Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intact CI-5 starting...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by KragDragon View Post

    1. So you're going to cut off 1000 boys's perfectly good ridged bands to prevent one unfortunate boy from maybe having to get circumcised later on? That makes no sense in my little corner of the universe.

    2. A man getting a circumcision is FAR less likely to have it done badly than a baby. As an adult, the man has the power to do his research, discuss his options, request a minimal procedure, change doctors if they won't agree to his terms, and sue if they fuck it up. The baby? His fate is entirely in someone else's hands and if they choose a tight cut and/or botch the operation, he's up shit creek.

    3. A preputioplasty is a far better solution to phimosis than circumcision. Simple, minimal, leaves all your anatomy and nerves intact, very low risk, heals faster than a full circ. There's simply no place for circumcision in the world aside from obsessive traditionalism.
    once a man gets phimosis later in life, they need to cut the whole foreskin off, which would give the man a low and tight circumcision, which removes all the sensory tissue. Cutting off the tip of the foreskin without breaking the adhesions between the inner lining of the foreskin and the glans is the way to go. What you are thinking of is when the doctor pries apart the foreskin from the glans and then the doctor pulls the skin forward and then amputates the foreskin. This would indeed remove the ridged mucosa. I don’t advocate towards this, I only advocate towards cutting off the defective part of the foreskin, which causes all the problems. The smooth and ridged mucosa would not be removed in the biblical circumcision. Here is a great model for what is best:

    https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html



    Comment


    • #17
      Don’t want to get into an argument on the matter, but any form of circumcision does more damage than most people assume. Some types might be a bit less invasive, but still they will impact sensitivity.

      While the theory in the picture you mention might make it look like “not so invasive”, in reality it is. Part of the ridged band and the frenulum will be damaged in such circumcision. In cases of phimosis in children, the tight ring is often on the inner foreskin side, which means that most of the inner skin gets removed in such cases. I know as I got a very low and very loose circumcision for that reason as well, and believe me, I’m really glad that I’m slowly getting some inner foreskin progress now, as I only realise now what I have been missing most of my life...
      There’s no better feeling in the world than the warm embrace of your foreskin, so KOT!

      Progress gallery @ https://foreskinrestoration.vbulleti...s-report-tlc-x

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Frenulum2002 View Post

        once a man gets phimosis later in life, they need to cut the whole foreskin off, which would give the man a low and tight circumcision...
        No they don't, unless it's some rare extreme case. In most cases you don't need surgery at all. Either steroid cream or antibiotics are the usual treatments.

        So according to the internet, roughly one in 2000 intact boys will get phimosis, and of those only 20% or so will require surgical treatment. And of those almost all of them can be treated with surgery less severe than circumcision. I can't do the exact math, but that's tens of thousands of boys getting circumcised for no reason to prevent one guy from getting circumcised after having had the opportunity to enjoy his intact penis for a lot of years before unfortunately having to lose part of it.

        So yeah... there is no excuse whatsoever to cut a baby's dick.

        Comment

        Working...
        X