenulum, or at least a large chunk of it. And it’s downright criminal because the frenulum is very sensitive. What little left I have is the most sensitive part of mine.

        • voltaric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          42
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Propaganda and bad faith. Get out of here with your pseudoscience

          Brian Morris is a proven fraud