That is all.
Is foreskin really an issue with guys in general? As a woman, I had no idea.
Who am I to argue with the marketeers?
"A feeling of warmth, security and self-esteem."
Buh- Buh- I want foreskin now!!
The next question is: which is a better investment: increased ejaculate volume or a plastic foreskin?
Hell, as a man I had no idea, until I saw someone try to claim, in a discussion about female genital mutilation, that male circumcision was just as bad, and that activists against FGM were hypocrites for not talking about it.
Male circumcision does remove a whole load of nerve endings, especially at the frenulum. I was always wondering why people kept going on about how the underside of the glans was a very sensitive area until I realized that I no longer had the area they were talking about.
Not that a rubber prosthetic would help.
Oh, I'm aware of that. And as someone else says below, it's an unnecessary surgery, and if I had a son I wouldn't have him cirumcised. I just find it absurd when people try to make a big political issue out of it, as if male circumcision were just as bad as FGM, or as if there were no more pressing issues in the world. Maybe if I hadn't been circumcised as an infant I'd feel differently, but I was, and I just can't manage to work up any outrage over it.
Circumcision just ain't right. I'm the only guy I know of who is circ'd (unless everyone else is lying). It was a little embarrasing in JR high and high school locker rooms, but I'm not going to any rallies.
Although, regarding FGM:[jules]it ain't the same ballpark, hell it aint even the same f*ckin' sport![/jules] The male equivalent of that would be to remove, not the foreskin, but the entire glans.
I don't blame the FGM activists for not bringing up male circumcision, since doing so would make their efforts a million times more difficult.
But I do believe that the problem of male circumcision is, simply because of its routine nature, and because it is for some bizarre reason socially acceptable, far worse of a problem. Not a worse act, mind you, but a worse problem. A scourge, even.
(Ugh. This is officially my last foreskin-related comment ever.)
I'm a Cavalier (see also), and I find the concept of circumcision deeply squicky. Especially when done in adulthood. Eeek. My legs are, in fact, crossed at this point. But then it's not widely practised on this side of the pond.
I clicked on the links, and then after reading them I went to read the definition of snoodle, and I gotta say part of me has just died.
I didn't realise that foreskin-envy was that big a problem.
It's not a matter of envy, many people believe that the foreskin shields the shaft/tip of the penis from rubbing against the clothing, causing the penis to be more sensitive...
It's unnecessary surgery in modern times...
That said, a artificial rubber foreskin isn't the solution to the problem. :)
and extended expose to latex has caused a number of health care workers to become allergic to latex.which can't be good.
Well, there is that whole thing about being -- literally -- less of a man. And, yes, that's a pretty big deal.
But somehow I don't think rubber sheaths are the answer.
Well, there is that whole thing about being -- literally -- less of a man. And, yes, that's a pretty big deal.
In much the same way that losing a toe makes you less of a human.
The first time I read that I took it as sarcasm. I was going to respond with something snarky calling for routine infant toe-snipping, what with the uselessness of pinky toes; I was going to point out Freud's many volumes on Slipper Anxiety.
But then I realized that, yes, if I was missing a toe, I would indeed feel like less of a human. It wouldn't actually make me any less of a human (except in the literal, physical way), but I would definitely *feel* inferior. So maybe it wasn't sarcasm after all, and is in fact a fairly apt analogy.
Still, a human is not defined purely on the basis of its having feet.
I'm confused. is it April 1st today again?
Where'd i leave my self esteem?
At the bris?
Yeah luckily the Milah was generous.
Didn't Robert Anton Wilson have some shtick about a plastic imitation foreskin in one of his "serious" books?
I think he claimed that Roman Polanski used a similar ruse to evade capture by the Nazis.
I suspect he didn't buy it online, though.
I think my favourite part of that site is the measurements area...I'm not sure why, but it made me giggle.
What I want to know is why there isn't a 'Size 1'? I suppose it might be a bit embarrassing when you're down at the pub talking about artificial foreskins with your mates (as you do) and the subject of size comes up. At least you don't have to admit you're a Size 1!
I just can't stop wondering what was going through the hand model's mind when she took the job.
"So in the shot I'll be holding an artificial foreskin? I'd better get my nails done in a flesh tone polish then."
I thought that SAME exact thing.
http://livejournal.com/community/keep_on_tugging/,The "CAT II Q",A vacuum-based device,and for those who can't decide, there's even a helpful chart.
When you get over the (western!) cultural bias, the 'Ashley Montagu Resolution' starts to sound pretty sane, not that it stands much chance of acceptance. Of course, not every restorer is neurotic about his 'loss;' I was born into the minority that would block that resolution from ever passing, but I'm just into it as a body-mod and because it happens to feel damn good.
I probably spent an hour going through those deeply-disturbing links. I think I kept going to the next page because I was expecting to finally reach a screen that said, "Haha, this is all an elaborate hoax." But instead, I kept seeing more frightening pictures of bloated and irritated genitalia stuffed into vacuums, machines with rubber bands and weird home-made contraptions.
And then there were the "regulars" on those forums, sprouting endless "I'm a victim!" rants and babbling incoherently about the detailed geography of what amounts to maybe two square inches of surface area. Many of the posters had been wearing "tuggers" every day for years. Positive outcomes were practically unheard of, but the problems caused by wearing these contraptions were overwhelming. Nasty infections and sores, horrible pain that made sex impossible, discomfort that made walking excruciating, and humiliating accidents when the machinery fell out in public. And yet despite this, they were all still rabidly convinced that this was a good idea.
This is one of the most bizarre examples of OCD I've come across.
Anyway, thanks for the links.
Actually, there are quite a few 'success' pictures floating around, but they tend to be sequestered on various group-type sites (Yahoo, etc). As someone who's been doing this, side-effects are pretty minor and likely the result of being overzealous; it's also easy enough to feel a device slipping loose and just kick it down your pantleg during a private moment. Pretty much all the restoration gadgets have a provision to attach a 'safety line' pinned to a pocket or something, but it's more trouble than its worth once you're used to 'em and not tensioning the thing to uncomfortable limits.
The complications of being cut, and thus having hair pulled up to places it shouldn't be, causing you to remove said hair only to have some of it come back deeply and cystically ingrown... Well, being made out of meat is pretty gruesome no matter what, so one minor surgery later I've found it's a lot more fun to grow more skin than to try to denude the mohel's handiwork. (foreskin restoration injury vs. Brazilian Wax injury.)
Vacuum pumping is a whole different story, included for the amusement and shock value. Still, people wouldn't be doing it if they didn't enjoy it, either.
The foreskin, fwiw, is a lot more than "two inches of surface area." Let's say, on average, that, yeah, it's two inches long altogether. Multiply that by the, oh, five inches of circumfrence. That's ten square inches.
If circumcision is no big deal, what on earth do you think would possess these poor misguided fools to take such desperate measures?
You didn't just say "there must be something to it, or people wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it". You didn't.
I hereby direct you to the "poor misguided fools" portion of that sentence you quoted.
"Big deal" is in the eye of the beholder. To these guys, it's pretty clear that it's a very big deal indeed. YMMV.
I'm amazed that this has gotten this far without the requisite "Everybody wants prosthetic foreskins on their real heads" modified reference.
"Someone in this town is trying to burn the foreskins down, but everybody wants a cock to wind a floppy sheath around."
Hah, that's what I thought of when I first heard that song.
I love that song!
What . . . the bloody . . . hell?!
I prefer men with foreskin.
Hey, how you doin'?
This must be a joke! :p
It's like, when a guy is honking in traffic, in a way he is actually crying out for his own dong!
The perfect Chanukah present.
Ding ding ding ding ding ding dong ding! We have a winner!
Circumcisions are so common in America that I've never even seen an uncircumcised penis...well, once, in a movie (and I responded: "What the hell is wrong with that guy's dick?"). And, yes, I have seen penises, and NO I don't wanna see yours. I think there was a big trend in the 70s and 80s for doctors to push circumcision.
I just don't know why you'd want to fake an uncircumcision.
I have 3 boys. I got them all circumcised because penile cancer occurs only in men who aren't circ'ed. It really had nothing to do with looks. I must say though, my first boyfriend wasn't, and while it wasn't a big deal, I thought everybody's was the same till my 2nd boyfriend (now my husband). I was like, well THIS is a lot easier. No more losing the missile head when you're about to use it!
Penile cancer has a 1 in 100000 chance of occuring in a given male. Contrast that with testicular cancer at 1 in 250. Penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the U.S.
Additionally, Circumcision most definitely does not elminate the possbility of penile cancer, it's merely associated with a lower risk. Further, correlation is not the same as causation. It's not known if circumcision actually does much to reduce the risk of penile cancer. The correlation may be due to the fact that those who practice circumcision also expose themselves less to HPV and other risk factors.
In any event, the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend circumcision, especially not for the potential reduction in the risk of penile cancer. It's a non-issue.
There might be reasons to circumcise (mostly religious or cultural), but attempting to reduce the risk of penile cancer is not a good reason to circumcise.
Excuse me, a "good reason" is purely your opinion.
Of course it's my opinion. Who else's opinion would it be? Well, I guess it's also the American Academy of Pediatricians' opinion. And the American Cancer Society's.
Sorry I stepped in. I guess my "logic and facts" just confused things.
By the way, the rate of circumcision-related complications is higher than the rate of penile cancer. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians reports that circumcision carries a 1 in 100000 chance of severe complications resulting in loss of the penis. Yeah. Circumcision as a preventative for penile cancer makes a lot of sense.
1 in 250? Jeez, I had no idea it was so high. Better get my family jewels lopped off right away....
Congratulations! You're a fucking monster.
Please don't tell your sons this is the reason you've lopped off their foreskins. *I*, for one, would disown a mother that was so free and easy with surgery for such a poor reason.
Too awesome. Too bad I already have foreskin :cool: