When did you first find out about circumcision?

A place for guys to discuss why they love being circumcised or wish that they were cut.
FollowersFollowers: 1
BookmarksBookmarks: 0
Views: 1353

Re: When did you first find out about circumcision?

Postby Cufflinks » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:17 pm

uncutcanuck wrote:I've always felt like having a foreskin makes it seem like you're having sex with yourself if that makes sense. Even with handjobs, the head is never being directly stimulated (unless she holds it back, etc.). Intuitively, your analysis makes perfect sense.

On another note, would you recommend having the frenelum removed as well? That's something I haven't thought or researched much about. As for the style, I am planning on getting it high, though unsure about tightness as I am a grower.


There are of course two ways to stimulate a glans - directly or with skin. Both are good. But with the skin off, the thing that stimulates your glans is the vagina of the woman. That is the main difference, and it intensifies the sexual experience immensely, in my opinion. Because it means you cannot have that experience without the woman. And they know it. And that's hot as hell. Uncircumcised men may well bring themselves to orgasm in the same mechanical way whether they masturbate or have sex with a woman, because for them, it's simply glans encased in skin both ways. I've always thought of that as a bit... uninspiring. It makes it less special to have access to a woman. Does it mean circumcised men are in a less desirable position? No. Because even though jerking off with foreskin is probably better, having sex with a foreskin in the way is simply not of the same, ferocious quality compared to what it's like without.

As for the frenulum:

I am not convinced that it has to go. Leaving it in place means a lot less suturing, and it actually won't give you any trouble once the foreskin itself is off. It would make everything a lot more simple surgically, and you may even find that all is fine after a week. I had the frenulum removed, and actually see no sense behind that now, since I have a European V-Cut circumcision anyway, which makes it look like there is a frenulum in place still. But it did mean a good ten extra stitches in an area where you really feel them.

Stylewise, I'd think the whole "don't go tight if you're a grower" thing is bogus. There will always be enough material there to accommodate the erection, and if there isn't, natural processes will eventually take care of it. That is the very thing the restorers call "tugging" - if there's tension, there will be skin cell growth, and things will get looser over time. So, no worries.
Some people’s opinion one simply cannot change. Mine, for example.
User avatar
Cufflinks
 
Posts: 106
Joined: 01.2017
Location: Sweden
Gender:

Re: When did you first find out about circumcision?

Postby uncutcanuck » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:43 pm

Thanks for the in-depth explanations @Cufflinks and @snoman.

Intuitively, I can grasp the concept of circumcised men viewing sex as more "special" than uncut guys. As you mentioned, masturbation and sex for uncut guys generally both rely (at least in part) on the foreskin-to-glans stimulation, while circumcised sex relies more heavily on the woman.

Also encouraged to hear that the frenulum need not be removed for a desirable outcome. I am strongly considering going with the Pollock method, which doesn't alter the frenulum, so having to undergo a second procedure wouldn't be ideal.

As for the whole tightness thing, I want it done tight enough so that there is no opportunity for smegma to accumulate or for that typical uncircumcised odour to occur. I'm hoping this degree of tightness can be achieved with Pollock's method, but I remember reading somewhere that it generally results in a looser cut. I am also hoping, like @cufflinks said, that natural processes would correct an overly-tight job over time.
uncutcanuck
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 09.2017
Gender:

Re: When did you first find out about circumcision?

Postby vanisl20 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:48 am

uncutcanuck wrote:Thanks for the in-depth explanations @Cufflinks and @snoman.

Intuitively, I can grasp the concept of circumcised men viewing sex as more "special" than uncut guys. As you mentioned, masturbation and sex for uncut guys generally both rely (at least in part) on the foreskin-to-glans stimulation, while circumcised sex relies more heavily on the woman.

Also encouraged to hear that the frenulum need not be removed for a desirable outcome. I am strongly considering going with the Pollock method, which doesn't alter the frenulum, so having to undergo a second procedure wouldn't be ideal.

As for the whole tightness thing, I want it done tight enough so that there is no opportunity for smegma to accumulate or for that typical uncircumcised odour to occur. I'm hoping this degree of tightness can be achieved with Pollock's method, but I remember reading somewhere that it generally results in a looser cut. I am also hoping, like @cufflinks said, that natural processes would correct an overly-tight job over time.


Hey canuck,
I underwent the Pollock technique by Dr Pollock himself in late 2014 and you're right that the frenulum is preserved. However, the result (at least for me) is more high and loose. Not as tight as I would have liked but theres always the option of getting more taken off elsewhere. PM if you have any questions :)
vanisl20
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 09.2016
Gender:

Re: When did you first find out about circumcision?

Postby uncutcanuck » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:22 pm

Thanks vanisl20! I appreciate the support and may very well take you up on that offer.
uncutcanuck
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 09.2017
Gender:

Previous

Return to "For the Guys"

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest