/cuteboys/ - Boypussy

>That third picture

Dude, the hell? I'm uncut and don't have nearly enough foreskin to fit four fingers between the end and the glans. There would have to be like two inches of overhang!

is there anyone who this has actually worked for cause it sounds fake

>>367030

Then you could use some stretching yourself. Overhang is hot af and actually not too uncommon

>>367010

>because circumcision ruins everything.

¿

please explain why.

You're not restoring the skin, you're basically stretching skin and it won't recover the dead nerves and lost nerves. Specially if you have done the american cut which is to remove the Frenulum.

>>367034

Literally hundreds of documented results. http://www.foreskinrestore.com/photos.html

>>367068

True but covering the glans, like it's supposed to be, is better than nothing. Doesn't have to be with stretched skin though. Same benefits can be gotten from wearing an artificial foreskin. Just something to keep your tip protected and covered/moist, like it's supposed to be.

>>367067

are you 89iq? you are literally cutting a part of your dick off

its not healthy

t.dogtor

>>367093

But it won't change the damage done, that's the main problem. Anyhow, you do it if you must. I just feel sorry for you cut people.

>>367068

I've heard this a lot, but is there any citation for it? You're obviously growing new skin cells, why shouldn't that apply to nerve cells too?

>>367129

You can't regrow new nerve cells this is a known medical fact.

Sorry.

>>367162

Just to bring the sad news that it won't recover the most vital parts, pleasure sensitivity.

>>367167

That's hot, please post in slut thread, not in here though

>>367167

Post moar

Don't people think foreskin is kinda gross though? Some people tell me that most think it looks weird, others have told me that it looks weird to most people if you're cut.

>>368177

It's considered weird in the United States because of social conditioning.

>>368181

Not so much in the younger generations. It's about 50/50 now (Midwest needs to catch on, still too many scarred cocks up there). In fact, now most girls and bi guys want to try a foreskin too, so straight cut guys can't play the whole chicks dig it excuse anymore

>>367181

But it does work, Sven. There's a fuckton of results about it. Even if it doesn't bring things back to how they may have been but its still an improvement.

>tfw no visible results from stretching and your research isn't telling you what you're doing wrong

God damn it, why?

>>372724

One thing that always annoyed me is how little this has actually been studied. I don't trust anecdotes with how full of shit people tend to be. It's hard to tell what you're doing wrong when there's no established correct way to go about restoration.

Progress can be glacially slow, I've been tugging off and on for 5 years now and I haven't had much progress after the first 6 months. What methods/routine are you using, and how long have you been at it?

>>372752

From my own experience, I don't think much is going to happen with "off and on" stretching. I tug the hell out of my foreskin all the time; any time I shower or pee or masturbate, after cleaning it, I stretch it really hard back over the tip. After doing this for like 20 years, it's not any longer at all. Maybe if you spend several hours per day, or wear those bell-shaped devices, something will happen.

>>372769

By off and on, I mean I stick with it for a while, then lose motivation for it for extended periods of time. I only got back into it a couple months ago, after close to 3 years off.

I've tried several methods, started with manual, and got decent results from that, though it's hard to stay consistent with it. I've also tried the DTR, t-tape, and the HyperRestore. The latter is the method I'm currently using, since it's the least uncomfortable aside from manual, and I suspect inflation is the most efficient method. The skin is always super loose after taking the device off.

>>372785

If you're going to stick with manual methods, I'd recommend mixing it up. The first two pics in the OP are the manual methods I usually use. The skin that gets the most tension varies with all of them. I'd recommend looking into some device to use, though, it'd probably be easier to get into a routine with it.

As for tension, you basically want to avoid pain, but aside from that there's no consensus on what actually works the best. Personally, I try to use just a bit less than what would be uncomfortable. Usually it does start to get uncomfortable after a while, and that's the point where I'll stop for the day.

>>372776

>I suspect inflation is the most efficient method

This makes sense. It is, after all, exactly what actual doctors do when they need a patient to have a lot of extra skin before a surgical procedure that will be removing a lot of it (like removal of a large tumor). They put little balloons under the skin near the site and slowly inflate them over weeks or months causing the skin to stretch and expand. When it's done, the patient will have these big loose sacs of skin that can be cut open and pulled over the top of the wound, eliminating the need for skin grafts.

Physiologically speaking, this make sense; it's a gentle pressure for a very long amount of time (in fact: constantly). Skin cells take time to divide and increase the amount of skin, about a half-hour at least to go through mitosis, according to what I just looked up. So if you're just tugging for a few minutes, it likely won't do a damn thing.

>>372785

Well tugging too hard, enough to cause pain, will damage the cells instead of making them divide. This will have the reverse effect, producing scar tissue which contracts more and more, forever. The amount of force is probably best when it's as little as possible, for as long as possible.

Now that I think about it, it seems like the most stretching I ever got was when I pulled the foreskin up over the top of the glans and tied it off with a thin strip of fabric, and left it there for a couple hours while I was exercising or on the computer. It always seemed to leave everything extra long and floppy (and as a bonus the constant tightness and friction made me drip precum nonstop so it was all slippery and shiny, too). But I stopped after doing it a few times because I was worried about injury. The little strap was basically crushing the skin against the glans and against itself, which caused pretty severe pain for a few minutes after I removed it and the blood flow normalized (a bit like when you lie on your arm and it goes numb). I could take the pain, but didn't want to chance fucking something up and ending up with scar tissue or worse an infection. If I forgot about it or fell asleep, it might even end up with gangrene; and then in hilarious macabre irony, I'd end up needing to be circumcised.

Always wanted to try to experiment with some kind of bell-shaped device and tape, but tape on my dick just sounds like torture waiting to happen. I'd like to have a lovely inch-long overhang, but at this stage it's not that important to me. My dick works as-is, so I'd rather not damage it trying to make it better.

>>367103

>But it won't change the damage done

Shielding the glans from constant friction will increase sensitivity a shitload, nerves or not.

>>372866

>>372860

>Skin cells take time to divide and increase the amount of skin, about a half-hour at least to go through mitosis, according to what I just looked up.

This is another one of those things that I haven't seen anything conclusive about. Some people think that tension in short bursts is enough to trigger the skin to divide, and many people claim to have quick results this way.

>The amount of force is probably best when it's as little as possible, for as long as possible.

With inflation I just make sure the skin is taught, but with a bit of give. I'm not sure whether going past the minimum effective tension is productive or detrimental, but I'm also not sure what that minimum is in the first place, I'm worried if I ease up, I'll slow my progress. And I don't feel like I'm hurting myself, so nothing is really prompting me to change things up at this point.

>tape on my dick just sounds like torture waiting to happen.

Not exactly torture, but taking the tape off can be a little rough on the skin. I'd have to soak my dick in a cup of warm water or take a shower to get the tape loosened up. Devices with grippers are less taxing on the skin, but you might have to worry a bit more about circulation.

>>372866

The glans is overrated, at least with a frenulum. I always assumed that area was the most sensitive even for guys who had theirs removed. Is that not the case?

Either way, restoring, or even just retaining, will make the inner foreskin more sensitive.

>>372878

> I always assumed that area was the most sensitive even for guys who had theirs removed. Is that not the case?

That's not the case at all. my frenulum (or lack thereof) is no more sensitive than the rest of my shaft, which is to say not much. The most sensitive part of my Cock is the ridge on my glans.

>>372878

>Some people think that tension in short bursts is enough to trigger the skin to divide, and many people claim to have quick results this way.

When they say "short bursts," they're generally comparing that to people who stretch all day, or stretch 24/7 (how the hell does that even work?) In this timescale, about three hours would be a "short burst," which is why I often stretch while watching a movie.

>I always assumed [the area around the frenulum] was the most sensitive even for guys who had theirs removed.

Ehhhh, kind of? It seems to vary a lot between individuals. For the most part, most guys seem to feel the most pleasure around the frenular delta, which is a sort of triangle-shaped section where the frenulum joins with the foreskin. The glans is very very sensitive, but depending on who you ask it may not be as sensitive as the inside of the foreskin. Even if it is, it may be too sensitive for the man to find it pleasurable, kind of like how a lot of women don't like clitoral stimulation but a lot of them love it.

Someone actually did a study that I can't be bothered to find again which found that the glans is the least pleasurable part of the penis. I'm not sure that I believe that, because in most animal species the glans is what the animal feels the most drive to insert, so the logic doesn't add up, but the glans almost certainly becomes the most pleasurable part of the penis after the foreskin and frenulum have been removed.

For my part, I only ever cum when I stimulate my frenulum. When I was a kid I didn't question this, but now that I'm grown I know that most healthy men get off by stimulating the foreskin, not the shaft.

>>372880

Short bursts in my case tend to be 30-60min. Time will tell if this is sufficient with inflation, but it seems like I'm getting something out of it. When I did manual, I'd be surprised if I averaged 30min a day, and that was when I got most of my progress.

Yeah, I guess I should have used pleasurable instead. My glans is really sensitive to friction, but it's an overwhelming feeling that is not very enjoyable on its own. Trying to directly stimulate it, especially during orgasm, will basically make me spasm. The most pleasurable feelings from the glans seem to come from the corona, as well as from pressure.

At this point I'm able to masturbate by pulling the skin over the glans, which puts pressure on the glans, without friction, and stimulates the frenulum by rolling it around. In tandem they work pretty great, it's sad to hear that the glans on its own is the best that some people have.

>>372878

Never understood this "frenulum" thing. I'm uncut and it's barely more sensitive than the skin on my balls. The foreskin seems most sensitive along the inner surface of the top side just below the glans.

But there has to be a distinction made between "sensitive" and "pleasurable". It's difficult to explain. If I retract my foreskin and masturbate with lube, the whole thing ends up being extremely sensitive. It's enjoyable, but the pleasure is completely different, coming in almost-unbearable waves right from the surface; it makes me squeal and squirm, but it's almost impossible to reach orgasm this way. On the contrary, if I masturbate normally just by rubbing the foreskin over the glans without actually touching the inner surface or the glans directly, there isn't any of that intense stimulation. It's less sensitive, but more pleasurable, and the pleasure comes from deeper "inside" my penis, if that makes sense. It's also very quick and easy to reach orgasm.

Interestingly enough, during sex or when using a penetrable toy, I get elements of both. The forward part of each stroke results in direct and intense stimulation of the sensitive parts as the foreskin retracts, while the backward part results in the deeper pleasure as it rolls back over the glans. Because of this, I thrust kinda in "reverse", pushing in slowly and then pulling out quickly.

There's also a third element of this whole fucking complicated mess, though: "intensity". That's separate from both sensitivity and pleasure, and largely seems to be a measure of how much stimulation it takes to reach orgasm. Rubbing or thrusting faster increases the intensity over time, while being horny or having not cum for a long time starts me off with more intensity, and having something in my ass increases it to overdrive. Having a high measure of this is what is required to trigger orgasm; without it I can masturbate for literally hours without orgasm, as it usually won't happen on its own.

After something like 25 years of masturbating, I've still yet to figure out how the hell this even works. Then again, really nobody does. Ask a neurologist how orgasms work: "Uh, I dunno, you rub some arbitrary part of the body and it makes you cum. Leave me alone, I'm trying to figure out how anesthetics work."

>>372878

>I always assumed that area was the most sensitive even for guys who had theirs removed. Is that not the case?

It is the case. It's literally the only part of my dick that is capable of feeling good. What does this have to do with increasing sensitivity to it?

I just realized the "glans" is meant to be the head itself. I'm talking about whatever the spot on the underside of your dick, just past the head is called.

>>372941

>Never understood this "frenulum" thing. I'm uncut and it's barely more sensitive than the skin on my balls.

Well, seems like there is quite a bit of variation.

>It's less sensitive, but more pleasurable, and the pleasure comes from deeper "inside" my penis, if that makes sense.

Yeah, even before I started restoring, this was my experience with using lube vs. just moving the shaft skin up and down. The latter tends to lead to better orgasms, and gives me more control over when I cum.

>>372949

>I'm talking about whatever the spot on the underside of your dick, just past the head is called.

That's where the frenular delta is/was.

Tried going a little gentler than usual today as >>372860 suggested, I think I did about an hour. Has anyone else noticed that after you've been stretching for a bit and your dick is a bit moist the excess skin kind of rolls up and down easier almost like a foreskin, or am I crazy on that one?

>>367093

Its worse than nothing. You're figuratively getting a comb-over for your dick. No matter what you do you can't unmutilate your dick

>>373000

So because you can't have 100%, you shouldn't even bother to improve upon what you have? You're being defeatist and not thinking rationally.

I prefer cut, you shouldn't try and make people feel bad about something they couldn't control, it's nothing but being a cunt.

>>373046

Of course, because as we all know when you're in the middle of a humanitarian crisis and peoples' genitals are being mutilated every day what you should do is not try to fix it or show comraderie to the victims, because the victims will feel like something bad happened to them. What you should do instead is pretend that you prefer living in a humanitarian crisis where peoples' genitals are being mutilated every day.

Hey, you know what else is being a cunt? Having your genitals mutilated, trying to get over it using what support groups you can find online, and then having someone pimp in and tell you that you should be happy you were mutilated so as not to offend the kikes and camel-fuckers. Dickhead.

>>373046

Having one preference or another shouldn't be clouding your ability to look at this objectively, your preference isn't really relevant to this discussion at all.

Sometimes the truth is painful, but it's still important, it's not an act of malice to share it. Information gives people a more informed view of the world, unsurprisingly, and your worldview informs your decisions. For a lot of people, one of those decisions is whether or not to mutilate your child's genitals.

Sure, informing people of their own shitty situation might lead them to feel shitty about it, but if people didn't feel shitty about genital mutilation, they'd be more inclined to perpetuate it. This isn't a situation that I'd wish upon anyone, but the root cause of it isn't being informed about mutilation, it's being mutilated in the first place.

>>373046

>I prefer cut

If everyone like you were to die right now, the world would be a better place. By your logic, we shouldn't be doing anything to remove landmines that blow people's legs off, because those people couldn't control what happened to them and we don't want to make them feel bad.

>>373049

Much like the value in a person's virginity and many other things that are considered terrible, whether or not it happened it's only truly bad if people treat it like a bad thing. Your comparison is absurd.

>>373056

Rather than make it look like a witch hunt, why not petition for doctors to improve their training so that a person can have the best of both worlds? I'm cut, but I was born in a very expensive hospital to a very good doctor who didn't butcher me. When you've got the best of both it DOES become about preference.

>>373072

You're making everyone else, as well as your goal in this thread, look bad.

>>373084

>Rather than make it look like a witch hunt

I'm confused, how am I making this look like a witch hunt? It sounds like you just want me to not express a dissenting opinion towards genital mutilation.

>why not petition for doctors to improve their training so that a person can have the best of both worlds?

Because I don't want them to be mutilating infants at all, there is no compromise, or "best of both worlds", to be had here, either the most sensitive part of your dick is cut off, or it isn't.

>I'm cut, but I was born in a very expensive hospital to a very good doctor who didn't butcher me.

Butchering is intrinsic to circumcision. Maybe yours is less bad than some, but there's no neutral or positive side to this.

>it DOES become about preference.

No, it's about consent. Cutting someone's genitals without their consent, with no medical necessity, is NEVER okay. It only becomes about preference once you're at the age where you can make this decision for yourself. If you really want your foreskin gone at that point, then have at it, but it's important that this choice is left to the individual, and not forced upon them.

>>373084

We've tried being civil with people like you. Nothing has worked. If making you feel bad about yourself, is pounding into your head over and over again that your dick is inferior and damaged, until you finally get it, is what it takes for you to not mutilate your own sons, so be it.

I don't blame you for what's wrong with your dick; I blame you for what's wrong with your mind. You were, for all intents and purposes, raped as a baby and I can't fault you for that. What I can, and will fault you for, is for somehow getting to adulthood believing because of this that raping other babies is okay. If you ever have a son, you'll most likely have him circumcised, too. Even if you tell me right now that you won't, when the time comes and the doctor tells you to do it, you'll do it. Why? Because you're willfully, purposefully stupid.

This isn't an "witch hunt"; this is a goddamned humanitarian crisis, with the sanctity, health, and legal bodily rights of MILLIONS of babies yet to be born at stake. This is a cycle of abuse we're trying desperately to put an end to. And for 50 fucking years, we've been fighting people like you.

Every single time we put out more evidence, you find a way to pretend as if it doesn't matter. You claim it's better, and we prove that's bullshit. You claim there are health benefits, and we prove that's bullshit. You claim it's for the benefit of society, and we prove that's bullshit. You claim it looks better, and we prove that's bullshit. You claim it doesn't matter either way, and we prove that's bullshit. You claim that we shouldn't make an issue about it because it hurts your feelings, and TO HELL WITH YOUR FEELINGS! This is something a LOT more important than just your fucking feelings. There's a whole world out there beyond just YOUR dick.

If I could banish circumcision for eternity just by making a few people cry over their objectively inferior cocks, you better believe I would do it. So tell me: how many fingers can you cut off someone's hand where it becomes a "best of both worlds" between having a complete hand and having no hand at all? Does gouging out one eye produce a "best of both worlds" between having vision and being blind? Can you name ANY OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE where normal, healthy, functioning tissue is cut off and it makes that part of the body work better?

After you stumble over this for a little while, ask yourself this final question: how much money did the doctor who advised your parents to have you cut make out of the deal?

>>373090

Your buddy below you is the one making it look like a witch hunt, unfortunately I was talking in great generalizations like he's still doing and I can admit that's retarded of me. Thing is, I'm not saying it isn't wrong to take something needlessly from someone who can't consent, but rather that some people are too stubborn to accept that there is such thing as a middle-ground on this and regardless, whether or not something is better or worse for any reason a person can still have a preference for what they want. It's perfectly fine to feel insulted that I think uncut dicks are really, really gross just like I'm insulted that my preference makes people assume my stance heavily and put words in my mouth.

>>373115

What exactly is the middle ground on this then? Either cutting children's genitals is okay, or it isn't. I still think your preference is largely irrelevant to the discussion, I'm not particularly offended by what you personally get off to. It's separate from whether or not you condemn non-consensual cutting, and on that subject, you seem to have contradicted yourself:

>I'm not saying it isn't wrong to take something needlessly from someone who can't consent

>why not petition for doctors to improve their training so that a person can have the best of both worlds?

So which is it?

>>373093 is being more outwardly emotional than I am, but he's still totally right. I think you need to gain a little bit of perspective here, not everyone feels indifferent or positive towards the fact that they were mutilated. I've been dealing with this trauma for the past 5 years and it's not easy. Not a day goes by where I'm not confronted with it, because it's attached to me.

There's nothing to be gained from being cut as a child. I've never heard of a single story where someone was left dealing with lasting trauma or depression from being left intact.

Let's all keep in mind that protesting against infant circumcision isn't necessarily also restricting adult circumcision. If for whatever reason you want to have it off then as far as I'm concerned you have a right to be cut, but let's not pretend that makes it even slightly okay to inflict circumcision on children.

>>367103

A large amount of the sensitivity lost is from the skin of the glans hardening and drying out due to exposure, while you can not get the nerves back from the foreskin, merely keeping the glans moist and soft greatly increases sensitive on it's own. It also helps reduce friction during sex which is a cause of discomfort for many.

>>372941

>Ask a neurologist how orgasms work: "Uh, I dunno, you rub some arbitrary part of the body and it makes you cum. Leave me alone, I'm trying to figure out how anesthetics work."

This isn't the case at all, we already understand how an orgasm is triggered and just by running a electric current through a nerve near the base of the spine, you can make even a brain dead person orgasm. As far as how to stimulate said nerve cluster, the huge amount of sensation derived from merely touching nerves on the genital area can helps to trigger that response, it's also possible, but more difficult, to orgasm in other ways such as pure mental stimulation, though this applies to women more then men. Have a video describing some interesting things about orgasm.

>>373185

Fuck forgot the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jx0dTYUO5E

>>373126

>I've never heard of a single story where someone was left dealing with lasting trauma or depression from being left intact.

I was the only uncut kid on my block. I didn't know what it meant, and neither did any of my friends. I was very self-conscious about my body (which was otherwise perfectly ordinary) as a result. Decades later I still clearly recall my best friend saying, "you have a weird wiener."

Not that I was traumatized or anything… but it did affect the way I interacteded with other kids.

I've never met a circumcised boy who seemed depressed or traumatized by it. I've never met a circumcised guy who didn't enjoy sex or masturbating. I think you grow up with the body you have and it only becomes an issue if you get obsessed with other people's bodies and stop appreciating what you have.

I wouldn't have my son circumcised if the issue came up… but I think it's a far less important issue than saving for college or getting him vaccinated or teaching him good social skills.

>>373235

>I was the only uncut kid on my block. I didn't know what it meant, and neither did any of my friends. I was very self-conscious about my body (which was otherwise perfectly ordinary) as a result.

This could be chalked up to a lack of education on the subject. Even most adults have no fucking clue about any of this. Not trying to downplay the issues you had with growing up intact, but I think it's less serious than the issue of cutting children. And the quicker we change this fucked up practice, the less kids there will be who feel self-conscious for having their entire dick.

>I've never met a circumcised boy who seemed depressed or traumatized by it.

Well, there are several guys in this thread who'd probably qualify. This isn't something you're all that likely to see IRL. For one, people are seriously ignorant, as mentioned above, but guys who are struggling with this aren't necessarily going to share it with anyone out of fear of being stigmatized, and an even smaller portion of those who would share it with anyone, are going to take it to the level of activism and sharing it with anyone possible.

>I've never met a circumcised guy who didn't enjoy sex or masturbating.

This wasn't my claim, and it doesn't excuse circumcision. Realizing what was done to me has still been a detriment to enjoying my dick. I can feel the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics as I try to reconcile pleasure with the sense of loss and violation I feel. Sometimes orgasms will just be ruined because I just spend them thinking about how it could be better.

>I think you grow up with the body you have and it only becomes an issue if you get obsessed with other people's bodies and stop appreciating what you have.

I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with other people's bodies (at least not in the way you are talking about), and it's not that I don't try or want to appreciate what I have. It sounds like you're just trying to blame this on me of getting hung up over trivial and superficial issues, but it's much deeper than that.

>I wouldn't have my son circumcised if the issue came up…

It's good that you don't have that intention, but it's important to know exactly what you'd be putting him through if you had him cut, so you'd have the determination to stand up to pressure from doctors. For all I know though you have no intention of having kids, but if you do, I would suggest watching a video of a circumcision. It's absolutely horrible (I feel like I'd have a panic attack if I ever had to witness anything like that again), but I bet you'd have a stronger stance on genital mutilation afterwards.

>>373238

Yeah, I've seen them done before and all my friends with kids had it done to theirs, "because it's weird not to" basically. Oddly it's usually the mom that pressures the dad into it. I guess because he feels like he came out alright and she likes the way his dick looks and doesn't want her baby consorting with a freaky foreskin loving woman some day.

US culture is just one way of looking at it. In many cultures it's a coming-of-age ritual and if you don't get your foreskin hacked off with a bamboo splint or a stone knife you're a pussy who will never be able to provide for your family or defend your territory. A politician from Australia once came under a lot of criticism for allowing his son to voluntarily participate in a native circumcision ritual. People get it done for religious reasons, and they also live in conflict because they can't stomach the thought and hope God will overlook that one little detail. You just can't win.

The thing that most fascinates me about the circumcision debate is we really can never know, because it is impossible for any one of us to grow up with AND without being circumcised. We can only imagine what it might have been like the other way around.

Kids have had severe complications from phimosis/paraphimosis that resulted in amputations or permanent nerve damage because some ignorant babysitter didn't know you have to "close the hood after changing the filter" on a baby. They might have exactly the opposite opinion to yours if you asked them whether circumcision is OK.

The most important thing is to not hate or blame your parents for doing their best to give you the best future possible, given the information available to them at the time.

>>373240

>We can only imagine what it might have been like the other way around.

Yeah, that's another thing that regularly haunts me. Anyway, the debate can be had even if the question of sensation is disregarded. It's just not okay to deprive someone of their own bodily autonomy in this way.

>Kids have had severe complications from phimosis/paraphimosis that resulted in amputations or permanent nerve damage because some ignorant babysitter didn't know you have to "close the hood after changing the filter" on a baby.

You're not even supposed to forcibly retract the foreskin like that. You're supposed to leave it alone until it can retract on its own. Unfortunately this is another consequence of widespread ignorance. Phimosis can actually be caused by forcible retraction like this, because it forms scar tissue that doesn't have the same elasticity.

>The most important thing is to not hate or blame your parents for doing their best to give you the best future possible, given the information available to them at the time.

Good intentions aren't enough to excuse this, the result is the same regardless of intent. This is actually a pretty frequent point of contention in the restoration/intactivist community. I don't hold people's emotions against them, anger is an understandable response. While I don't hate my parents, they (and the doctors and the society that pushed circumcision on them) still fucked me up, the blame is still partially on them because they didn't have to put me through this.

>>373243

You're right… but also paraphimosis can occur naturally and even parents who make the conscious decision not to circumcise can be unaware of this. And no, that doesn't excuse it I know.

I have a friend whose mom was addicted to crack while he was in middle school all the way up to college, and ultimately he had to drop out to take care of his little brother. She fucked his life up. I had a friend growing up who had crazy wacko religious parents, he ended up addicted to drugs and hospitalized. They fucked his life up. Another friend of mine was always black and blue in school because his dad got drunk and beat the fuck out of him and his mom every night. He fucked his life up.

I have lots and lots of friends who I know are circumcised, and surely many more I've never had the occasion to discuss penis geometry with.. and they don't consider their lives fucked up.

In the absence of atrocity, the greatest inconvenience does not need to be treated as an atrocity.

Little girls get their ears pierced when they're two years old but nobody ever calls that child abuse because everyone agrees earrings look pretty.

Don't get me wrong, I think circumcision is stupid and medically unnecessary, and I think I'm incredibly lucky that my parents decided not to do what 99.9% of parents in my community were doing at the time. But you also shouldn't give little boys the impression that their bodies were mutilated and that someone abused them when they had no means to defend themselves. I think there's gotta be a happy medium here. Having a healthy sexual relationship and self image goes far deeper than the tactile sensation in your genitals.

>>367181

Normally yes. However, as the skin grows, nerve cells do grow with the skin. Not all neural cells are the same, and nerve damage is especially hard to heal, but, neurons in the dermis and epidermis are not exactly the same as the neurons in the spinal chord and brain. The reason that this happens is because of the g0 process in cell division. Instead of progressing normally from g1 to g2, it enter g1 -> g0. There have been studies about how this occurs, and ways to undo it. It's not entirely understood right now, and, for the most part, it is fair to say nerves don't regrow or heal, but, it's not always the case.

They can grow with the skin. This happens across the stomach. The skin on the stomach of a person with a 30 inch waist will be just as sensitive if the person overeats and it goes to a 40 inch waist, because as his waist grows, his body will grow more nerves. The body does this by stimulating g0 cells in such a way that they exit g0 and then proceed to g2. It's not 100% understood how the body does this exactly, but it is done. It must be as it is the only explanation currently for this phenomenon. It's not understood why the body can do this with nerve ending neurons but not the neurons in the spinal chord or brain. With foreskin restoration it is essentially the same Idea. Though, the original 10,000 lost do not all regrow. Only a fraction will, but, that fraction of 10k may be slightly better than none of the 10k.

>>373249

I'm not here to turn this into a pissing match about suffering, and I don't appreciate your trying to trivialize what I'm going through. It's more than just an inconvenience. Sure, I can think of countless situations I could be in that would be worse, but how is that supposed to be any comfort? It doesn't change the reality of what I'm dealing with.

>Little girls get their ears pierced when they're two years old but nobody ever calls that child abuse because everyone agrees earrings look pretty.

Are you seriously trying to equate the two? One is the permanent removal of erogenous tissue with lifelong consequences, the other is basically just a minor puncture wound with minimal risk, which can heal quickly if desired, leaving little to no trace.

>But you also shouldn't give little boys the impression that their bodies were mutilated and that someone abused them when they had no means to defend themselves.

I'm not advocating that we do this, I think the information should be out there so that adults can make their own decision, and hopefully to educate them enough to where they won't continue to perpetuate this abuse.

>I think there's gotta be a happy medium here. Having a healthy sexual relationship and self image goes far deeper than the tactile sensation in your genitals.

Yeah, it's not just about sensation. Missing part of my genitals is, on its own, incredibly distressing. It feels like my dick is not completely my own anymore, because someone else took control of me and irreversibly damaged it.

Foreskin restoration is my way of feeling productive about this, improving my sensitivity, and improving my self-image by reducing the disparity between my actual body and the body that I would have had, had I not been mutilated.

I don't expect you to truly understand this, since you haven't been through it, but hopefully this is enough for you to understand that this isn't some trivial inconvenience.

>>373253

My understanding of neuroscience is really limited, but I'm pretty sure the grown tissue will be innervated by the same types of neurons that innervated the source tissue. This would mean you can't regain anything that existed solely in what was cut off, but the remaining inner foreskin will still grow more neurons, as will the shaft skin (which, to my knowledge, is still sensitive to movement, like what the gliding action provides).

I'm not sure what these new neurons will do for sensation, but the protection provided to the glans and inner foreskin, along with the gliding action, are enough on their own to justify restoration.

>>373257

I really do get it. I realize that everyone has to deal with their own struggles, and that what is important to one person may not have the same impact on the life of another. I would certainly not want to diminish something that means a lot to you. I'm certainly not even coming close to trying to marginalize your experience.

But at the same time I think you are choosing to look at yourself as mutilated and inferior when in fact you're just the same way most men in the civilized world are, and you not only do yourself a disservice by labeling yourself as damaged goods, by proselytizing about it online you also risk negatively affecting the self-image of younger guys out there who until reading stuff like this know only the body they've lived with for as long as they can remember.

To say I'll never understand it because I haven't experienced it is just as silly as me saying you'll never understand my point of view because you have. That's what language and communication are for.

There are support groups for people who struggle with body issues; amputees, polio victims, whatever… the fact that this happened to you as an infant doesn't change anything. The world didn't do this to you out of malice, and the answer is not to go on a revenge crusade and make everyone else feel miserable about what happened. Like you said, people need to be educated about it.

I've seen lots of boys who are consumed with anger and depression over this exact thing, and who lash out at their parents and develop cripplingly negative emotions and self-esteem problems over this, and IMO they (and you) need to realize that understanding is needed on both sides.

Ear piercings can have complications too, leading to permanent scarring in an area that everyone sees everywhere you go. And if you haven't noticed, there are billions of people on this planet who feel exactly the same way about circumcision as you do about piercing.. it's just an insignificant little flap of skin that serves no useful purpose and can even be used to regrow graft tissue and give life to multiple burn victims.

Again, you're right.. this isn't the place to point fingers and accuse each other of not caring. I already told you I really like my body and am grateful to my parents for leaving it alone but I am pretty sure I'd have been grateful to them either way, and what bums me out here is not that you got mutilated, but that that's the way you feel about it.

>>373268

>I realize that everyone has to deal with their own struggles, and that what is important to one person may not have the same impact on the life of another. I would certainly not want to diminish something that means a lot to you.

Then I'm confused as to why you saw it fit to essentially tell me "it could be worse", point out how most everyone else is okay with being cut (which I inferred to mean that I should too), and then compare it to ear piercings. All of that seems to point to misunderstanding. And you're right, this is what communication is for, which is why I'm trying my best to convey my experience to you.

>But at the same time I think you are choosing to look at yourself as mutilated and inferior when in fact you're just the same way most men in the civilized world are

The US, Canada, and South Korea are really the only first-world countries that have a widespread prevalence of circumcision. Knowing that pretty much every guy around me is cut is more depressing than comforting, anyway.

Also, can we dispel this notion that people choose how they feel? You can take action to try to affect your mindset, but ultimately it's all a product of what you experience. You're basically doing the equivalent of telling a depressed person to just cheer up.

This isn't merely a matter of perspective either, there are objective facts on the matter, and regardless of whether I describe it as mutilation, I still know what was done.

>by proselytizing about it online you also risk negatively affecting the self-image of younger guys out there who until reading stuff like this know only the body they've lived with for as long as they can remember.

I'll reiterate what I said in >>373056. The truth is important, it gives people a more informed view of the world, and ignorance is one huge factor in the perpetuation of genital mutilation. If people didn't see it negatively, they'd be more inclined to cut their own sons, who might just end up in the same position as I am, and deal with trauma over it, or worse. Maybe they'd lose their whole dick, or have some other horrific complication.

If letting some people continue living in blissful ignorance perpetuates genital mutilation as a consequence, then fuck that.

>The world didn't do this to you out of malice, and the answer is not to go on a revenge crusade and make everyone else feel miserable about what happened.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I never claimed this was done out of malice, I understand that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is also far from some revenge crusade. My intention is to educate and share my own experience. I am passionate about this, but other than that I'm just participating in this discussion and bringing my own opinion to the table, the same freedom that you and everyone else here has. I didn't even really intend to get into a conversation like this, my first post here was specifically about restoration.

>Ear piercings can have complications too, leading to permanent scarring in an area that everyone sees everywhere you go. And if you haven't noticed, there are billions of people on this planet who feel exactly the same way about circumcision as you do about piercing.. it's just an insignificant little flap of skin that serves no useful purpose and can even be used to regrow graft tissue and give life to multiple burn victims.

I'm not sure what your point is. Surely you're not still trying to equate the two? I think forcing piercings on children is dumb as well, but the two are not comparable in their severity.

>what bums me out here is not that you got mutilated, but that that's the way you feel about it.

And there's some more marginalizing: "being cut isn't the problem, your viewpoint is". I can't just tell myself that everything is okay in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary, and with all the constant reminders every time I masturbate or have to go to the bathroom.

>>373268

>I've seen lots of boys who are consumed with anger and depression over this exact thing, and who lash out at their parents and develop cripplingly negative emotions and self-esteem problems over this, and IMO they (and you) need to realize that understanding is needed on both sides.

I agree that people suffering from symptoms of severe trauma such as denial, anger, depression, and isolation need understanding. Maybe we should take some time to understand why they're exhibiting those symptoms and maybe consider not taking their body parts away without their consent. And maybe while we're doing that we can get the medical community to develop an understanding of what the foreskin is and that you shouldn't be telling everyone to cut it off and cut off their son's too.

See the thing is I think you understand this, and that's why you're trying so hard to shut everyone else up. You KNOW this is true, but it's hard for you to deal with because of how disturbing it is to know that you live in a world where the thing I just said is a highly controversial and even detestable opinion to voice.

>it's just an insignificant little flap of skin that serves no useful purpose and can even be used to regrow graft tissue and give life to multiple burn victims.

And this is where you pissed me off. No part of my body is insignificant, and even if it was you can not have it for any reason. The foreskin protects the penis against abrasion and infections, lubricates the penis for intercourse, and gives men sexual pleasure. But no, someone got a burn somewhere and instead of getting a skin graft from an adult with plenty of skin to spare we're going to cut half of the skin off of a baby's dick, traumatizing him for life, and perform complicated procedures to stretch it out to the correct size for a burn. Fucking brilliant, that is. Hey maybe we should consider doing this to little girls too, because it's not like labias have any fucking function! They're completely unnecessary flaps of skin, after all.

And before you get mad at me for pulling the gender flip on you, now would be a brilliant time to remind you that YOUR government, YOUR medical professionals, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of your citizens are being told that cutting girls is bad and cutting boys is good because lah de dah it's just true no need to do research to verify this, let's fire anyone who does any studies on this subject because it will hurt peoples' precious fucking feelings. Fuck you and get the fuck off my chan until you've done some research, you remorseless sociopath.

>>373235

>I was the only uncut kid on my block

That's a false trauma caused by a variation of "survivor guilt", though. It's like saying that growing up in a neighborhood where everyone is abused by their parents, but you are not, leads to them resenting you and you feeling bad about being the odd one out; and then concluding that clearly everyone should be beating up their children in the name of "equality", because some kids are abused. Instead, maybe we should not have any children being abused? Crazy thought, I know.

I've never met a retarded person who was depressed, either. In fact, Down's kids are some of the happiest people on the planet! Have you ever seen them? Always giggling and prancing like the world is made of candy and rainbows; you can't help but envy this. They just don't know that they're impaired, so it cannot bother them. Even if you tell them, they can't understand it. Sounds familiar? It's basically the same thing.

The big point is: there is no benefit to circumcision that is large enough to justify doing it. I came up with the perfect analogy to this the other day. It's often said that circumcision should be done because it lowers the risk of contracting HIV by about 40%; another number to add to this is that the likelihood of ever contracting HIV in the USA is about 1%.

So here's a thought. The lifetime chance of contracting testicular cancer is about 0.4%; so not exactly comparable, but still very significant. Thing is, a man can survive just fine with a single testicle; he'll still produce enough testosterone, and will still be fertile enough to father children. So why don't we just remove one testicle from every baby born? Instantly half the chance of ever developing testicular cancer! (Just flip a coin as to whether to remove right or left side; it doesn't matter which.) This is a guaranteed benefit of reducing the chance of disease, at no risk. Best yet, it's a simple surgical procedure that can be done quickly and under local anesthesia, with little chance of complications, so the infant won't be at risk. Really, it's just an aesthetic concern.

Unless you can stand there and tell me that you will definitely have one of your baby's testicles removed at birth, you have no business removing his foreskin, either.

Note: you cannot have one of your baby's testicles removed without a medical reason. It's illegal. Funny how that works.

>>367068

The holocaust didn't happen but i wish it had.

>>373539

Wouldn't have changed anything. Capitalism took circumcision from the Jews and made it their own.

>>373284

>And this is where you pissed me off.

I feel like this happens a lot tho.. like you really just want one more enemy to rage at about your plight. I -agree- with you that circumcision is stupid and unnecessary, and I feel bad you had this happen to you when you were helpless to defend against it. I get it.

But I feel worse that you've never been equipped to cope with it.. to face the tragedy of your circumstances… "get over it," basically. No amount of anger or revenge is going to grow your foreskin back.

I just offered a single little anecdotal from my own life, in response to your comment that you've never heard of a single story where someone was left dealing with lasting trauma or depression from being left intact. I even qualified it by saying it didn't ruin my life. You have so little interest in what other people think that you took it upon yourself to make me the villain.

I said I wouldn't have my kid circumcised and you came back at me like I was just saying that arbitrarily and didn't really mean it. That I should all but feel the pain myself or watch some gory video before I can really understand why I should make the decision I already made. When someone's on your side of the argument you don't have to push them harder in that direction.

If I lost my foreskin today to melanoma or herpes or something, I'd deal with it. I've dealt with a lot of shit way worse than being circumcised over my lifetime. So have many other people.

You can educate and inform people about important things without being an argumentative bitter shit in the process. You don't have to put shit on the internet that makes little boys feel like they're disfigured or ugly to get your point across. That's all I'm saying.

Whatever it takes.. stem cells, transplants, counseling, stretching, drugs.. I do sincerely hope that you can get to a better place, because, and I really do mean this… hanging onto anger is going to make your whole life truly, honestly suck… a lot more than not having a foreskin ever did for anyone.

Anyone who's ever asked me, I've given the same opinion. I love my dick and I wouldn't recommend anyone cut their baby's up to conform to a stupid cultural norm… even considering the difficulties it caused me as a child. That's good enough for me. It should be for you too.

Good luck, dude. For real.

>>373713

This is why people like you scare me so much. I explained to you in detail why the thing you said was sociopathic, and why it's a horrible thing to say to anyone, and you're still talking like I'm the crazy one for getting angry at you. Because you can't admit your own faults. It can't be that you said something that would provoke anger in anyone if you were talking about any other part of the body, I have to be overreacting, because it's just part of the penis. Why would anyone react with anger toward such callous disregard toward the penis?

The reason why people get angry when you talk about victims of war who have had their limbs blown off in a tone like you just used on us is that it's a horrible thing that no one wants to see. The reason why you don't have a problem with it is that the medical industry and the church have done everything they can to hide the horror of circumcision, so that no one can see the suffering they sow. That's why I told you to look at a video and listen to them screaming. You won't understand unless you know how much it hurts inside. And it's impossible to deal with because every day I get people going "oh my god why are you making such a big deal about not blowing peoples' limbs off in war!? Look at all of these veterans, they're doing fine! They obviously didn't need those legs!"

I'm done negotiating. I'm taking all of the ugly shit you say and showing you how disgusting it makes you look, because it's the only way to make you understand. You don't care how others are hurting, you just care about how you look, and that's why you come on this thread and just posture with empty words.

>>373713

The guy you're responding to in this post isn't me, the guy you were having a discussion with in >>373273 and earlier.

I think you and I are mostly on the same page, we agree circumcision is wrong, I just don't agree with you continuously comparing my suffering to others', implying that I shouldn't feel bad because things could be much worse. It's these attempts to diminish the severity of our suffering that is the main point of contention here.

You seem to be having trouble empathizing here, you aren't seeing this from the perspective of someone who is cut and feels hurt/violated because of it. It's easy to see the logical solution of moving past trauma, but surely you understand that logic is not the only driver of experiences and decisions, emotions are a factor and it's not easy to look past them, especially when they're this intense and consuming.

I wouldn't even say that I'm acting illogically here, I'm restoring because it gives me somewhere to direct this mental energy, it improves my sense of ownership over my own body, and it enhances sexual pleasure. It could also spare me from sexual dysfunction when I'm older. There is still some trauma to work through, but it's not as simple as just snapping my fingers and seeing the whole situation as okay, just because things aren't worse.

>>373713

I've had a thought which has slightly but not entirely changed my position on you.

You live in a culture where being seen to have a specific body part is considered gross. Repulsive, even. Not even kinky, just disgusting. I'm guessing that what you've said in this thread is your way of compartmentalizing your problem. "Hey, you guys should be happy that you're at least considered normal!"

That reaction is unhealthy. You were born with a part of your body that you were supposed to have. Please don't let the people who put you down for that get to you. You're worth more than that. The people you should be mad at are the people who think the natural body of a man is gross. Not the chauvinist pigs you've been trained on instinct to think are misogynists, but the people who think every newborn baby needs surgery to not be gross. Those people are deserving of your ire, not us.

>>373773

It is absolutely no comfort to me that some anonymous person on the internet feels more or less respect for me, or sympathy, or anything.

And you kind of illustrate my point by saying it's ok, I just live in a backwards ignorant society and don't know better. This other guy lives in the same society and he just doesn't get that he's normal. That's not debate, it's just being a dick.

Some asshole on the internet said nobody ever got hurt from not being circumcised. I, having been affected by it, chimed in with my opinion. You're not going to explain away the body shame I felt through my entire childhood any more easily than I'm going to convince someone that "it's normal, get over it."

Did you ever stop to think that if circumcision wasn't an issue, my dick wouldn't have been weird-looking when I was a kid and both of our problems never would have happened? Did you ever consider that guys who aren't circumcised might be emotionally banged up when a girl dumps them over their gross-looking penis and might be in support of eliminating it?

All I'm saying is, maybe we do live on the cusp of a societal epiphany, like when women were allowed to vote or when blacks were given human rights. But you don't need to make kids feel like their bodies are mutilated to get your point across. You don't have to feel hatred toward your parents to positively educate future generations. In fact both of those are detrimental to the goal.

1: guys who weren't circumcised don't have everything just peachy, and

2: spreading hate and anger isn't the best way to help society get over this ignorance.

>>373777

>Some asshole on the internet said nobody ever got hurt from not being circumcised. I, having been affected by it, chimed in with my opinion.

Oh, so I'm an asshole for having a civil and respectful discussion with you? I said I've never heard of anyone with lasting trauma from being left intact. The fact that you were self-conscious for being different doesn't do anything to refute my argument that the potential consequences of being cut are way, way worse.

>But you don't need to make kids feel like their bodies are mutilated to get your point across. You don't have to feel hatred toward your parents to positively educate future generations.

These accusations aren't going to gain any validity through repetition. I never advocated that we make kids feel like their bodies are mutilated. I never showed anger towards my parents and I've ready told you that I'm not angry at them. I'm not sure why you're continuing to assert this bullshit.

>guys who weren't circumcised don't have everything just peachy

This was never my point? Thanks for misconstruing my stance even further.

Anyway, I don't think I really have anything to gain from continuing this with you, especially if you're going to continue to be so dishonest.

>>373777

I think you've proven my point. For the record I said what I did not out of respect but because understanding the parameters of your problem is the first step in the healing process, and healing is very much my goal. For the record I never advocated feeling anger toward one's parents for something they couldn't have known not to do. The fact that you seem to be leaning on that point is rather telling.

My advice is to educate people who make you feel bad about your body, instead of lecturing us. Those of the people who need to learn understanding, not me. And frankly if anyone has ever rejected you for not being cut then they are most certainly not worth your time or emotional investment. The emotional toil produced by the knowledge that you've been mutilated is pretty small fish compared to the fact that mutilation occurs principally because parents don't want their child to go through what you did. I got over my problem. Now it's your turn.

>>373859

>The fact that you seem to be leaning on that point is rather telling.

I was referring to "I've been dealing with this trauma for the past 5 years and it's not easy. Not a day goes by where I'm not confronted with it, because it's attached to me."

Maybe this is that person's life crusade.. the thing that he will not rest until the world sees it for what it is. That's cool if that's what gets you out of bed in the morning, but

>You're basically doing the equivalent of telling a depressed person to just cheer up.

is concerning to me. It doesn't work like that. If your circumcision is causing your depression, then treat the depression. Don't let it eat your soul away and think that once you get your foreskin fixed the clouds will part and everything will be great. People think that about money problems, unemployment, loneliness, baldness, all kinds of things.

And if you're not depressed, quit acting like a depressed person and start doing proactive, positive shit. Make a youtube video. Form a kickstarter campaign or write a journal for the Lancet. Stop focusing on the end of your dick and turn your energy toward the societal change you want. Life is only so long.

Depression is an emotional disorder. Circumcision is having your foreskin cut off. Depression and trauma can be related but they're not the same thing. Abused kids don't get all better as soon as you put them in a good foster home.

>if anyone has ever rejected you for not being cut then they are most certainly not worth your time or emotional investment

Does that also go for rejecting my viewpoints and opinions because I'm uncut? Like

>I'm guessing that what you've said in this thread is your way of compartmentalizing your problem.

>It's good that you don't have that intention, but it's important to know exactly..

>>373872

>Depression is an emotional disorder. Circumcision is having your foreskin cut off. Depression and trauma can be related but they're not the same thing. Abused kids don't get all better as soon as you put them in a good foster home.

Excellent point. As I said before, I support victims of trauma getting the help they need, no matter how harsh that help needs to be.

>Does that also go for rejecting my viewpoints and opinions because I'm uncut? Like

I'm not rejecting your opinions because you're uncut, I'm rejecting them because they have no merit. Simply choosing to keep people blind to the fact that they have suffered a trauma will exacerbate the problem, not solve it, and your continuing to try to make us the bad guys is not helping anyone, least of all yourself. Stop acting like a social justice warrior. And while you're at it learn to respect yourself.

About half of your post wasn't relevant to what I said so I'm assuming you intended to reply to a different post and neglected to tag it.

>>373872

>It doesn't work like that. If your circumcision is causing your depression, then treat the depression.

It's not causing it, it's just contributing to it. I am treating my depression, anyway, I've been going to therapy and I'm on an antidepressant that has been helping. Funnily enough, once the antidepressant started working, I started having the motivation to restore again after a couple-year break.

>Stop focusing on the end of your dick and turn your energy toward the societal change you want. Life is only so long.

I think you should mind your own business and let me do what I want with my own dick. I'm not sure why it's so important to you that I stop advocating for restoration and against circumcision.

>Depression and trauma can be related but they're not the same thing. Abused kids don't get all better as soon as you put them in a good foster home.

So, you should be able to understand that the trauma from my circumcision isn't going to go away regardless of how well my life is going otherwise. Unless you're going to make some kind of special pleading argument that their trauma is more valid.

>>373975

I think you're skimming now. I said you SHOULD work for change. And stop boo-hooing over something that happened to the end of your dick so long ago that if you hadn't learned about it secondhand from someone else in your adulthood would never have affected your life in the slightest.

It's like being mad at your parents because you weren't born into money. Pointless. Let go of what you never had to begin with and take command of your life.

You think my arguments have no merit. I think the same of some of yours. But those are just two opinions of two people who don't matter at all in each others' lives.

But I'm also talking in general because this is not all about me and you, it's a forum that other people read. Which is why I feel like you shouldn't paint circumcision as something that leaves a person broken and mutilated and less worthy of a good life.

And just generally, not being a dick about things tends to get more positive attention and encourage more action than the alternative. That's the other suggestion I'm trying to make.

And I also meant it specifically for you, but also everyone, when I said hanging onto anger will only hurt you.

>>374008

You're mistaking me for someone else again. I never said anything about your arguments' merit. This is the last time I'm going to respond to you, because it's just ending up as a back and forth where you marginalize my suffering, accuse me of anger that I neither hold, but which I feel I haven't even shown. You seem to have trouble being honest here.

>stop boo-hooing over something that happened to the end of your dick so long ago…

So, which is it, should I work for change, or should I just give up and accept it? And again, it's not as simple as just letting go and choosing to be okay with things. I really don't know how you can be so thick that you don't get this. There are factors outside of a person's brain that affect how they feel.

>…that if you hadn't learned about it secondhand from someone else in your adulthood would never have affected your life in the slightest

You're simply incorrect here: permanently reduced sexual sensation and function, increased risk of sexual dysfunction later in life are two big, obvious examples. For people that have botched circumcisions, there are even more negative effects. Things don't stop affecting your life just because you're not aware of them.

>Let go of what you never had to begin with and take command of your life.

Do you think I was born circumcised? Dumbass. I am trying to take control of my life, if that's really what you suggest, stop telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own dick.

>I feel like you shouldn't paint circumcision as something that leaves a person broken and mutilated and less worthy of a good life.

Well, you're putting words in my mouth again. People who are circumcised aren't less worthy of a good life, I'm not sure where you inferred that nonsense. The fact of the matter is that circumcision is genital mutilation by definition ("to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part."), and subjecting someone to it can leave them dealing with some serious issues over it later in life. I'm not saying anything that is inaccurate here, you're not going to make me lie by omission and pretend to everyone else that nothing is wrong about genital mutilation. You should be directing your ire towards the people who promote and carry out these mutilations, if you're really concerned about improving people's lives.

>And just generally, not being a dick about things tends to get more positive attention and encourage more action than the alternative.

I hope you're just mistaking me for someone else, because I have been very civil with you for pretty much this entire conversation. So much for that.

>>374011

>Do you think I was born circumcised? Dumbass

Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed you were circumcised as an infant. Most people don't have a basis of comparison.

>>374008

>I feel like you shouldn't paint circumcision as something that leaves a person broken and mutilated and less worthy of a good life.

Broken and mutilated yes, absolutely. Less worthy of a good life? Where the fuck did that come from?

>>374014

I was cut as an infant. The wording you used is "never had to begin with", but I was born with my foreskin, and I would still have it if it weren't removed. Maybe you think that isn't an important distinction to make, but that's really not for you to decide.

I said "let go of what you never had," meaning the experience of living with a foreskin.

Someone told you your life could have been better and you forgot all about how good your life IS.

That is problem #1 I've been attempting to point out to you.

Problem #2 is that you are now that someone who is telling people that their lives were destroyed by circumcision.

You think of it as equal to female genital mutilation, but you are overlooking that medical science in the civilized world has judged it to be safe, minimally traumatizing, and albeit somewhat dubiously, hygienic. You're overlooking that it's culturally attractive, like shaving your pubes (another thing I think is stupid) or bleaching your teeth (yet another).

It's not the same thing as hacking a little girl's labia off with a dirty razor blade on the floor of a mud hut while some old hag chants a prayer to ensure you lots of healthy warrior sons and a good yam crop. You can't go into a hospital in the first world and just ask a doctor to stitch your baby girl's vag closed so she won't be tempted to fornicate with a rival tribesman.

You say the fact of the matter is that it's genital mutilation, but the facts are pretty widely agreed upon by the medical community, and they do not equate modern western-world circumcision with female genital mutilation. Even the anti-FGM people stopped using the term "female circumcision" because it makes it sound OK.

And yet again.. YET AGAIN.. these are not all my opinions about it. I think circumcision is stupid and unnecessary. This is how the WORLD feels about it. Do you not think it's remarkable that you're suffering so much over this and that all around you are people who are perfectly OK with it?

I cannot possibly even start to imagine what life was like for you as a circumcised guy. But I do know what it's like to be blinded by anger when there's an easier path to my goal, and I feel like there's a chance you're walking a path I'm unfortunately familiar with.

>>374021

>Problem #2 is that you are now that someone who is telling people that their lives were destroyed by circumcision.

You mean like the numerous boys who have their penis hacked off by accident during circumcision which the medical community refuses to acknowledge because it will make people think that circumcisions are non-trivial and risky operations? Why don't you want those guys to know what happened to them?

>You think of it as equal to female genital mutilation, but you are overlooking that medical science in the civilized world has judged it to be safe, minimally traumatizing, and albeit somewhat dubiously, hygienic.

No verifiable medical research produced in the last ten years has been able to find any reliable benefits to circumcision whatsoever, and even the ones that do are consistently unable to gloss over the traumatizing nature of the procedure and the permanent mark that it leaves on the child's brain. People don't get fucked up when they learn that they have been circumcised, they get fucked up by being circumcised.

>You're overlooking that it's culturally attractive, like shaving your pubes (another thing I think is stupid) or bleaching your teeth (yet another).

None of those things are comparable to cutting off the most sensitive part of the body, and none of those procedures are performed on unconsenting children because they provide no benefit and are harmful to the child's health, much like circumcision.

>It's not the same thing as hacking a little girl's labia off with a dirty razor blade on the floor of a mud hut while some old hag chants a prayer to ensure you lots of healthy warrior sons and a good yam crop.

Are you aware that circumcisions are also performed using dirty razor blades on the floors of mud huts? Jewish Americans–AMERICANS, anon–clean the wound by sucking on the infant's penis, and none of them understand why all of these babies keep getting herpes.

If female circumcisions were performed in sterilized surgeries by medical professionals it would reduce a lot of the risks but you nevertheless understand why it is a horrible thing to do and why women who have had it done to them are deserving of respect and help. The fact that you outright refuse to extend this olive branch to men as well is frankly a testament to the potential darkness of the human spirit.

>You say the fact of the matter is that it's genital mutilation, but the facts are pretty widely agreed upon by the medical community, and they do not equate modern western-world circumcision with female genital mutilation. Even the anti-FGM people stopped using the term "female circumcision" because it makes it sound OK.

Yeah. Kind of like how people like you insist on calling it circumcision because "male genital mutilation" makes it sound not okay. You really don't think things through before you say them, do you?

>And yet again.. YET AGAIN.. these are not all my opinions about it. I think circumcision is stupid and unnecessary. This is how the WORLD feels about it. Do you not think it's remarkable that you're suffering so much over this and that all around you are people who are perfectly OK with it?

I do think it's remarkable. I also think it's remarkable that most people where I live are perfectly okay with denying the theory of evolution in favor of the young earth hypothesis. That doesn't make them right. And that doesn't mean you should be lashing out at us for dissenting.

It has already been explained to you several times why we are not okay with it and why we don't want anyone to be okay with it. We don't tolerate FGM, why on god's earth should we be okay with MGM? Because some people prefer mutilated dicks? Well guess fucking what, some people prefer mutilated labia. Thanks for playing.

You're still contributing to the problem, you're just doing it with an argument from arbitrary authority and an appeal to popularity now. If you genuinely thought circumcision was stupid and unnecessary then give me one good reason why instead of advocating that boys be given the opportunity to experience their whole and uncut body you are yelling at us for saying that people shouldn't mutilate boys?

Your running around in circles is not going to wear me down. I can see the cracks in your facade forming. You're either going to keep running in circles until you collapse or you're going to admit that you have fucked up priorities. There is no other way this can end for you.

>>374021

I know I said I wasn't going to respond again, but damn, you really doubled down on the bullshit I called you out on. More diminishing the significance of what was done to me and what I'm going through, more accusing me of anger and more accusing me of trying to make people feel like their lives were destroyed.

I'm really starting to get a concern troll vibe here, you can't be this dense for real, can you?

>>374021

Now I'm just a passer by, but, how the fuck can you actually support this shit anon?

Is it like buyers justification or are you such a hoser that you believe that the medical community -allowing- something out of fear of repercussion is the same as recommending something?

Do you realize how many malpractice lawsuits could come of this if they were to suddenly cut it off?

Speaking from experience, listening to the "medical community" like they are experts is like listening to your fucking plumber or your mechanic about something you know absolutely nothing about, you have frame of reference here and you're completely out of your element

>I am a fucking BSN and a Paramedic, and I'm working on my MSN listen to me you mongrel, I know more about your body than you

>>374033

Can you define "concern troll" for the precious few of us who are out of the loop on this kind of labeling strategy? I was once banned from a chatroom for answering a question about GamerGate because that apparently made me a "concern troll."

Let it be understood that although I have been needlessly harsh on this anon for his or her opinion, I would never label them a troll or attempt to silence them because of it. The free marketplace of ideas relies on dissent, because it is only through the lens of another person's experiences that we can get a picture of our own hypocrisy clear enough to address it.

Yes, it is possible for a person to be this dense. You probably used to be. It is so common that it is considered normal and healthy. Welcome to the real world, folks. I really didn't want this thread to get so dark but by god did it go there.

>>374177

"a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion."

I'm not trying to silence anyone here, I was just getting sick of being repeatedly accused of being angry and vengeful. If you repeatedly put words in someone else's mouth, despite what they say to the contrary, you're going about the discussion in a very dishonest way. That makes me inclined to feel like there's some malicious intent here. The consistent trivialization of circumcision, though on its own could be explained by ignorance, is a bit more suspect when you consider the repeated dishonesty. If this was all a troll, I guess I've been had, because participating in this discussion was depressing.

>>374359

Well, for what it's worth, I found your contributions helpful and constructive, so at the very least the conversation didn't go entirely to waste.

I'm also not entirely convinced that the anon in question is even a male. Every time a conversation about circumcision has come up in the past it's been derailed by the same anon defending it with some ludicrously uneducated bullshit that made me suspect they'd never been born with a penis. I myself have never met an intact man who has ever advocated for tolerance of infant circumcision, though I have met and talked to some who were considering being cut themselves. Our best advocacy comes from our voices.

Call me paranoid but I'm beginning to wonder if someone is mining for evidence that intactivists are angry and bitter. There's a lot of that rhetoric going around; this happens to mens' rights activists as well. It wouldn't be the first time someone pointed at 8chan and went "look at the things they say!"

>>374419

Given that another thread had someone defending circumcision by comparing it to removal of the clitoral hood, and saying that would actually be beneficial for women, I'm going to assume it's not a woman.

What's going on here is simple. It's a typical American delusion for people to think they're the best, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is a country that thinks it can defy climate change through sheer force of patriotic will. This is a country that thinks it has the unilateral grace of a supposedly-benevolent God, above all other countries. This is a country that thinks murder can be solved by more murder. This is a country that elected a doofus real-estate con-man as its figurehead.

So the idea that a man can have a mutilated and barely functional penis, and still think it's better than any other penis, is just par for the course. It's exactly what you'd expect from an American. Why do you think this is the ONLY country that still practices circumcision on such a widespread level, for non-religious reasons?

>>374421

Hate to be that guy, but South Korea actually practices circumcision more than the US at this point, and I'm pretty damn skippy it's not because of their Jewish population. Apparently during the Korean War some of the American soldiers were flashing their dicks around and their women liked what they saw.

>>374438

South Korea is an enclave created by Americans in their own image, carved out of Asia like a slice of pie that has all the cherries in it, and then walled off from the rest. Little wonder they're basically the same, in all the best and worst ways. For the starvation and threat of nuclear war, one wonders if the boys in the DPRK also have to endure getting parts of their dicks cut off. I doubt it. Not even Kim Jong Un is that stupid.

>>374451

Well the real kick in the pants with Korea, for me, is that the only reason the United States got involved at all is that we were worried about communism reaching Japan. We didn't give two rats' bollocks about Korea itself; it just happened that Japan was our turf at the time, and to a certain extent still is. So we not only fucked up the country, but we didn't even do it for their sake. Now everyone's wondering why social justice has suddenly become so popular over there.

>>374493

Every country should have this shit outlawed, I don't want to pull a 'MUH CURRENT YEAR" but why the fuck is this shit still practise in this day and age outside of jewish and muslim shitholes?

>>374496

>In a statement [Rabbi Avi Feldman of the Chabad Jewish Center] said circumcision was a core Jewish practice that served as a bedrock of Jewish life.

D…did this man just admit that the only reason he became a rabbi was so he could cut babies' penises?

>>374530

>>374534

Bit of an understatement, really. When you read the Torah or the Bible (New Testament included) you get a really disturbing vibe that the authors held some kind of disgust for the body. A lot of feminists bitch about how God calls periods "unclean" but you can't go two chapters into Genesis without a supposedly benevolent deity of pure love ranting about how it wants everyone to cut their foreskin off, and it wasn't even that long ago that the terms "uncircumcised" and "wicked" were used interchangably. It's genuinely like reading the delusions of an asylum patient.

>>374530

It's just capitalism at work. It's a system that can commodify ANYTHING for its own sake, even the mutilation of baby's genitals and sale of their biological material.

>>374534

>G-d is a sadist

>Or maybe their G-d is actually a demon/satan

Old Testament God most certainly was a sadist. You'd think an omniscient, omnipotent Creator could find ways to save His chosen people that didn't involved BURNING AN ENTIRE FUCKING CIVILIZATION TO THE GROUND after first raping its people with a variety of plagues and murdering innocent children. He told Moses that He knew Pharaoh's heart would be hardened in advance; He knew all this shit was going to happen but did it anyway. I like to tell these people that their God is like a fucked-up child with a book of matches and no restraint for life, pitching a temper tantrum of fire and death because he didn't get his way.

As for the religious angle of circumcision, it's simply a matter of control. The Bible etc are just fairy tales used to control an ignorant population by telling them how to act and think, so they keep throwing money and power at the people in charge. And it's only very, VERY recently in the history of civilization that the State and Church haven't been the same thing. It's been known since antiquity that the best way to control male animals is to castrate them. Well, you can't do that to your citizens or you won't get any babies and you'll die out. This is the next best thing. One wonders how circumcised men managed to masturbate or have enjoyable sex before the invention of petroleum lubricants. Perhaps they simply didn't. Deprive a man of all earthly pleasures, and it's far easier to convince him of the existence of some supernatural pleasures after death. Then, he becomes putty in your hands for life: a tax slave, a soldier, a disposable commodity.

>>367010

>>367010

Every time I look up foreskin restoration tutorials I end up getting horny and usually nutting, then I don't care anymore, I've just sort have accepted it, it sucks, but spending literally hours a day for like 4 years just doesn't seem worth it, and it still won't even be the real thing. Eh, I really don't have much to show anyway. The real sad thing is when a nice big cock is ruined by circumcision, and that almost all the guys here are circumcised, and usually black or spic if they are uncut. About foregen, 2020 is probably an unrealistic prediction for when it will be ready, and it will most likely be way to expensive, and only available in certain big cities…

>>377289

Certain (((forces))) all but guarantee that it will not be available in the states.

I've been restoring for 2 years and it's been worth it to me. Prepared to go for the long haul. So what if it's not the real thing? Better than walking around with the mark of the zog.

>>374696

what the fuck is going on with that dudes fingernail jesus christ

>>374696

I'm cut, but my meatus opens normally, just tested. Is this the real life?

>>385270

I don't fucking know it's fucking pissing me off. I laughed so fucking hard at this.

You can have your highly increased risk of STDs including hiv and Smegma. Cut looks nicer too.

>>386203

Foreskins protect against infections just like any other part of the skin. They produce Langerhans cells fit for this purpose, which are white blood cells designed to protect mucous membranes like those found in the mouth and vagina and on the glans. The foreskin also remains sealed until about the age of 16 or 17, to further protect the glans from infections, and is easily cleaned with warm running water.

The cut made by a circumcision, on the other hand, is highly prone to infections, especially early in life and especially when put in a diaper, and this is a big deal because in infancy the immune system isn't fully developed yet and an infection caused by a circumcision wound can end up going all the way to the spinal cord, which will either kill or cripple the child even if it gets emergency treatment.

Even in adulthood circumcised men aren't at a significantly decreased risk of infections or STDs. Yes, there are some studies that say they are, but these studies are prone to measurement errors and often rife with problems in methodology, leading them to be refuted by further studies no more than five years later.

So you're wrong on all counts. Enjoy your sandpaper dick if you like it, but for fuck's sake don't force your children to live with one.

>>386203

Did you know that people are at higher risk for a lot of diseases, because of parts of their body that aren't necessary for survival? Why don't we cut MORE out of babies, then…? Take out their tonsils and their appendix and spleen. Or if you want an easy non-invasive procedure that doesn't require anesthesia, have I got a deal for you! One of the leading causes of death in men is testicular cancer, so you can instantly HALVE that chance by removing one testicle at birth. Men only need one to maintain normal hormonal rates and produce enough sperm for fertility.

Having only one ball looks nicer, too.

it's gone and it will never ever come back

get over it

>>367068

At the same time, it can help eventually protect and restore sensitivity to the glans. The head is a mucous membrane that, after circumcision, becomes keratinized by exposure.

That and honestly just stop circumcising your kids. Let this barbaric trade end with us. Let us plant saplings that will become trees we will never rest under. We have to be the better men, and kill the Jews.

>>386203

It's objectively, provably false that cut looks better. If it did (and women thought so) then tens of thousands of years of sexual selection in the human species would have reduced or even eliminated the foreskin. But it hasn't at all.

You can't argue against that.

I've been restoring, on and off, for about 6 years. I'm at about a CI-8 right now because of manual tugging.

the change in sensitivity and overall mental health has been pretty great. I went from barely having any feeling in my glans to being a very sensitive boy.

>>386336

>You can't argue against that.

Yes, you can. You don't seem to understand how evolution works. Genital mutilation isn't a genetically inheritable trait, if women preferred sleeping with cut guys, their babies would still be born with a foreskin just like their fathers were, obviously.

Sexual preferences like this are very subjective and are a pretty fragile argument both for and against genital mutilation. It's better to focus on the very real harm that it causes. If you make arguments that are based on values that more people share, then your arguments are going to be more convincing to more people.

>>388617

I didn't say anything about genetic heritability; I specifically said sexual selection.

And if you think that people value their children, you'd be mistaken. That's nothing but a political tagline (mostly for conservatives). The vast majority of parents treat their children as property with which they can do what they please. After all, the very act of creating them was one of complete and total selfishness on their part. Why should that change after they are born? If it wasn't for laws preventing it, all countries would have parents sending their children off to work in factories and sweatshops, in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

>>388677

>I didn't say anything about genetic heritability; I specifically said sexual selection.

Well, regardless, what looks better is not objective. If you try to argue against genital mutilation by saying it looks worse, your argument is refuted as soon as you run into someone who someone who thinks cut looks better.

And preferences, to some extent, have been behind the spread of genital mutilation, but that doesn't really spread past cultural boundaries. It generally seems weird and barbaric to people who haven't had baby mutilation normalized in their culture.

>And if you think that people value their children, you'd be mistaken.

I pity your bleak outlook on this stuff. Most of the parents that I know value their children very much. Maybe their beliefs differ from mine on what is actually best for their children, but most people have empathy for other human beings, psychopaths are a minority.

>>388679

>what looks better is not objective

You just didn't understand; I won't bother explaining it again.

>psychopaths are a minority

And yet tens of millions of baby boys are still mutilated every single day. Your optimism is unfounded.

>>388728

>You just didn't understand; I won't bother explaining it again.

You were making the argument that it's "objectively false" that cut looks better. I'm not sure what you think I don't understand. You don't seem to get the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Preferences are contingent upon a mind, and thus are completely subjective, by definition. Arguments from personal preference are really, really weak to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

>And yet tens of millions of baby boys are still mutilated every single day.

Well, nowhere near that number of people are born each day, the population isn't growing by a billion people every 100 days, but that's beside the point. Most people here in the US have been lead to believe that male genital mutilation is beneficial, or at the very least inconsequential. It has nothing to do with psychopathy, these people are mutilating their children with generally good intentions. It's fucked up, and doesn't negate the harm that's being done, but it's important to understand where people are coming from. Our best bet at stopping genital mutilation is convincing people of the harm that it does, most people are not going to have this done to their kids if they actually understood how much they were harming their kids.

>>388790

>Preferences are contingent upon a mind

Yes, and the preferences of the human mind can be objectively determined by evidence of evolutionary preference. It's completely objective that the smell of shit is repulsive, because that has evolved into the minds of humans; this is not belied by the few people who happen to like it for fetish reasons.

As for the rest, you have me wondering if it's possible to be a psychopath through stubborn ignorance. Most men would rather mutilate their sons than face the reality that they have an inferior and permanently damaged penis.

>>388918

>It's completely objective that the smell of shit is repulsive, because that has evolved into the minds of humans

Yeah, it's true that we evolved an aversion to the smell of shit. That doesn't mean the smell of shit is objectively repulsive. Sensation is inherently subjective, even though it emerges from objective phenomena. I know this is just semantics, but the point I want to get across is just that objectivity isn't necessary to give an argument validity here, this discussion is within the realm of subjectivity.

>As for the rest, you have me wondering if it's possible to be a psychopath through stubborn ignorance.

Well, psychopathy, or antisocial behavior, is characterized by a lack of empathy. That label doesn't really apply here.

>Most men would rather mutilate their sons than face the reality that they have an inferior and permanently damaged penis.

Yeah, this is commonly referred to as mental gymnastics. People in that position "have" to get their son mutilated, because to not do so would be to acknowledge that maybe there's something wrong/unnecessary about it. Mutilating their son reinforces the idea that everything's fine with it.

It's pretty fucked up, we're up against a lot of people who are emotionally invested in avoiding the truth of their situation, which makes rational debate a lot more difficult.

>>389142

If you're going to pick nits this hard, then NOTHING IN THE WORLD CAN BE OBJECTIVE, because you'll always find someone who disagrees, even with actual facts. Color-blind people don't see the sky is blue. Plenty of people deny that the Earth is round(ish). Mentally disabled people don't understand basic precepts of logic. I'm sure there are plenty of people who tripped really hard on their drug of choice and then devised cockamamie laws of mathematics and physics, and honestly believed their own were true instead of the real ones, at least at the time.

It's well and truly objective that cutting off functioning and healthy tissue is harmful and idiotic, and yet it continues. Every single case where doctors thought a part of the body was useless or redundant, it's been proven otherwise. The tonsils, spleen, gallbladder, appendix, etc.: all have uses and shouldn't be removed for no reason. My talking about objectivity is largely irrelevant in this case, because humans AREN'T objective. It's been my constant observation that literally nobody ever changes their mind about anything after they reach the age of 14 or so, and that the only way to win any argument is simply to kill them. It's awfully hard for a corpse to deny that its objectively dead, after all. That's why wars of ideology tend to end with genocides. It might not be rational or sane, but it's the only thing that ever works. If we could, right now, instantly make every circumcised person in the world cease to exist, it would probably never happen again and we'd get rid of a few religions while we're at it. Is that crazy? You're damn right it is. But it's not possible that it will ever change, otherwise.

Nothing ever changes; it just moves around. People look at the rates of circumcision in the USA and see that it's dropping, and think that must mean that it is everywhere. Same with acceptance of homosexuality, less racism, more rights for women, higher rates of atheism, and other such things OBJECTIVELY better for humanity. But this is all wrong. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion; in Indonesia there's almost a quarter-billion of 'em and counting, and they circumcise like the Jews do. Vigilante violence against gays is increasing in the Middle East and Africa; while they celebrate the right to be married in Europe, laws in Russia and India are actually rolling BACKWARD. Meanwhile, our current President has torn open the infected, maggot-infested belly of America and shown it's still just as bigoted and hateful as it was in the 60's; seems racism took a world tour for a few decades and then ended up right back here. The experts say there is less war than there was in decades past; well, try telling that to the Palestinians and Syrians and Libyans, and any poor fuck that dares climb a fence into the USA; you think they give a flying fuck about the statistics?

No, there is no managing this through TALKING about it. This or any other issue. You can't debate or rationalize or reason with a retarded screaming toddler, and every single human being is a retarded screaming toddler. If you don't like what they do, prevent them from doing it, through law or probably through force because they don't listen to law very often, either. And why should they? The laws are made by people probably stupider (and certainly much more corrupt) than they are, and they know it. We all know it. Anyone who didn't know it damn well NOW knows it.

Every single problem in the world is because of humans being idiots. There's enough food, energy, and love for everyone and a couple billion more, but for the few hoarding it from the many. All unsolvable for eternity, because the issue isn't in the system; the issue IS the system. The only person ever did what he goddamn well was told was because he had a boot on his neck. All others resist. A computer program that thinks it needs to purge itself of malware, not knowing that it IS malware.

The only solution is deletion. Always has been, always will be.

>>386203

>Cut looks nicer too.

Oy Vey Dry mutilated cock looks so delicious

>>390227

Very nice anon. Thought I'd keep the thread bumped. Lot of useful information here.

I'll just wait until I can 3d print mine

>>367010

Strapped t-tape is the fastest way to restore, in case anyone's wondering. It forces you to be committed, but you can achieve 24/7 tugging with medical tape and GENTLE tension. Your skin will get super loose and taut from the constant tension, so it's important to exercise due diligence and not hurt your skin.

Simply from the fact that you can tug all the time uninterrupted makes this method the fastest and most efficient one. I've gained a lot of skin in a year even when I was inconsistent, but I have yet to see how much I'm going to gain from tugging all day with perfect efficiency. I'm hoping I'll get flaccid coverage quickly.

>>394340

Foregen is trying to do precisely that, actually. They plan to eventually 3D print scaffolds of foreskins, and use that to allow one's cells to grow into. Before that's possible, however, they have to instead de-celluarize donor foreskins since 3D printing cannot print at the resolution required to replicate a foreskin and it's delicate tissues yet.

>>367068

I don't mind being circumcised at all, but completely restoring sensitivity would be something that might get me interested if it were possible.

>>414125

I've heard from cut and restored guys that up to 70-95% of sensation recovery is possible, which is amazing. I think that's enough of a good reason to restore.

>>414139

That sounds great. I might have to look into this. It's too bad we're not at the point where we can create new, custom-made dicks in a lab from scratch.

>>414148

You definitely should, I think it's totally worth it. I'm currently doing it and it's had a positive impact on my sensitivity, and I'm not anywhere near done restoring yet.

Personally, if I could 3D print my own dick, I'd give myself a giant horsecock.

>>414256

>You definitely should, I think it's totally worth it. I'm currently doing it and it's had a positive impact on my sensitivity, and I'm not anywhere near done restoring yet.

I'm kind of having misgivings about the way it looks. I've seen some great uncut cocks and am against routine circumcision but can't quite warm up to the look. I suppose I could try doing it only partway.

The end of my shaft has ugly wrinkles and deep stretch marks now due to too many years of jacking off without lube, and maybe also doing Angion Method 1.0 (which I would definitely recommend if you're after increased erection quality and veininess; supposedly you can gain size with it too). I've noticed that it now seems there's some extra skin there, and I can pull it over part of my glans. Maybe this is the beginning of some new foreskin and I'm going to end up restoring some of it without even trying.

>Personally, if I could 3D print my own dick, I'd give myself a giant horsecock.

I've actually been looking into penis enlargement, and there are a lot of anecdotes about methods that seem to work. A lot of the techniques seem pretty dangerous, though (jelqing gave me hard flaccid and I plan on staying away from it), and 3D printing a big dick seems like it would be a lot less work.

I long for the day when we'll have the technology to alter our bodies like we're customizing characters in a video game. If it ever comes, that is. I don't seem something like the Singularity coming, for example. There's so much about my appearance I'd love to change.

>>414257

>I'm kind of having misgivings about the way it looks. I've seen some great uncut cocks and am against routine circumcision but can't quite warm up to the look. I suppose I could try doing it only partway.

For me it's not about the look, it's about functionality. I'm doing it because I want to gain back the function of having a foreskin that was lost to circumcision, however I do have aesthetics in mind somewhat and want to have the best looking result that makes me look intact. I actually like the look of foreskin though.

>I long for the day when we'll have the technology to alter our bodies like we're customizing characters in a video game. If it ever comes, that is. I don't seem something like the Singularity coming, for example. There's so much about my appearance I'd love to change.

That sounds like a very cool future and I'd love to be a part of it. We can only hope that it happens and we're alive when it does.

If we are lucky and there are advances in anti-aging and we're able to extend our lifespan long enough, we might get to be a part of that society. It's really unlikely, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

>>414259

>For me it's not about the look, it's about functionality. I'm doing it because I want to gain back the function of having a foreskin that was lost to circumcision, however I do have aesthetics in mind somewhat and want to have the best looking result that makes me look intact. I actually like the look of foreskin though.

That makes sense. I think I need to get used to the look more.

>If we are lucky and there are advances in anti-aging and we're able to extend our lifespan long enough, we might get to be a part of that society. It's really unlikely, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

There's this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/biological-clock-ageing-turn-back-reverse-study-new-a9094261.html

But I know how often journalists have a superficial grasp of the facts and love to give people false hope though. This study didn't even have a control group.

They were able to successfully reverse aging in mice, but there are hurdles to overcome in trying to get it approved for humans:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aging-is-reversible-at-least-in-human-cells-and-live-mice/

>>414262

>I think I need to get used to the look more.

It's how it's supposed to look, and it's normal for it to look that way where you live because the circumcision rate is far lower than here in America. If anything, I will probably have the most reactions since almost nobody has seen a foreskin here, but I'm beyond the point of caring because I care more about my sexuality than people's opinions.

>They were able to successfully reverse aging in mice, but there are hurdles to overcome in trying to get it approved for humans:

This is actually a huge step in the right direction for biological immortality, because they've now figured out what is causes aging. It's not DNA changes, it's epigenetical/metabolic changes that drive aging. If we're able to switch off the genes that causes aging, then a reversal of biological aging takes place as the body repairs itself naturally.

I think biological mortality may be a thing that developed in multicellular organisms as a consequence of the increasing metabolic demands as one grew larger and larger. There are lower organisms that are capable of biological immortality under ideal conditions, and one thing they are very good at doing is regenerating damaged tissue. Crustaceans are also technically immortal, but instead of experiencing cell senescence they just keep on growing and getting bigger until they are no longer able to molt and die as a result.

This is just an educated guess of mine, but I think the only reason immortality is not possible is because at one point being capable of fully regenerating damaged tissue took way too much energy, and organisms that instead healed less efficiently but stored more energy were more capable of growing to much greater sizes. Those organisms that grew way bigger quickly gained dominion over the much smaller and less metabolically efficient creatures, even though the price of gaining such an advantage was losing immortality. That very early event that took place in history is the reason why biological immortality is so rare, because losing immortality was a necessary evil at the time for further development and growth to take place.

So, methinks that aging in humans is just a byproduct of the regenerative capacity of the body lessening. And turning that capability back on by turning off a very ancient mechanism happening in our bodies and restoring our ability to regenerate as if we were in the womb would be the key to obtain immortality. I believe it's possible, because from a study I cannot recall, they have a petri dish of human cells that are still alive even 30 years later, still alive to this day. That means, favorable conditions should enable biological immortality.

>>414269

I heard the earth atmosphere was much thicker than it was now and thus all life forms were gigantic.

>>414288

The levels of oxygen were much higher than they were today, so yes. I know that insects used to be much more massive than they are today, and that's because their method of respiration was limited by the level of available oxygen and the lowering of oxygen caused insects to shrink. Only life forms with more efficient respiration systems were able to continue to grow to large sizes.

>>414269

>It's how it's supposed to look, and it's normal for it to look that way where you live because the circumcision rate is far lower than here in America.

I'm in the U.S. and just using a proxy. I don't remember ever even seeing an uncircumcised schlong IRL.

>If anything, I will probably have the most reactions since almost nobody has seen a foreskin here, but I'm beyond the point of caring because I care more about my sexuality than people's opinions.

Yeah, that's a good way to see it.

My biggest concern about the whole biological immortality thing is that the ruling class will only limit it to select people to limit population growth. If they made it available to people undergoing vasectomies or tubal ligation I'd probably do it, since I wouldn't be a good dad anyway.

The whole idea of reversing aging really excites me though. If it happens, there's a good chance a lot of us will live to see other mind-blowing technological advances. Although given the direction society is heading, I'm not too sanguine about the level of control governments and corporations are going to have over us.

>>414295

>My biggest concern about the whole biological immortality thing is that the ruling class will only limit it to select people to limit population growth. If they made it available to people undergoing vasectomies or tubal ligation I'd probably do it, since I wouldn't be a good dad anyway.

It wouldn't really make much economic sense for them to stop people from having immortality. For one thing, having young and healthy people capable of working greatly increases the labor force, and it would allow for greater productivity. Also, eliminating aging and the associated diseases that come with it would massively cut down on the amount of money that's going towards healthcare. Though, it may be "limited" to the ruling class in a sense that the treatment is expensive at first, but with time it should become more affordable.

Getting a vasectomy would be the easiest decision for me though, because I don't want to have kids.

>>414295

>>414298

I'm all for human neutering because the way people treat their kids disgusts me.

Children are people not alter egos.

I mean seriously, how hard is it to teach kids life skills?

Whats so hard about allowing kids to have cynical leery worldviews?

Adults nowadays are becoming more petulant about everything and it reflects strongly on the way they treat children. I cannot respect the smothering idealism and inspiration on children and treating teens like toddlers.