Just keep fresh
Getting an erection was ok (expected or otherwise) but the discomfort started when one tried to draw the foreskin back as it was no longer able to stretch sufficiently to allow the head of the penis to appear, if forced it became painful and the erection collapsed. As to sensitivity because there is no foreskin covering the top of the penis it does become slightly less sensitive as a result of constant direct contact with underpants, however, this can be a benefit as it can help a guy hold back longer to allow his partner come more often. One drawback is that after circumcision a guy must use some form of lube if he is on the receiving end of a hand job (self administered or otherwise) as a friction burn is very easy to obtain if one is not careful.
Having experienced sex before and after circumcision I would be very much against it being done to any male child unless it was medically necessary.
Last edited by nitram; 14-09-15 at 22:44.
MaryMcMagdalene (14-09-15), nonpareil (15-09-15)
M50TrollBridge (14-09-15), nitram (14-09-15)
Did imaginary skydaddy invent foreskin just so he could torture babies when it was taken from them without their consent?
They hung Saddam Hussein for a lot less.
nonpareil (15-09-15)
i still think youre all ridiculous over your protestations of the thing. it was tiny.
and i want proof of nosebleed, midlifecrisis
and women are the drama queens here, yeah?
Jiberjabber (14-09-15)
MaryMcMagdalene (14-09-15)
MidlifeCrisis (14-09-15)
An irrelevancy if condoms are used.
And I suspect the difference is marginal despite claims to the contrary.
Circumcised would only have any contribution to any sti reduction if you were dealing with a large monogamous population practicing unprotected sex, and In the modern world multiple lifetime partners seems the norm.
The STI question of circumcised v uncircumcised is not really relevant for most imo.