Log In Sign Up

The Pleasure Thread


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to [email protected].

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
June 29th, 2006, 04:18 PM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
That circumcision decreases sexual pleasure is a charge commonly levelled against it, as sexuality is often an integral part to the human existance should the allegations levelled by the anti-circumcision movement be correct then it is certainly something worthy of taking into consideration.

I would like to start this thread off with a pair of quotes, the first from our own board's Inowno:

Quote:
1. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the ridged band.

2. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the frenulum.

3. Normal sex involves stimulation of the fine touch nerves of the normal amount of mucuosal membrane.

4. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the glans.

5 Normal sex involves FULL functional stimulation of ALL of these nerves because they are not covered over with layers of keratinized tissue.

1. Circumcised sex has no ridged band to be stimulated.

2. Circumcised sex has no little or no frenulum left to be stimulated.

3. Circumcised sex has LESS fine touch nerves to be stimulated.

4. Circumcised sex has the glans to be stimulated.

5. Circumcised sex has PARTIAL functional stimulation of the existing nerves due to being covered with layers of keratinized tissue.[/b]

And another from widely respected and revered Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides:

Quote:
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.[/b]
In addition I would like to draw attention to the existance of the "Gliding Motion", a mechanism whereby the foreskin glides smoothly along the glans during intercourse, eased by natural male lubricant. Many intact men state this as their principal source of pleasure. This is of course absent in circumcised men who generally have to use artificial lubrication or saliva to supplant evolution's bounty and must stimulate the glans directly.

This considered I would suggest that as an operation of, at very best, negligible benefit circumcision should never be performed upon the unconsenting, such as infants.
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #2  
June 30th, 2006, 01:26 PM
NaynayPie's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding somewhere in IL
Posts: 986
Revamp, I think it would help if you could remind our newbies that you are an intact male, with full use of his foreskin, and therefore are intimately knowledgable about it's function.

~Nay
__________________
<div align="center"><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">[b]I'm A
Natural Birthing, Delayed-Vaxing, Sleep Sharing, Baby Wearing, Tandem Breastfeeding, Cloth Diapering, Never Spanking Mama to two Beautiful, Healthy and Intact Little Babies
</div>
Reply With Quote
  #3  
July 3rd, 2006, 01:02 PM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Quote:
Revamp, I think it would help if you could remind our newbies that you are an intact male, with full use of his foreskin, and therefore are intimately knowledgable about it's function.[/b]
I had originally intended to leave personal talk from this but as you mentioned it I suppose that some notion of context when it comes to this issue could be worthwhile, especially with such a subjective topic as pleasure. Those of the timid disposition should probably utilise their backspace key at this point to navigate away from this page as it is somewhat problematic to describe without descriptions of a mildly vivid nature.



To be honest I actually found it quite baffling and bemusing when I first encountered people debating whether foreskin provided pleasure to its owner. To myself of course it was blindingly obvious that it did provide pleasure, and plenty of it, but to others this possibility seemed not even to have occured or if it had was not a notion that they were willing to accept.

The foreskin is far from a "Flap of skin" that many present it to be. It is in fact a prepuce, a biological mechanism only found in a single other human organ: the clitoral hood. In fact the similarities between the two are considerable and numerous but for now I shall focus upon a single one as that is the only one related: as with many women I consider it to heighten my pleasure and have little doubt that it would diminish substantially if that organ was removed.

A prepuce is a double layer of skin, while the penis is flaccid this gives the glans a double coat which protects effectively from friction from trousers and (if you are prone to lengthy periods of nudity) the elements. This results in the glans being far more sensitive in intact men than circumcised ones as a consequence of decreased direct contact upon the glans.

This is fairly basic level stuff really. Less contact, more sensitivity.

Things really start to get interesting when you consider how the prepuce responds to arousal. It generally retracts at least partially and can then be completely retracted manually if this does not occur automatically. This exposes the inner-lining of the foreskin which, I can firmly attest, is a highly sensitive and erogenous area.

So what have we so far? Allow me to compile a quick inventory at this point: a highly sensitive glans, protected from exposure during day-to-day flaccidity and a highly sensitive inner-lining which also provides plenty of pleasure.

Put them together and what do we get? Pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, and plenty of it.

The foreskin does not stay lodged behind the glans, some seem to be under the misconception, but can be easily moved back and forth across the surface of the glans, this movement is named the "Gliding Motion" and the contact between two such astoundingly erogenous areas is beyond my powers of description.

Besides from the pleasure provided from the motion itself another large advantage is awarded by it: the glans can easily be kept supple and lubricated by the body's natural lubricants, which are spread across the head by the motion and are retained within and upon the foreskin. This tends to obliterate the requirement for artificial lubrication entirely.

In addition the motion also prevents the requirement for direct stimulation of the glans, the consequence of this is that the glans remains yet more sensitive as it is frequently not touched at all and exposed to no friction whatsoever. Another consequence of this is that intact men more rarely require it "Rough", which is more forgiving upon the woman or receptive man involved.

In addition stimulation is provided to the coronal rim (the area running around the edge of the glans which divides it from the rest of the shaft) and the frenulum can also be exquisitely stimulated during this process.

So, in short and more to the point, what do I possess that a circumcised fellow does not then?

-A protected glans

-The prepuce

-The frenulum

-The gliding motion


Do I place value upon these four divisions? Oh undoubtably, it would be the height of lacking gratitude not to. Am I thankful that I was left intact? Unquestionably.

I suppose that there is, perhaps, the possibility that the prepuce's provision of pleasure could be a placebo, I might be hallucinating all of my enjoyment. But this pleasure pre-dates me interest in this issue and if it some form of fantasy then it is one I find highly beneficial to my existance and I would find it unpleasant should someone dispell this illusion.

Intimately was the word used by Nay and personally I consider it highly apt, as with many others who share my intact state my attatchment to my prepuce is other than physical. I cherish it as much as I would any other part of my body, the fact that many people are devoid of it has not diminished this although it does evoke a level of pity witihn me.

Are these things subjective? Oh undoubtably, but I am the subject. Why should any other be at leisure to make this decision than myself?

And further more, if you agree with me on that and believe that my mother made the right choice despite my father's circumcision then why do you not extent the courtesy to your own son?
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #4  
July 6th, 2006, 09:56 AM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
I find it both dissapointing and somewhat predictable that no pro-circumcision poster has responded to this thread thus far.
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #5  
July 6th, 2006, 01:50 PM
jakew's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
That circumcision decreases sexual pleasure is a charge commonly levelled against it, as sexuality is often an integral part to the human existance should the allegations levelled by the anti-circumcision movement be correct then it is certainly something worthy of taking into consideration.

I would like to start this thread off with a pair of quotes, the first from our own board's Inowno:

(removed quote markup for clarity)
1. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the ridged band.[/b]
Doubtful, since Meissner's corpuscles are rapidly adapting light-touch receptors.

Quote:
2. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the frenulum.[/b]
Comments to part 1 apply.

Quote:
3. Normal sex involves stimulation of the fine touch nerves of the normal amount of mucuosal membrane.[/b]
This is a repeat of the above.

Quote:
4. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the glans.

5 Normal sex involves FULL functional stimulation of ALL of these nerves because they are not covered over with layers of keratinized tissue.

1. Circumcised sex has no ridged band to be stimulated.[/b]
See above.

Quote:
2. Circumcised sex has no little or no frenulum left to be stimulated.[/b]
Depends upon the circumcision. And see above.

Quote:
3. Circumcised sex has LESS fine touch nerves to be stimulated.[/b]
As noted already, rapidly adapting light-touch nerves by their very nature don't play a role.

Quote:
4. Circumcised sex has the glans to be stimulated.

5. Circumcised sex has PARTIAL functional stimulation of the existing nerves due to being covered with layers of keratinized tissue.[/b]
Disproven by 4 studies.

Quote:
And another from widely respected and revered Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides:[/b]
(deleted. When I want insight into the essential nature of Judaism or the finer points of the Torah, I'll be sure to consult him. However, when the subject is of a scientific nature, I don't see that he has anything to offer.)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
July 6th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Fascinating!

So I must presume that I have a mutant foreskin then Jake?
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #7  
July 6th, 2006, 05:06 PM
NaynayPie's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding somewhere in IL
Posts: 986
Quote:
Quote:
That circumcision decreases sexual pleasure is a charge commonly levelled against it, as sexuality is often an integral part to the human existance should the allegations levelled by the anti-circumcision movement be correct then it is certainly something worthy of taking into consideration.

I would like to start this thread off with a pair of quotes, the first from our own board's Inowno:

(removed quote markup for clarity)
1. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the ridged band.[/b]
Doubtful, since Meissner's corpuscles are rapidly adapting light-touch receptors.

Quote:
2. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the frenulum.[/b]
Comments to part 1 apply.

Quote:
3. Normal sex involves stimulation of the fine touch nerves of the normal amount of mucuosal membrane.[/b]
This is a repeat of the above.

Quote:
4. Normal sex involves stimulation of the nerves of the glans.

5 Normal sex involves FULL functional stimulation of ALL of these nerves because they are not covered over with layers of keratinized tissue.

1. Circumcised sex has no ridged band to be stimulated.[/b]
See above.

Quote:
2. Circumcised sex has no little or no frenulum left to be stimulated.[/b]
Depends upon the circumcision. And see above.

Quote:
3. Circumcised sex has LESS fine touch nerves to be stimulated.[/b]
As noted already, rapidly adapting light-touch nerves by their very nature don't play a role.

Quote:
4. Circumcised sex has the glans to be stimulated.

5. Circumcised sex has PARTIAL functional stimulation of the existing nerves due to being covered with layers of keratinized tissue.[/b]
Disproven by 4 studies.

Quote:
And another from widely respected and revered Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides:[/b]
(deleted. When I want insight into the essential nature of Judaism or the finer points of the Torah, I'll be sure to consult him. However, when the subject is of a scientific nature, I don't see that he has anything to offer.)
[/b]
So, Jake, basically what you're saying is that the human male evolved with a foreskin that is completely worthless for feeling any sort of pleasurable sensation.

Ya know, just using a bit of common sense here, but since people are animals, and animals have a strong, biological urge to propagate their species, it just stands to reason that intercourse would feel very good so that the man would have natural encouragement to continue having sex, spreading his genes, and continuing the species. And since normal males are born with a foreskin, and have been for millennia, it also makes sense that the foreskin itself would be quite capable of feeling and distinguishing pleasure. Yours may not have felt as much sensation as you would have liked, and as I've mentioned on a different thread, I have hardly any feeling in my breasts. Yet, neither you nor I can assume our situations are the normal for everyone else.

~Nay
__________________
<div align="center"><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">[b]I'm A
Natural Birthing, Delayed-Vaxing, Sleep Sharing, Baby Wearing, Tandem Breastfeeding, Cloth Diapering, Never Spanking Mama to two Beautiful, Healthy and Intact Little Babies
</div>
Reply With Quote
  #8  
July 6th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Sorry, Jake, we have covered this nonsense before and your fantasy was debunked:

When fantasies and reality collide, it is the fantasy that loses.

When I touch or rub my fingers and/or lips, I receive sensations..

---steady state touch or motion....

---light or heavy pressure....

---fast or slow motion....

both the lips AND the fingers perceive sensation...

the lips perceive sensation when stretched..

In short, sensation regardless of the type of stimuli.

FANTASY CONSTRUCT DENIED!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
July 6th, 2006, 05:34 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
So I must presume that I have a mutant foreskin then Jake?[/b]
I doubt it--it is more like you do not share his particular fantasy..

and recognise a simple piece of logic:

Lost sensory nerves = lost sensation.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
July 7th, 2006, 10:02 AM
jakew's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Fascinating!

So I must presume that I have a mutant foreskin then Jake?[/b]
I see little point in speculating about you and your foreskin, Revamp, since anything you say about it is completely unverifiable, as indeed is the question of whether you have one. This is not aimed only at you - it's true of anybody in an anonymous internet forum, myself included. Personal anecdote has little value, so let's stick to scientific facts.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
July 7th, 2006, 10:09 AM
jakew's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Ya know, just using a bit of common sense here, but since people are animals, and animals have a strong, biological urge to propagate their species, it just stands to reason that intercourse would feel very good so that the man would have natural encouragement to continue having sex, spreading his genes, and continuing the species.[/b]
So far so good.

Quote:
And since normal males are born with a foreskin, and have been for millennia, it also makes sense that the foreskin itself would be quite capable of feeling and distinguishing pleasure.[/b]
Why? Why does every part of or in close proximity to the penis have to feel pleasure? Your statement presupposes that the amount of pleasure is insufficient to encourage a man to have sex unless the foreskin is present. This isn't true of other nearby components, though. Do men rely upon pleasurable sensation from the corporeal tissue? The pelvic bone? No.

Quote:
Yours may not have felt as much sensation as you would have liked, and as I've mentioned on a different thread, I have hardly any feeling in my breasts. Yet, neither you nor I can assume our situations are the normal for everyone else.[/b]
I agree. It's far better to look at credible, scientific evidence - or the lack thereof.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
July 7th, 2006, 11:10 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the baby-cutting country
Posts: 136
Quote:
Quote:
Fascinating!

So I must presume that I have a mutant foreskin then Jake?[/b]
I see little point in speculating about you and your foreskin, Revamp, since anything you say about it is completely unverifiable, as indeed is the question of whether you have one. This is not aimed only at you - it's true of anybody in an anonymous internet forum, myself included. Personal anecdote has little value, so let's stick to scientific facts.
[/b]
But only "scientific facts" provided by circumcision advocates, right jake?. I have a problem with studies done by people like Wiswell, Schoen, and Morris, who are circumcision advocates first, scientists second.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
July 7th, 2006, 03:20 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
I see little point in speculating about you and your foreskin, Revamp, since anything you say about it is completely unverifiable, as indeed is the question of whether you have one. This is not aimed only at you - it's true of anybody in an anonymous internet forum, myself included. Personal anecdote has little value, so let's stick to scientific facts.[/b]
Yes, let's-- and here is the ONLY scientific fact about circumcision:

Lost sensory nerves = lost sensation.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
July 7th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
Why? Why does every part of or in close proximity to the penis have to feel pleasure? Your statement presupposes that the amount of pleasure is insufficient to encourage a man to have sex unless the foreskin is present. This isn't true of other nearby components, though. Do men rely upon pleasurable sensation from the corporeal tissue? The pelvic bone? No.[/b]
This is a silly point, it ain't gonna be stimulated by nothing. But thanks for the silly analogies the humor does break up the tension.

Quote:
I agree. It's far better to look at credible, scientific evidence - or the lack thereof.[/b]
Yes, it is, and as mentioned before, the ONLY concrete scientific evidence is:

Lost sensory nerves = lost sensation.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
July 7th, 2006, 03:22 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
But only "scientific facts" provided by circumcision advocates, right jake?. I have a problem with studies done by people like Wiswell, Schoen, and Morris, who are circumcision advocates first, scientists second.[/b]
I have no problems of scientific studies done by anyone, but unfortunately none of the studies done by these individuals has ever been scientifically credible--perhaps as you stated, because they are NOT scientists, they are merely circumcision advocates masquerading as scientists?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
July 10th, 2006, 10:19 AM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Quote:
Quote:
Fascinating!

So I must presume that I have a mutant foreskin then Jake?[/b]
I see little point in speculating about you and your foreskin, Revamp, since anything you say about it is completely unverifiable, as indeed is the question of whether you have one. This is not aimed only at you - it's true of anybody in an anonymous internet forum, myself included. Personal anecdote has little value, so let's stick to scientific facts.
[/b]
Uh...Jake. We are not on Wikipedia any more.

Verifitability is neccessary during the compilation of an Encyclopedia but not in a standard debate. To say my post was somehow invalid in such a fashion is effectively a euphamism for claiming that I am lying.

And if you are really concered about whether I am being honest about my alleged prepuce ownership well you only live up North and I am in London, hop on a train and come check.

You are being very silly.
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #17  
July 10th, 2006, 11:28 AM
NaynayPie's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding somewhere in IL
Posts: 986
Quote:
Why? Why does every part of or in close proximity to the penis have to feel pleasure? Your statement presupposes that the amount of pleasure is insufficient to encourage a man to have sex unless the foreskin is present. This isn't true of other nearby components, though. Do men rely upon pleasurable sensation from the corporeal tissue? The pelvic bone? No.[/b]
Oh good, more nonsense. We all know the pelvic bone is such a sexual part of the body. Let's see how nonsensical I can be. The penis hangs towards the legs. The upper leg bones are the femurs. Therefore the femurs should provide a pleasurable sensation during sex.

Logic, gotta love it!

~Nay
__________________
<div align="center"><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">[b]I'm A
Natural Birthing, Delayed-Vaxing, Sleep Sharing, Baby Wearing, Tandem Breastfeeding, Cloth Diapering, Never Spanking Mama to two Beautiful, Healthy and Intact Little Babies
</div>
Reply With Quote
  #18  
July 11th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Quote:
Oh good, more nonsense. We all know the pelvic bone is such a sexual part of the body. Let's see how nonsensical I can be. The penis hangs towards the legs. The upper leg bones are the femurs. Therefore the femurs should provide a pleasurable sensation during sex.

Logic, gotta love it!

~Nay[/b]
The foreskin is certainly more immediate what with extending off the genitals instead of being behind them...
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #19  
July 12th, 2006, 03:49 AM
jakew's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
But only "scientific facts" provided by circumcision advocates, right jake?. I have a problem with studies done by people like Wiswell, Schoen, and Morris, who are circumcision advocates first, scientists second.[/b]
You are evidently unaware of the fallacy of ad hominem, eatspam.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
July 12th, 2006, 03:51 AM
jakew's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Quote:
Why? Why does every part of or in close proximity to the penis have to feel pleasure? Your statement presupposes that the amount of pleasure is insufficient to encourage a man to have sex unless the foreskin is present. This isn't true of other nearby components, though. Do men rely upon pleasurable sensation from the corporeal tissue? The pelvic bone? No.[/b]
Oh good, more nonsense. We all know the pelvic bone is such a sexual part of the body. Let's see how nonsensical I can be. The penis hangs towards the legs. The upper leg bones are the femurs. Therefore the femurs should provide a pleasurable sensation during sex.

Logic, gotta love it!

~Nay
[/b]
Thanks, Nay. I think that between us we've established by reductio ad absurdum that location alone is not itself evidence of sexual sensitivity.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 AM.