Aa
Lack of Sexual Pleasure
I am a Circumsised homosexual male and I have recently noticed due to increased sexual activity, that other circumsised men seem to have much more of a foreskin like flesh on their penis that slides up and down as if it were the foreskin, generating pleasure, while mine has none and It is rather difficult for me to feel sexual pleasure or sensations via stimulation of the penis, with the only sensitive part being right under the head of it. Is it possible tis is a complication related to the fact I am circumsised and the procedure was not carried out right and if so if there a way to fix it?
Modern circumcision (the sort you were subjected to) is not the same as that which was done in the ancient world. Yes is DOES result in damage to sexual pleasure. The "post Roman occupation" method of circumcision is also not the original one. Originally only the very tip of the foreskin was removed.
The form of circumcision done in the USA is essentially a match to the form created by Jews during the Roman occupation, somewhere around/before 250-BCE. This new form, instead of taking off a very small part of the open end of the foreskin, removed the entire foreskin (and at times the frenulum) which removed roughly 90% of the male sexual pleasure nerves and caused the natural mucous membrane of the foreskin (which has protective qualities) to be gone for life. In the USA infant circumcision was mandatory in most hospitals for much of the mid to later 20th century. The reason given for this was 'cleanliness' or 'hygiene', which was a euphemism for 'keeping the kid from masturbating', when in truth it dramatically increases the commonality of very early masturbation due to exposing nerves that are not normally available.
* ARUMENTS FOR *
The INITIAL reasoning given by Rabbis for the this extremely radical form of circumcision (not the original form in the covenant with Moses, which is also the form adopted by Americans due to a social hysteria about masturbation) was that :
1) it made it impossible for male Jews who were Hellenised (had adopted to Roman and Greek culture) to 'pass' as non-Jews in the public baths, as a simple surgery was available that let Hellenised Jewish men extend the foreskin it more difficult to tell they had been circumcised. Note- even in Roman culture, the exposure glans was not viewed in the same way as exposure foreskin.
2) hundreds of years later this form of circumcisions (referred to by the apostle Paul as "the mutilation) was defended by famous Rabbis. It has historically been a focus of dispute among Jewish groups. Groups of famous Rabbi's argued for a transition back to the original form or for a TOTAL stop of all form of circumcision on the basis that they're :
* a cruelty to the a child, who can't give consent
* that new method is a departure from the law of Mosses
Rabbis completely against it often claim that circumcision was the adoption of a tribal cultural marking, and had nothing to do with their faith. Some note that 3000 years ago Jews also engaged in genocide, infanticide, polytheism and slavery. As such, traditions are not always good things. No modern Jew would sell his daughter into a marriage to her rapist (at the full bride price) to compensate her FATHER for the loss of the girls virginity, or stoning a disobedient child to death
** REVISIONIST HISTORY **
The explanation given for the change to a more radical form by many famous Rabbis is that the male body is not imperfect, but male human nature is. Due to the imperfect nature of male humans, ALL of them are incapable of being faithful to their wives without having their ability to enjoy sex in a normal way (especially as they age), removed without their consent
* IN NATURE *
In nature, the human glans penis is covered in infancy by the foreskin, and is fairly inaccessible until the years that lead up to puberty when early sexual changes take place (after the testicles have dropped).
It is a fact that there are far more risks with the more radical form of infant circumcision. It is also true that the removal of the entire foreskin from the glans penis (usually the frenulum as well) dramatically reduces the ability to enjoy sex as the man ages. This procedure only leaves around 10% of the male pleasure nerves, and what remains loses most of its remaining sensation past middle age.
The constantly exposed glans (which is normally a very soft and sensitive mucous membrane similar in texture to the female labia minora) becomes keratinized (hardened and far less sensitive). Layers of normal skin cover up the once soft and sensitive mucous membrane. This is due to constant exposure to both air and due to constant friction with clothing.
**NOTE** devices can be purchased to cover up the exposed glans, and are purported to increase sensitivity. Also note that self at-home circumcision repair by way of the careful use of tensioning devices has become popular, though the success rate is highly variable due to the need for extreme ongoing dedication to the process.
There is some variation in how tightly men are cut in circumcision and some men are cut co tightly that a full erection is quite painful unless they undergo at least some of this process, in which the section of skin immediately below the circumcision scar is lengthened by providing slow and constant tension. A variety of methods are used.
* In Retrospect of the Rabbi's arguments 'for' **
Oddly enough the things that are missed by the Rabbi's in their presentations on the VALUE of this more radical surgery are :
1) the ability of the person to CHOOSE.
Aside from access to sterile conditions, and the fact that in women the process or 'sewing everything closed' is repeated after the birth of each child, there are limits to the ethical differences between male circumcision and female genital mutilation. Both are done to people who are not given choices. Both are done to limit sexual pleasure and keep partners faithful. Both are considered to be tribal markings.
It is also true that women who are genitally mutilated are in a great deal of pain when they have sex, that the labia are also removed and the entire vaginal opening is sewn closed to leave only a small opening to void urine. There is a higher rate of serious complications (including death). Female genital mutilation is definitely an even more horrific activity than male genital mutilation (circumcision).
However both are actions taken against children without them having the ability to give informed consent. They both can have serious medical complications. They both have a very real impact on the person's ability to enjoy sex as adults.
The fact is that both actions are violations of the child's right to "Informed consent", which is the basis of all modern legal systems. These procedures are performed by way of parental consent (under social pressure, and with a great deal of misinformation). They both limit attempt to control a person's adult sexual pleasure by maiming them as a child. This make them both ethically HIGHLY questionable.
* the fact is that despite arguments to the contrary there simply is no mention of this change to circumcision as having been adopted by Rabbis in order to increase MALE FEDILITY. It is only mentioned in relation to forcing all the male children of Jews to live as obviously Jewish men who could hot their origins. It prevented the ability of Hellenised Jewish men to obtain a simple surgery and then "pass" as uncircumcised (non-Jews) in the public baths.
* Also, these arguments also fail to address the fact that in Judaism, sexual pleasure within marriage is considered to be a Mitzvah (a gift from God), and this procedure therefor takes what is a special gift direct from YWVH, and throws it away, essentially spitting in the face of their god.
The form of circumcision done in the USA is essentially a match to the form created by Jews during the Roman occupation, somewhere around/before 250-BCE. This new form, instead of taking off a very small part of the open end of the foreskin, removed the entire foreskin (and at times the frenulum) which removed roughly 90% of the male sexual pleasure nerves and caused the natural mucous membrane of the foreskin (which has protective qualities) to be gone for life. In the USA infant circumcision was mandatory in most hospitals for much of the mid to later 20th century. The reason given for this was 'cleanliness' or 'hygiene', which was a euphemism for 'keeping the kid from masturbating', when in truth it dramatically increases the commonality of very early masturbation due to exposing nerves that are not normally available.
* ARUMENTS FOR *
The INITIAL reasoning given by Rabbis for the this extremely radical form of circumcision (not the original form in the covenant with Moses, which is also the form adopted by Americans due to a social hysteria about masturbation) was that :
1) it made it impossible for male Jews who were Hellenised (had adopted to Roman and Greek culture) to 'pass' as non-Jews in the public baths, as a simple surgery was available that let Hellenised Jewish men extend the foreskin it more difficult to tell they had been circumcised. Note- even in Roman culture, the exposure glans was not viewed in the same way as exposure foreskin.
2) hundreds of years later this form of circumcisions (referred to by the apostle Paul as "the mutilation) was defended by famous Rabbis. It has historically been a focus of dispute among Jewish groups. Groups of famous Rabbi's argued for a transition back to the original form or for a TOTAL stop of all form of circumcision on the basis that they're :
* a cruelty to the a child, who can't give consent
* that new method is a departure from the law of Mosses
Rabbis completely against it often claim that circumcision was the adoption of a tribal cultural marking, and had nothing to do with their faith. Some note that 3000 years ago Jews also engaged in genocide, infanticide, polytheism and slavery. As such, traditions are not always good things. No modern Jew would sell his daughter into a marriage to her rapist (at the full bride price) to compensate her FATHER for the loss of the girls virginity, or stoning a disobedient child to death
** REVISIONIST HISTORY **
The explanation given for the change to a more radical form by many famous Rabbis is that the male body is not imperfect, but male human nature is. Due to the imperfect nature of male humans, ALL of them are incapable of being faithful to their wives without having their ability to enjoy sex in a normal way (especially as they age), removed without their consent
* IN NATURE *
In nature, the human glans penis is covered in infancy by the foreskin, and is fairly inaccessible until the years that lead up to puberty when early sexual changes take place (after the testicles have dropped).
It is a fact that there are far more risks with the more radical form of infant circumcision. It is also true that the removal of the entire foreskin from the glans penis (usually the frenulum as well) dramatically reduces the ability to enjoy sex as the man ages. This procedure only leaves around 10% of the male pleasure nerves, and what remains loses most of its remaining sensation past middle age.
The constantly exposed glans (which is normally a very soft and sensitive mucous membrane similar in texture to the female labia minora) becomes keratinized (hardened and far less sensitive). Layers of normal skin cover up the once soft and sensitive mucous membrane. This is due to constant exposure to both air and due to constant friction with clothing.
**NOTE** devices can be purchased to cover up the exposed glans, and are purported to increase sensitivity. Also note that self at-home circumcision repair by way of the careful use of tensioning devices has become popular, though the success rate is highly variable due to the need for extreme ongoing dedication to the process.
There is some variation in how tightly men are cut in circumcision and some men are cut co tightly that a full erection is quite painful unless they undergo at least some of this process, in which the section of skin immediately below the circumcision scar is lengthened by providing slow and constant tension. A variety of methods are used.
* In Retrospect of the Rabbi's arguments 'for' **
Oddly enough the things that are missed by the Rabbi's in their presentations on the VALUE of this more radical surgery are :
1) the ability of the person to CHOOSE.
Aside from access to sterile conditions, and the fact that in women the process or 'sewing everything closed' is repeated after the birth of each child, there are limits to the ethical differences between male circumcision and female genital mutilation. Both are done to people who are not given choices. Both are done to limit sexual pleasure and keep partners faithful. Both are considered to be tribal markings.
It is also true that women who are genitally mutilated are in a great deal of pain when they have sex, that the labia are also removed and the entire vaginal opening is sewn closed to leave only a small opening to void urine. There is a higher rate of serious complications (including death). Female genital mutilation is definitely an even more horrific activity than male genital mutilation (circumcision).
However both are actions taken against children without them having the ability to give informed consent. They both can have serious medical complications. They both have a very real impact on the person's ability to enjoy sex as adults.
The fact is that both actions are violations of the child's right to "Informed consent", which is the basis of all modern legal systems. These procedures are performed by way of parental consent (under social pressure, and with a great deal of misinformation). They both limit attempt to control a person's adult sexual pleasure by maiming them as a child. This make them both ethically HIGHLY questionable.
* the fact is that despite arguments to the contrary there simply is no mention of this change to circumcision as having been adopted by Rabbis in order to increase MALE FEDILITY. It is only mentioned in relation to forcing all the male children of Jews to live as obviously Jewish men who could hot their origins. It prevented the ability of Hellenised Jewish men to obtain a simple surgery and then "pass" as uncircumcised (non-Jews) in the public baths.
* Also, these arguments also fail to address the fact that in Judaism, sexual pleasure within marriage is considered to be a Mitzvah (a gift from God), and this procedure therefor takes what is a special gift direct from YWVH, and throws it away, essentially spitting in the face of their god.
According to the "courts" removing a man's foreskin can diminish his arousal...hence so many men suing their parents for having it removed in the first place.
I'm not sure if they have yet found a successful way to "reverse it"( which would mean that they are taking skin from elsewhere to attach to the penis)
but they have done so in the past...with a low success rate.
Perhaps one day they will find a way, but until then...you could only try and perhaps be disappointed by the results.
I'm not sure if they have yet found a successful way to "reverse it"( which would mean that they are taking skin from elsewhere to attach to the penis)
but they have done so in the past...with a low success rate.
Perhaps one day they will find a way, but until then...you could only try and perhaps be disappointed by the results.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Sexual Health Community
Millions of people are diagnosed with STDs in the U.S. each year.
STDs can't be transmitted by casual contact, like hugging or touching.
Syphilis is an STD that is transmitted by oral, genital and anal sex.
Discharge often isn't normal, and could mean an infection or an STD.
STDs aren't transmitted through clothing. Fabric is a germ barrier.
Normal vaginal discharge varies in color, smell, texture and amount.
