Originally Posted by xepherys

First, I'm not convinced the source you quoted is very valid. It's a roughly 2.5 page report that lists 67 references. It sounds to me like a lot of pulling at strings to make a specific point. It's easy to move sentences out of context to have them say whatever you'd like. If you wrote a 2-3 page report for a class and had 67 references, you'd either get a 4.0 because your professor was a dumbass, or a gooseegg because you didn't actually do any STUDYING. And sorry, just having MD after his name doesn't make him qualified. There are a lot of practicing doctors who I would not visit as well. School != smart.

Now let's look at those points. First of all, they are all very definitive and absolute. Circumcision denudes (not sometimes, but apparently always). "The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance," again, not sometimes but always. I'm looking at my penis right this very second. It is noit "dull", "gray" or "sclerotic" in any sense. Sclerosis generally has to do with a hardening of tissue, which I've not known to occur in cut men at all. Also, keratin seems to have been throw around a lot here. Keratinous tissue is generally thought of as being hair and nails. Do I have a tusk for a penis? Hmmm, nope! Both arguments here and elsewhere in this thread have no real bearing in reality.

80% or more of your penile skin? Is that so? Oh yeah, because it loops back. No, still not really 80%. I'd imagine 50%... but it only covers 25% or less of the actual LENGTH of the penile shaft. Okay, maybe 33%. Certainly not 40%.

Again with the desensitization... I guess that whole 3-minute man is a bigger myth than we're led to believe. Us cut men must be STALLIONS in bed since we're so desensitized. I can go about... maybe 15-20 minutes if I really put some effort into it. Maybe 25-30 minutes the second time around. I could go for an hour if we took breaks to do other things. If I was more sensitive, I think my wife would be sad.

Question for the cut men here... has your penis EVER just cracked and bled? Don't be shy... I really, truly want to know. Send me a PM even... I'll list the number of responses here. WTF?

"Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin." Are you KIDDING me? What kind of butcher doctors perform the surgery in these cases? Was this study done in a hosptial with a high malpractice occurance? If I had a pitted, cracked bleeding penis with skin tags and dangling bridges... I'd never get laid. I mean, are there pictures in any medical books or magazines or journals of this occurance? If it's noted, it must happen at least now and then. No, I don't buy it. It might happen as a freak thing in 0.001% of cases... maybe.

Also, uncut men can have "curved" penises. Curving of a penis can happen do to any number of things. This, again, may be the cause in SOME cases... but I doubt it's the norm. While my penis isn't huge, it's about 5.5" erect (just plenty thank you) and straight as an arrow. If I were uncut, I'd imaigne it'd be about the same... but with a hood. I'm happier this way.


Well, I'm kinda of tired of this argument for now. But again, I just don't see a good argument against it. Really I don't. Even when sources are quoted specifically, they are easy to refute. Come back when you have better evidence. Thanks!