Author Topic: Arguments between pro-circs and inactivits - where is the truth ?  (Read 7036 times)

Offline Fabik

  • NSFW Access
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: +1/-5
So on the internet there seem to be major propaganda by both pro-circ website (such as circlist and http://www.circinfo.net/circinfo), who militate for circumcision, and inactivists (such as https://www.circumstitions.com/ or http://www.nocirc.org/), who militates to either ban or limit cricumsision as much as possible.

This is extremely confusing as both groups calls each other liars, fetishists, etc... And in the end, I'm fairly certain both groups hold some truth but some lies too. But I could be wrong, just like anyone can be wrong, and I'm no doctor so their arguments might mislead.

Most use testimonies that could just as well be completely made up, and even if they were real this would be anecdotal evidence, so of no actual scientific value - only thousands of converging opinions can have actual scientific value.

I'll just state some of their arguments and say who I think is right on each point. If anyone has different opinions or anything else to add, please do so.

Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision can prevent AIDS transmission.
Anti-circ lobbies : Condoms or fidelity in love is what actually prevent AIDS.
Me :
Clearly, the anti-circ are right here. If circumcision might slightly lower the risk of AIDS transmission in some underdeveloped African countries, this doesn't apply to the developed world and this argument is beyond silly when we have much more reliable ways to prevent AIDS and other sexually-transmissible diseases to spread

Pro-circ lobbies : Sex is better without foreskin
Anti-circ lobbies : Sex is better with foreskin
Me :
Nobody can know for sure, except maybe couples who tried to do it both before and after, with the same person, and even there, strong bias would apply, such as the man doing it because he or his partner likes in the 1st place. Apparently, scientific studies concluded that there was no difference whatsoever. So both lobbies appear to be liar here. And the (possibly forged) testimonies of women describing how amazing it was to discover an intact man after having several circumcised ones, or the other way around, are of no value. First it's perfectly normal those women prefer their last boyfriend, because they probably left the others and went with a new one for a reason. Secondly, with sexuality when discovering something new it always feels wicked. And last, this is anecdotal evidence.

Pro-circ lobbies : Women prefer it without foreskin
Anti-circ lobbies : Women prefer it with foreskin
Me :
As a straight male, you don't care how women in general like it, you care how your girlfriend or wife likes it. So this would rather give a point to anti-circ, if only women's opinion would matter then it's better to be kept intact 'case if you find one who prefer intact penises and you don't have the foreskin anymore, you can't satisfy her on that point. Oh and about a girl wearing a "I only date circumcised guys"; seriously WTF ? Do you really think those exist in the real life?

Pro-circ lobbies : Foreskin play little role in sexual pleasure
Anti-circ lobbies : Foreskin plays a major role in sexual pleasure and contains X-thousands of nerve endings. Removing it removes pleasure.
Me :
This time it's clearly the pro-circ lobby who is right. The foreskin is sensitive, but not sexually so, you can touch it all you want it will have no arrousing effect. Removing it might have an indirect effect on pleasure, even though it appears scientific studies there's no definite effects. The number of nerve endings is irrelevant, for example we pierce ears and it doesn't how many nerve endings there is there.

Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision is good for a kid's health, and anti-circ lobbies uses babies images in an emotional way
Anti-circ lobbies : It's kid's right to have his body intact
Me :
It's true it's not very ethical to do irreversible acts on someone's body. However this doesn't say anything about circumcision at latter age, such as teenage, adult, or even early-teen. So I'd say anti-circ are mostly right on this one.

Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision is harmless.
Anti-circ lobbies : Circumcision can lead to death, is like torture, will trumatise kids, etc..
Me :
When done without anesthetic, anti-circ lobbies are right. When done with them, then the harm felt will be the side-effects of anesthesia which aren't negligible, but nothing catastrophic either. So depending on context, any of them are right.

Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision can prevent penile cancer
Anti-circ lobbies : Penile cancer is anecdotal, and it's silly to remove a body part preventively to prevent an extremely rare cancer, when other cancers are very common.
Me :
Clearly, penile cancer, however awful is it to have that illness, is fortunately extremely uncommon. It'd be silly to do a surgical operation for that. HOWEVER Prostate cancer is very common, and then if circumcision at a young age would have high chance to prevent the very common but alas very painful prostate removal surgery at a latter age, then it'd be clearly worth it! But also we should understand why would circumcision prevent prostate cancer in the 1st place.

Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision can prevent Phimosis and Paraphimosis
anti-circ lobbies : It's possible to cure those without circumcision
Me :
Both arguments aren't contradictory. Removing a part on a child when you have no idea whether those relatively unlikely illnesses will happen is silly. However, once they are diagnosed, it's up to the patient to decide how he'll be cured.

Pro-circ lobbies : Urine splatter can be better controlled without foreskin
Me :[/b] Sure, but you can also pull up and urine, so no need for a surgical operation just for this, although that would make it a little bit easier.

Pro-circ lobbies : Up to 20% (or whatever high proportion) of uncircumcised men will require circumcision latter anyway
Me :
I'm having big trouble to believe that number, especially with the word "require". At best there are countries where it's common to do this at teen-age, and they count that and inflate the numbers. At worse it's just lies as usual in this debate.

Pro-circ lobbies : It's easier to wash your wee-wee without foreskin, and cleaner. Young boys can have trouble retracting, etc...
Anti-circ lobbies : Young boys don't need to retract in the first place, and for washing, well you can retract (once you're sufficiently old) to wash.
Me :
The anti-circ lobby is mostly right, you can retract to wash, and when you're young and you can't the dirt also can't go there, so you shouldn't force a retract as a youg person ! However, for adults, I still think it can be cleaner to be retracted, but this would have to be proved to be actually cleaner and not just an increase feel of cleansness. So pro-circ also get a point on this one.

Finally, it all boils down to 2 things : Does circumcision (1) prevent infections and prostate cancer, and (2) increase sexual pleasure. If either answer is yes, then it should be encouraged on teenagers/adults. If both are no, then it should only be for those who wants it done I think. All other argument is either invalid, lies or moot. I'm probably wrong all the way so I'd like to learn more.
« Last Edit: 2020-03-27 21:31:49 by Fabik »

Offline retreactor

  • NSFW Access
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 96
  • Karma: +5/-0
Well, I completely agree with your conclusions but one. You conclude that the foreskin plays little role in sexual pleasure, which may not be true. Indeed, the foreskin is not as sensitive, but penis is a very delicate instrument where every part plays a certain role along the way. For one thing, foreskin forms the so called ridged band, which  stimulates the corona during its movements over the glans. Secondly, it is not very sensitive on the outer side, true, but inside is a completely different story - there is evidence of pure foreskin orgasms.  Different parts switch in with different roles during the arousal and orgasm process. Meatus, for example, seems completely useless most of the time, but takes over and sends the final signals to triger the ejaculation. The same applies for the inner skin too.

(Bias declaration: uncut, 24/7 retracted)
A retractor's quest is never complete.

Offline Nexolaris

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 245
  • Karma: +8/-1
  • Bare knob forever
The problem I see with these kinds of comparisons is that there is no definite cut dick and no definite uncut/natural dick. There is a lot of variance. Circumcised dicks can be cut high/low, tight/loose and with frenulum removed or still there to different degrees. Uncut dicks can have a lot of variety in foreskin length, don't necessarily have a frenulum left, and sensitivity depends on factors like being pulled back and so on. So how can anyone say with certainty how much a cut man feels versus an uncut man, or how they experience sexual activities?

Offline FormerRetractor

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 130
  • Karma: +14/-2
And, let's face it, the only guys who can truly compare are guys who got circumcised as adults, and have experienced both...

Offline Hazeleye

  • NSFW Access
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Karma: +20/-1
When it comes to debating the merits of a cut/uncut cock, it is a little bit like Dr. Phil likes to get across, "All in life is perception, it is what you perceive it to be, not what it might necessarily be." The subject is a bit of a willow-the-wisp that is impossible to pin down, as the respondents have been indicating.

Offline Nexolaris

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 245
  • Karma: +8/-1
  • Bare knob forever
And, let's face it, the only guys who can truly compare are guys who got circumcised as adults, and have experienced both...
And even then there might be a difference on a psychological levelbetween:
a) a man who gets voluntarily cut
and
b)a man who is circumcised out of pure medical necessity, and might even mourn his lost foreskin.

Offline FormerRetractor

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 130
  • Karma: +14/-2
Yes Nexolaris, you've made a very good point, I couldn't agree more.  I may even add that whether you were a 'retractor' or not, could possibly affect your assessment of circumcision.

Offline __

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +12/-2
Yes Nexolaris, you've made a very good point, I couldn't agree more.  I may even add that whether you were a 'retractor' or not, could possibly affect your assessment of circumcision.

Indeed, I can attest to that.

Offline Nexolaris

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 245
  • Karma: +8/-1
  • Bare knob forever
Yes Nexolaris, you've made a very good point, I couldn't agree more.  I may even add that whether you were a 'retractor' or not, could possibly affect your assessment of circumcision.
Indeed, I can attest to that.
I must admit that I had given up on retracting working for me some now, and got cut almost two weeks ago. So circumcision was something I looked forward to, and that will surely impact how I feel about the changes associated with this procedure.

For everyone else I hope they achieve their aim with retracting alone.  :)

Offline __

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +12/-2
I must admit that I had given up on retracting working for me some now, and got cut almost two weeks ago. So circumcision was something I looked forward to, and that will surely impact how I feel about the changes associated with this procedure.

For everyone else I hope they achieve their aim with retracting alone.  :)

That is a worthy goal - I could have stayed in the retracted state forever, circumcision was not my aim when I started long ago. Reaching permanent retraction is an achievement of the individual, showing commitment. I am proud of having done it and I want always to encourage those just starting, that it can be done, even if the odds sometimes look terrible at the beginning.

Offline Marius

  • NSFW Access
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 75
  • Karma: +1/-0
First off, english aint my native tongue, so, bear with me for bad spelling and struggling to get my point across:

To be completly honest I did not read the whole thread, but what usually is missing in the circ discussion I find is two thing:

1) The female perspective. What is it like having sex with a circumcised dick. It would be really interesting to have a serious study done to couples who have lived together and for whatever reason the male has got a circumcission. Even if his sexual satisfaction remains the same or very much little affected, what about hers. How does it affect her.

2) I tend to think that the frenulum and foreskin is not the same. If there are som health benefits to removing the foreskin, should the doctor strive to keep the frenulum intact, and only were there is no other option remove it.

And yes, I have undergone adult frenulum removal surgery. And I am not to happy with it. Even if there are many others on this forum that is and don´t think that the frenulum has a significant part in sexual satisfaction.

Offline thesevenpointfive

  • NSFW Access
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
  • Karma: +28/-13
And, let's face it, the only guys who can truly compare are guys who got circumcised as adults, and have experienced both...

Yes agreed, how some one who is not cut can say, oh well sex is better with foreskin as its sensitive, how would they know the difference without skin. Also you also find these Anti Cir have a lot of women on them. I am always having a flame war with them, as i know loads of guys who were cut late in life and have an opinion and it does not match the anti cirs

Also though not scientific women who have had both, in most cases prefer the  cut as it looks and feels better, again its not scientific but..
Love skining back and letting my head show

Offline __

  • NSFW Access
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +12/-2
Yes agreed, how some one who is not cut can say, oh well sex is better with foreskin as its sensitive, how would they know the difference without skin. Also you also find these Anti Cir have a lot of women on them. I am always having a flame war with them, as i know loads of guys who were cut late in life and have an opinion and it does not match the anti cirs

Also though not scientific women who have had both, in most cases prefer the  cut as it looks and feels better, again its not scientific but..

You have to replace those arguments in the context, which is, overwhelmingly, a US cultural issue. In a background where most every boy gets cut as a finishing touch after being born and before leaving the clinic, circumcision is not seen as surgery but as health care like vaccinations. There will be very little place for first-hand knowledge about foreskins and such, because they are de facto so rare. For the same reason the issue of body integrity does not exist, as circumcision is not seen as depriving the boy from anything. So I guess it's inevitable that you see those long lists of bullet points, which are mostly ineffective as there's no convincing people to give up their belief in what they've always known.

I for one cannot easily forget the consent issue; I got cut by my own choice, but knowing that it's perfectly fine to keep a foreskin for all your life I cannot condone forceing it onto anybody who has not consented.


Offline Marius

  • NSFW Access
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 75
  • Karma: +1/-0
Yes agreed, how some one who is not cut can say, oh well sex is better with foreskin as its sensitive, how would they know the difference without skin. Also you also find these Anti Cir have a lot of women on them. I am always having a flame war with them, as i know loads of guys who were cut late in life and have an opinion and it does not match the anti cirs

Also though not scientific women who have had both, in most cases prefer the  cut as it looks and feels better, again its not scientific but..

Not trying to start a flame war or anything... but if you have done irreversible surgery in adult life, I think the emotions range between:

* Happiness
* Content
* Regret

Either way, since their is no going back most try to make the best of the situation and don´t look back or live in regret, that is why the question if circ is better the answer is always going to be biased.

Offline Fabik

  • NSFW Access
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: +1/-5
Well, I completely agree with your conclusions but one. You conclude that the foreskin plays little role in sexual pleasure, which may not be true. [...] there is evidence of pure foreskin orgasms.
I don't know but since the evidence seems to be that there's no significant difference in sexual function of circumcised people, it seems contradictory to me.

Quote
Yes agreed, how some one who is not cut can say, oh well sex is better with foreskin as its sensitive, how would they know the difference without skin.
Quote
And, let's face it, the only guys who can truly compare are guys who got circumcised as adults, and have experienced both...
Exactly ! And even then having it done as adult might not be the same, especially if self-elected as Nexolaris said.

Quote
I must admit that I had given up on retracting working for me some now, and got cut almost two weeks ago.
Wow what a surprise. I suppose you still need some more time to recover.

Quote
1) The female perspective. [...] Even if his sexual satisfaction remains the same or very much little affected, what about hers. How does it affect her.
Agreed, and I suppose if sex feels worse, or better, in any condition for one partner, it's probably the same for the other, because of shared feelings. But I can only suppose so far ^^

Quote
Also though not scientific women who have had both, in most cases prefer the  cut as it looks and feels better, again its not scientific but..
It's perfectly normal women prefer it with their last guy they have. Now if you would get a testimony of a woman who would say that although she loves his new bf/husband which is in state A, but found that the dick of her ex-bf/husband who had it in state B was better, now THAT would be a significant testimony.