"I suppose we're all different"
This is a fallacious argument in the context of neurological facts. Some people have different sexual desires and fetishes, but neurology remains constant in the human form, omitting disorders and deformities. The glans and foreskins of all men are different sizes and soforth, but the histology stays the same.
In relation to the mentioned diagram and chart, the chart means nothing to me as I have minimal, if any, sensation anywhere on my penis during intercourse. My only sensation is visual.
Male orgasm? What's one of those? I would love to experience one. I am uncircumcised.
Its all very well being able to go for hours and hours, but my poor partner, who is appreciative of my penis and intercourse, does say that it hurts her after a while. She also feels disappointment that I do not orgasm and rarely ejaculate inside her, most certainly never through oral sex. I have told her many times that she is not the problem, yet at first she thought she was mainly the problem. I tried to re-assure her that she wasn't. My tests at the Urologist show little, if any, sensation.
There's definitely something rare and strange going on with you, then, because an intact men should be very sensitive and be able to orgasm and really enjoy sex. I don't know what to say to you. My area of expertise is the difference between the average sensitivity of intact men relative to circumcised men. I'm sorry that you're having issues.
My only hope at this current time is that the tablets I will be trying out as from Wednesday, "Muse", may help in some way. A urologist neurologist did some tests a few weeks ago and apparently, he was squeezing my glans and around my penis quite hard.....I didn't notice....I had my eyes shut.
You could try using a penis health creme. If you get one contaning acetyl L carnitine it might really help you out. And don't worry, acetyl L is a natural supplement so you don't have to worry about weird side effects. Good luck.
The glans, other than a small scattering of light touch receptors at the corona, has no pleasure-giving properties. Contrary to popular myth. Almost all sexual sensation comes from the foreskin, particularly the ridged band at the tip/ This is why circumcision is so devastating in terms of sensory damage. Luckily you say you've only lost a tiny bit, but most circumcised men had all their ridged band and frenular delta removed. Don't worry about the glans as it's not important--it's just a source of rigidity for penetration. Histological analysis has actually established this, but doctors all ignore it and continue to genitally mutilate boys. It's terrible
Yet the leading UK Urologist/Andrologist I have seen says the glans has many receptors that should give pleasure. Furthermore, a neurologist that has undertaken tests on my penis, also states the glans has many receptors.
Well I tried "Muse"....NEVER AGAIN! I inserted 500mg in my urethea under the guidance of a nurse at hospital and was given a prescription for 1000mg. Within 15 minutes, I felt my penis becoming erect, then all of a sudden, my penis became erect and there was a kink in it and my erect penis was hanging down. My erection is always straight up and my partner says it's quite impressive. Muse, in my opinion, gave me the complete reversal of my usual erection. I had extreme groin pain for 2 hours and was concerned about the kink in my penis. There was no way that I could have had sex with this so called erection. It was too bent and the pain was extreme. I discussed this with my partner and did think about trying the 1000mg, however, I decided not to as I really did not want to put myself through the pain again and perhaps suffer more due to the increase in dosage. I've come to the end now of trying medication as there is no more I can try.
I now have a viberect x3 machine that I am trying. Yes it cost me £298 and I have it on a month’s trial, and although results aren’t immediate, the success rate over a period of time is very high and as such, as I can try no more, I shall continue with this. Apparently, it is possible to have an orgasm with this machine, even with a flaccid penis….I’ve yet to have an orgasm or ejaculate whilst using this machine. The machine does in fact make me lose my erection.
I just want to experience an orgasm for the first time and to ejaculate more regularly inside my partner and/or, when I am receiving oral sex or being masturbated by her.
Well that urologist is talking nonsense because histological analysis says otherwise. A urologist examined my circumcised penis, shrugged and said, "there may be nerve damage but good luck proving it." Of course there's nerve damage--you can't cut off the primary sexual tissue and there not be nerve damage.
What you have to understand is that many many so-called professionals are actually very ignorant on certain issues. You would imagine a urologist would know everything there is to know, but then here's me, someone who's not qualified with a medical degree, who knows the glans has barely any pleasure-giving properties at all.
Of course, this urologist may have been cut at birth and be in complete denial about this. I would never trust a doctor unquestioningly ever agains.
FALSE. Most of the sensitivity is in the glans. I'm uncircumcised, but the purpose of foreskin is to keep the head of your penis sensitive. I can get hard from being gently stroked or licked on the head. If a girl sucks the head too much, it's over stimulating. So the glans can be very sensitive.
And this is what 2 urologist/andrologist and 1 neuroandrologist have told me.Most of the sensitivity is in the glans.
***this post is edited by moderator *** *** web addresses not allowed*** Please read our Terms of Use
You're 100% wrong. Sorry. What you're feeling isn't erogenous, it's protopathic sensitivity. This is why you talk of overstimulation--because it is painful. Try pleasuring yourself and trying to ejaculate without touching the foreskin and just the glans. It's pointless. It's the foreskin that contains the mucosa that's exquisitely sensitive like vaginal mucosa. There is a tiny scattering fine touch receptors on the corona, but apart from that, the glans has nearly as little fine touch as the heel of the foot. If you really are intact, then you're not paying attention to where your feelings come from. Though I suspect you're a pro-circ troll trying to spread propaganda in order to promote the false idea that circumcision isn't damaging.
"CONCLUSIONS The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."
"The glans penis is primarily innervated by free nerve endings and has primarily protopathic sensitivity [43]. Protopathic sensitivity refers to cruder, poorly localized feelings (including pain, some temperature sensations and certain perceptions of mechanical contact) [44]. In the glans penis, encapsulated end-organs are sparse, and found mainly along the glans corona and the frenulum [43]. The only portion of the body with less fine-touch discrimination than the glans penis is the heel of the foot [45]. I"
DD9172, Your urologist is uneducated. He could very well have been circumcised at birth or in prepubescence himself and doesn't understand. They don't even teach doctors about the importance of the foreskin, not even in the UK. The histological evidence that the foreskin is the primary sexual tissue, is buried, because if they admit the facts then they admit circumcision is devastating and more sexually damaging than any form of FGM in sensory terms. I know all this for a fact as I have experienced being intact and I'm now cut. The average modern circumcision is periah-style so it removes everything and leaves you with a numb dildo. I went to a urologist over 10 years ago complaining about my lack of feeling. HE shrugged his shoulders and said 'there may have been nerve damage, but good luck proving it!' That's the level of ignorance among many urologists. They have never been taught that the foreskin is the primary erogenous tissue. Even if they understand that, they will be told not to admit circumcision is sexually damaging because it would open the medical community up to legal action. I mean, to say there MAY have been nerve damage shows obvious ignorance. Of course there's nerve damage! Every circumcision is nerve damage because thousands of nerves are cut off! There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the glans is the primary sexual tissue. It is an ASSUMPTION that the glans is and the foreskin is protective skin, but you could just as easily say the glans protects the inner foreskin. The truth is, the foreskin mechanism is what causes all the intense pleasure! IT rolls up and down the shaft, stimulating fine touch receptors adapted to stretch. The glans is merely an instrument to aid in penetration and to allow the foreskin to do its job. The evidence is in--the foreskin has been proven to contain all the encapsulated nerves necessary for pleasure. Adult men who were circumcised can verify what I'm saying.
***this post is edited by moderator *** *** web addresses not allowed*** Please read our Terms of Use
"I used to be able to orgasm just by brushing the very tip of my penis (which was ridged band at the time) with a feather touch. When I was a little older though I sort of forgot about the skin because it would be pulled back by erection. It just seemed like the sensation was coming from 'the head'. Probably why so many intact people can be tricked into giving up their pleasure centres. They don't really understand the different parts, just 'pump it and it feels good' or 'push something inside and it feels good'.
Don't know what they have or what it did until they've lost it."
This is a comment from someone over at the foreskin restoration forum. This is exactly what I said. Many intact men do not realise where their sensations come from and assume it's from the glans. There is no scientific evidence that the glans is the primary sexual tissue. However, from histological analysis we know the glans is primarily protopathic and the foreskin is the tissue with almost all fine touch reception.
So if you are saying that there isn't supposed to be sensitivity on the glans, I wonder why I have been to the top hospital in the UK for Urology and have had sensors placed on my head and on my penis, including glans, to test for sensitivity. Tested with different items, some really soft and some quite rough. Test results show that there is sensitivity on my glans, but I am below the usual threshold. I am sure that if there isn't sensitivity on the glans, then these top medical professionals wouldn't have conducted these tests just for the sake of it.Furthermore, the videos and research on the viberect massager, would indicate that there is sensitivity in the glans.
You're not assimilating what I've said. I haven't said there's no sensitivity in the glans. I told you the sensitivity of the glans is almost entirely protopathic. This means it senses pain and pressure because most of the surface is composed of crude free nerves, not the erogenous encapsulated nerves that innervate the foreskin. The corona has a very small scattering of fine touch receptors, but they are an irrelevance for an intact man whose intense, exquisite sensations come from the ridged band, the frenular delta and frenulum.
The medical community cannot admit this histological fact because if it does it is admitting circumcision is sexual destruction. It's already been established by Dr Taylor's histological analysis.
When it comes to female genital mutilation, no studies need to be done. IT's just banned outright and people call it barbaric. But when it comes to male genital mutilation, it's given a euphemistic title, circumcision, and it's denied it causes damage, even though there's no scientific evidence whatsoever that removing the foreskin doesn't cause dysfunction and reduced sexual sensation. The onus is upon those who are in favour of circumcision to prove it's harmless, but they've been unable to do so. On the contrary, intact men say the foreskin feels glorious (something I can attest to), the neurology proves it's highly innervated and a touch test showed circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis.
Your main problem here is that you trust health professionals on the subject of circumcision. Circumcision is not a medical procedure, it is an act of sexual suppression that became fashionable in Victorian times when prudish doctors wanted to stop boys masturbating. That's precisely why it was done. It's just never been banned, probably because 1) they don't want to admit the damage in case of law suits, and 2) political correctness-religion, but also 3) big pharma and big medicine make a huge profit from the facial creams/make up that use foreskin fibroblasts and from conducting the procedure itself. Of course, the NHS isn't in it for profit, it's just negligent and unwilling to do the right thing and admit it's damaging--the medical negligence cases would go through the roof if it did.