Arlington stats on circumcision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a sub on Reddit for men who were cut and wish they weren’t and are trying to do anything they can to restore some of the lost sensation. Something like “foreskin restoration”. Circumcision removes a lot of pleasure for men by killing nerves.

How would they know they have lost sensation if they have been circumcised as an infant? This is weird. They wouldn’t know any different.

Well this is a non explicit forum, but I assume the issue is that they take a long time to “finish”, longer than they have been told is normal, and/or do not find sexual touch very pleasurable despite wanting to. Needing to use pron because the sensation alone is not enough would be another symptom.

There is no way to know that this is from the circumcision alone since they have no basis for comparison. There are people who are intact who also have sexual problems.

Sure. What is also true is that when that skin is alway exposed, sensation diminishes. If you compare the skin of a circumcised penis and an intact one you will notice how different the skin looks. The circumcised penis’ skin looks almost like the skin in other body parts while the uncircumcised penis’ skin is very different, thinner and almost translucent.

Yes, this. Also, hopefully without getting too graphic, there are special things that they can put over the head to try to regain sensation and they all notice improvement. Which makes sense since a circumcised one is basically calloused and if you stop the abrasion then you can usually thin the skin back to normal eventually. But they say it doesn’t ever go back to how it should have been terms of sensation, even if they wear that thing permanently.

+1

The difference in sensitivity is huge.

Maybe the religious nutters don’t want men to feel pleasure.

That's basically why Americans circumcise at a much higher rate than people in other developed countries, even culturally similar ones like Canada. It was some anti-sex weirdos in the 19th Century, like John Kellogg, who pushed for it. There wasn't any real scientific or medical basis for the procedure.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m in arlington, but delivered in Dc at Sibley. According to my OB, since the procedure isn’t covered by insurance, people without means are choosing not to do it. So, I’d guess most boys at Williamsburg, if both here, will be circ. Most at Kenmore South of 50 won’t be. It’s mostly a socioeconomic thing.

So then at sibly it would be 100% for it since everyone there would have the means. Sibly doesn’t accept Medicaid or the uninsured.

Hahahah you thought you were avoiding all the poors by going to Sibley.

Of course they accept Medicaid. What gave you the impression they don’t?