Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Would being circumcised lead to needing more intense porn/rougher sex to compensate for lost sensation?

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor repoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    6,236
    Archived
    2,280
    Total Posts
    8,516
    Rep Power
    72

    Would being circumcised lead to needing more intense porn/rougher sex to compensate for lost sensation?

    That is my question.

  2. Top | #2
    New Member colossalnobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Bensville, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by repoman View Post
    That is my question.
    Firstly I think we need to differentiate the two ideas, one being a need for more intense pornography and two being a requirement for rougher sex, as they are both vastly separate from each other on multiple fronts.

    Pornography used during the act of masturbation is almost exclusively a psychological component when it comes to achieving adequate stimulation. One man might for example have a foot fetish with this potentially being the main target for the viewing of erotic material for stimulation, whereas another man may only prefer to watch material that includes both male and female characters engaged in heterosexual intercourse. The key here is that the simulation is purely psychological in nature, and the physical stimulation is entirely being controlled and meditated by the man himself.

    On the subject of possibly needing rougher sex I'm assuming you mean to suggest that because of reduced sensitivity of the circumcised penis that more direct physical stimulation might be needed to achieve orgasm. While this is a possibility it is only but one aspect involved when it comes to the potential needs for a man to be stimulated enough to cum.

    Just as with masturbation there is a very big psychological component required for simulation during intercourse with a partner(s). It's also going to be different for everyone. For example I know of several men who some were circumcised and others not who could not achieve orgasm, no matter how much physical stimulation was applied, because of past events that affected them psychologically. They had no problems with conventional sexual penetration.

    There is also the difficulty of knowing just how much of an impact being circumcised has had on a man who was circumcised at birth as there is no historical references to compare to. This is less of a hindrance with men who were circumcised in later life, particularly adulthood, as they would be able to self-determine any differences in physical sensitivity.

    I hope this has been of some help.

    Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,169
    Rep Power
    5
    Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

    Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

    I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
    two reasons:

    1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

    2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,075
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,364
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

    Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

    I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
    two reasons:

    1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

    2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.
    They invented it as a sacrifice to God and sign of your obedience to him. But even if it were a net positive then, it may not be know: They invented it before there was soap. In a world without soap, having somewhat lowered sensations may well be preferrable to a very significant chance of your penis dropping off after an inflammation.

    Americans are weird that way, but in the rest of the world, if you get your kid circumcised, it's because God told you. In interbellum Vienna or early 90s Bosnia, saying "there are good and people among the circumcised and uncircumcised alike" would be universally understood as a call for understanding between Christians and Jews respectively Muslims, with "uncircumcised" as an alias for Christians. You may not know this, but you basically don't get non-religious circumcision outside North America.

    In North America, it was introduced precisely because of the expectation that it would make masturbation less enjoyable. That's a historical fact.

  5. Top | #5
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,126
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,603
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

    Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

    I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
    two reasons:

    1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

    2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.
    They invented it as a sacrifice to God and sign of your obedience to him. But even if it were a net positive then, it may not be know: They invented it before there was soap. In a world without soap, having somewhat lowered sensations may well be preferrable to a very significant chance of your penis dropping off after an inflammation.

    Americans are weird that way, but in the rest of the world, if you get your kid circumcised, it's because God told you. In interbellum Vienna or early 90s Bosnia, saying "there are good and people among the circumcised and uncircumcised alike" would be universally understood as a call for understanding between Christians and Jews respectively Muslims, with "uncircumcised" as an alias for Christians. You may not know this, but you basically don't get non-religious circumcision outside North America.

    In North America, it was introduced precisely because of the expectation that it would make masturbation less enjoyable. That's a historical fact.
    So were cornflakes.

    Which rather suggests that the anti-masturbation crowd had even less grasp of reality, than they wanted people to have of their penises.

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,075
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,364
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Here is the issue, as I see it... Men are circumcised early.. too early to remember anything about themselves. Those exceptionally rare cases of later-life circumcisions are too fringe to count. I don't think they can provide any reliable data.

    Since we cannot share actual sensations we feel directly with others, I do not think the MYTH that uncircumcised men have "better" or "more" sensation than circumcised men is ever provable.

    I will go out on a limb and say that circumcised men have MORE pleasurable sensation than uncircumcised...
    two reasons:

    1) the skin under the foreskin is far more sensitive than the foreskin itself, as reported by uncircumsized men. therefore, circumcised mens' more sensitive skin is more exposed to stimulation than the "covered" version.

    2) men invented this practice... the history of misogyny consistent throughout all cultures, along with my own drives, tells me that the practice is meant to ENHANCE sex... being the primary drive any man has after all.
    They invented it as a sacrifice to God and sign of your obedience to him. But even if it were a net positive then, it may not be know: They invented it before there was soap. In a world without soap, having somewhat lowered sensations may well be preferrable to a very significant chance of your penis dropping off after an inflammation.

    Americans are weird that way, but in the rest of the world, if you get your kid circumcised, it's because God told you. In interbellum Vienna or early 90s Bosnia, saying "there are good and people among the circumcised and uncircumcised alike" would be universally understood as a call for understanding between Christians and Jews respectively Muslims, with "uncircumcised" as an alias for Christians. You may not know this, but you basically don't get non-religious circumcision outside North America.

    In North America, it was introduced precisely because of the expectation that it would make masturbation less enjoyable. That's a historical fact.
    So were cornflakes.

    Which rather suggests that the anti-masturbation crowd had even less grasp of reality, than they wanted people to have of their penises.
    Sure, it is a very real possibility that those expectations were mistaken, and I thought I'd said so.

    I am however talking to someone who says, in essence, "it exists, therefore it must make it more pleasant".

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,703
    Rep Power
    24
    This 2013 meta-analysis found no effects of circumcision on any sexual functions, including sexual desire, premature ejaculation, time to ejaculation, or erectile dysfunction.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,381
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,327
    Rep Power
    60
    This article found 2 of the studies to be particularly compelling (they "met the gold standard of research, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials").

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...al-sensitivity

    The researchers also asked the circumcised men additional questions focusing on any differences they noticed before and after the procedure. At the two-year mark, 99.9 percent of the men said they felt “satisfied with their circumcisions,” and far from decreasing penile sensitivity, 72 percent said their sensitivity had increased.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,075
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,364
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    This article found 2 of the studies to be particularly compelling (they "met the gold standard of research, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials").

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...al-sensitivity

    The researchers also asked the circumcised men additional questions focusing on any differences they noticed before and after the procedure. At the two-year mark, 99.9 percent of the men said they felt “satisfied with their circumcisions,” and far from decreasing penile sensitivity, 72 percent said their sensitivity had increased.
    Without having read the link (on the phone) what would be a Placebo controlled study here?

    I would have thought most Men perfectly capable of noticing whether the foreskin has been removed irrespective of what their clinician tells them.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,169
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    I am however talking to someone who says, in essence, "it exists, therefore it must make it more pleasant".

    More accurately, you are taking to someone who says, "If men created it, it must be designed to increase their pleasure".

    I was out to dinner last night with some new friends that do not know my wife and I very well yet and one of them made a dick joke... and immediately checked with my wife to ask if she was offended by asking if his dick joke was "kosher"... she replied, "It's fine.. as long as it was circumcised". Which was more funny than the joke was.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-23-2018, 04:45 AM
  2. Machinist Porn
    By beero1000 in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-27-2016, 09:33 PM
  3. Was JC circumcised? If so, who did it?
    By arcadia in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-14-2015, 11:47 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2015, 08:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •