Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.
The circumcision of normal, healthy foreskin wil reduce a man's potential for sexual pleasure, since foreskin has an important sexual function. Google "foreskin function" or "foreskin anatomy"!
As for cleanliness, it makes no more hygienic sense to remove the MALE foreskin than to remove the FEMALE foreskin (inner labia and clitoral hood). If the one is unhygienic, then so is the other. Hygiene is a personal choice, and a circ'd penis also requires hygiene to prevent it from smelling.
Hmmm...not sure how an uncircumsised penis would experience less stimuli during sex. The penis head is covered when the penis is not erect but once you have an erection the penis head extends out and is no longer covered and is subject to the same stimulus. Right?
The way I see it, God speaks in such an incredible language that it actually MAKES our world. His Word is made into being (which is why the one thing He can't do is lie) and so the only way we can speak back to him is to BE for Him. That's what we are/do. Ritual behavior is merely repeating the same sentence to Him over and over again; it worked the first time, but now it's getting boring for BOTH of us (far as I can see it)
Most American men were circumcised for "sanitation" reasons and because of Judeo Christian tradition. At least that's what I've been told.
Having never been "intact" I don't know what I'm missing. Sure doesn't affect my sensitivity or the quality of love that I enjoy with different kinds of women.
I don't agree Sir,men who aren't circumcised have foreskin, underneath that foreskin is a breeding ground for bacteria (sweat + heat=yeast infection in women). When ever that bacteria isn't cleaned properly that puts a woman at a higher risk for yeast infections. This is why women take a extra precaution to using white cotton panties that has no artificial coloring (which cause irritation) and cotton absorbs the sweat. Its a priority feminine health rules to being yeast free and odorless.
Peter and Paul (both Israelites) had a dispute concerning the Gentiles (non-Israelites) who wanted to follow the Messiah. They do not have to be circumcised in the flesh order for them to follow the Messiah. However, it was given to the House of Israel as a command to circumcise every born male on the eighth day from generation to generation. One must note that circumcision is not going to benefit you anything, if you're not circumcised in the heart.
@sinthalis The medical reasons are trumped up and overstated as lame justifications. And what kind of personal reasons could there possibly be that somehow makes it right to perform body altering surgery on another human being without their consent?
Getting it done to yourself? Sure, fine, whatever... no different than a piercing or tattoo. It's your body... I'm talking about the regular practice of doing it to newborns.
I saw Jews online circumcising a baby with their teeth. I'm not even kidding. It made me sick to my stomach. I read up on it and that's the way many did it before. *vomits* Supposedly, the most common Jew that does this practice is called the hasidic Jew and this practice with the teeth is called "metzizah bi peh". Health officials are upset because a baby boy got an infection and died after a Jew did that with his teeth on the baby. Again, I speak facts and I'm not trying to be funny. Google.
@Viktir666 I just looked it up some more with other references and I made a tiny spelling error. When Jews circumcise babies with their teeth it's spelled "metzitzah b'peh".
Evolution for the last 100 000 years, kept the foreskin there because it was harder for deadly bacteria to enter the orifice of the penis with a protective skin on it. (Those without the foreskin may have died out in early evolution) taking the skin off leaves the gland unprotected to chafing, and bacteria. If you were to use the argument that foreskin allowed for disease through neglect, than it would be just as rational to cut off ears, as they also get infected with neglect.
Mr Tmot.....please do a vlog on how to deal with "church folk" I have joined a new church...and I'm picking up the spirits of of some of these church folk. When I go to worship Mr tmot...God is there! I have a troublesome time connecting with people in the church. So when You get time please consider a vlog about "church folk" and how to deal with them.
Hey Tmot I recently subcribed, I really love what you have to say. I always have respect and admiration for someone who's wise and speaks the truth about things. So keep doing your thing!
I've heard(from anit-circ'ers) that circumcision actually takes away some of the sensitivity. I've never been with an un-circ'd male and they have never complained the sensitivity aspect.
So here's a question for you:) I'm of the opinion if its your child, you do what you think is best for them. Do you feel like parents should be able to make that decision(to circumsize) for their son? Or do you think that they should leave their baby intact and let them decide later on?
With foreskin intact, sensitivity is greater because it is sheathed so to speak when not erect. Less contact, more sensitive. Circumcised leaves the head sensors exposed, thus building a tolerance to touch and therefore longer duration before ejaculation. I was deskinned at 18, after entering the Navy. All the difference in the World. If I had a son, yes. A daughter (multiples), no. For women, it is about control, not a God thing as taught. It was a requirement for men, not anymore.
@tmotofga, there is no evidence that circumcision increases sexual duration. Foreskin nerves probably provide more sensory feedback, so the uncircumcised guy has more control, and is less likely to be "surprised" by ejaculation. Controlling ejaculation is a skill most men need to learn. However, the UNCIRCUMCSED man is better able to acquire the skill.
Foreskin not only conserves glans sensitivity. Foreskin is itself sexually functional tissue, richly endowed with fine-touch nerves.
@LESREID2 Some parents don't go into it with the best intentions, though. The dad will want it done for no other reason than it was done to him, which isn't good enough, and the mother sometimes wants it done because she juse thinks it looks better. What the boy, who will hopefully live to be a man, will want doesn't even enter into their calculations. An ban on circumcision on minors will protect the sons of such idiots from their parents ignorance.
@TheWorstWarlock Exactly correct. It's all about the ability to consent to the procedure. If you're an adult and want the procedure for yourself, knock yourself out! Go for it, no one will try to stop ya!
But to impose your own will on a minor in that way, all for aesthetics? To me, that's just selfish and evil.
Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.
----------------------------
Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds In The Adult Penis
British Journal of Urology International,
2007, Vol. 99, No. 4, 864-869
Sorrells et al.
freedom0speech 2 months ago
lol people thought theyd have to be circumcised to serve god?? hahaha
rainonmebi 6 months ago
The circumcision of normal, healthy foreskin wil reduce a man's potential for sexual pleasure, since foreskin has an important sexual function. Google "foreskin function" or "foreskin anatomy"!
As for cleanliness, it makes no more hygienic sense to remove the MALE foreskin than to remove the FEMALE foreskin (inner labia and clitoral hood). If the one is unhygienic, then so is the other. Hygiene is a personal choice, and a circ'd penis also requires hygiene to prevent it from smelling.
psandbergnz 6 months ago
Comment removed
psandbergnz 6 months ago
drive time? your laying in bed.
VMZQ 6 months ago
Hmmm...not sure how an uncircumsised penis would experience less stimuli during sex. The penis head is covered when the penis is not erect but once you have an erection the penis head extends out and is no longer covered and is subject to the same stimulus. Right?
Shanester66 7 months ago
The way I see it, God speaks in such an incredible language that it actually MAKES our world. His Word is made into being (which is why the one thing He can't do is lie) and so the only way we can speak back to him is to BE for Him. That's what we are/do. Ritual behavior is merely repeating the same sentence to Him over and over again; it worked the first time, but now it's getting boring for BOTH of us (far as I can see it)
QuartuvLarry 7 months ago
@QuartuvLarry Kind of adds to the perspective "Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these will be added unto you"
QuartuvLarry 7 months ago
Thank you very much for the Biblical perspective, Sir!
gene15644b 7 months ago
Most American men were circumcised for "sanitation" reasons and because of Judeo Christian tradition. At least that's what I've been told.
Having never been "intact" I don't know what I'm missing. Sure doesn't affect my sensitivity or the quality of love that I enjoy with different kinds of women.
gene15644b 7 months ago
I don't agree Sir,men who aren't circumcised have foreskin, underneath that foreskin is a breeding ground for bacteria (sweat + heat=yeast infection in women). When ever that bacteria isn't cleaned properly that puts a woman at a higher risk for yeast infections. This is why women take a extra precaution to using white cotton panties that has no artificial coloring (which cause irritation) and cotton absorbs the sweat. Its a priority feminine health rules to being yeast free and odorless.
972trev 7 months ago
Comment removed
Vernonu9 7 months ago
Peter and Paul (both Israelites) had a dispute concerning the Gentiles (non-Israelites) who wanted to follow the Messiah. They do not have to be circumcised in the flesh order for them to follow the Messiah. However, it was given to the House of Israel as a command to circumcise every born male on the eighth day from generation to generation. One must note that circumcision is not going to benefit you anything, if you're not circumcised in the heart.
milleziano 7 months ago
As far as I'm concerned, circumcision is a brutal and barbaric relic of a bygone age that needs to be recognized for what it is.
What is it? It's mutilation. It's permanently modifying a baby's body for no good reason.
Wait, "no good reason"? THAT'S RIGHT! ZERO good reason.
eagleeye1975 7 months ago
@eagleeye1975 That's simply not true. There are medical and personal reasons, and your disagreeing with them does not invalidate htem.
sinthalis 7 months ago
@sinthalis
You are correct. I had he procedure at 18 as stated in a previous comment. I DO NOT REGRET IT!
tmotofga 7 months ago
@sinthalis The medical reasons are trumped up and overstated as lame justifications. And what kind of personal reasons could there possibly be that somehow makes it right to perform body altering surgery on another human being without their consent?
Getting it done to yourself? Sure, fine, whatever... no different than a piercing or tattoo. It's your body... I'm talking about the regular practice of doing it to newborns.
eagleeye1975 7 months ago
I saw Jews online circumcising a baby with their teeth. I'm not even kidding. It made me sick to my stomach. I read up on it and that's the way many did it before. *vomits* Supposedly, the most common Jew that does this practice is called the hasidic Jew and this practice with the teeth is called "metzizah bi peh". Health officials are upset because a baby boy got an infection and died after a Jew did that with his teeth on the baby. Again, I speak facts and I'm not trying to be funny. Google.
Viktir666 7 months ago
@Viktir666 I just looked it up some more with other references and I made a tiny spelling error. When Jews circumcise babies with their teeth it's spelled "metzitzah b'peh".
Viktir666 7 months ago
@ArmaniDemon I've heard the opposite study. That's funny how studies are severely flawed.
Viktir666 7 months ago
Evolution for the last 100 000 years, kept the foreskin there because it was harder for deadly bacteria to enter the orifice of the penis with a protective skin on it. (Those without the foreskin may have died out in early evolution) taking the skin off leaves the gland unprotected to chafing, and bacteria. If you were to use the argument that foreskin allowed for disease through neglect, than it would be just as rational to cut off ears, as they also get infected with neglect.
SIRA063 7 months ago 2
Great video sir.
purplehazed54 7 months ago
allowing likes/dislikes on this one? gotta show my love then. great videos tmot
bktenn29 7 months ago
@bktenn29
An oversight. Corrected. Thanks for the heads up and support.
tmotofga 7 months ago
@tmotofga Thanks a lot
003bone 7 months ago
Mr Tmot.....please do a vlog on how to deal with "church folk" I have joined a new church...and I'm picking up the spirits of of some of these church folk. When I go to worship Mr tmot...God is there! I have a troublesome time connecting with people in the church. So when You get time please consider a vlog about "church folk" and how to deal with them.
janeblow80 7 months ago
Fantastic!
dingles4breakfast 7 months ago
Hey Tmot I recently subcribed, I really love what you have to say. I always have respect and admiration for someone who's wise and speaks the truth about things. So keep doing your thing!
BlackMasterJoe89 7 months ago
I've heard(from anit-circ'ers) that circumcision actually takes away some of the sensitivity. I've never been with an un-circ'd male and they have never complained the sensitivity aspect.
So here's a question for you:) I'm of the opinion if its your child, you do what you think is best for them. Do you feel like parents should be able to make that decision(to circumsize) for their son? Or do you think that they should leave their baby intact and let them decide later on?
LESREID2 7 months ago 2
@LESREID2
With foreskin intact, sensitivity is greater because it is sheathed so to speak when not erect. Less contact, more sensitive. Circumcised leaves the head sensors exposed, thus building a tolerance to touch and therefore longer duration before ejaculation. I was deskinned at 18, after entering the Navy. All the difference in the World. If I had a son, yes. A daughter (multiples), no. For women, it is about control, not a God thing as taught. It was a requirement for men, not anymore.
tmotofga 7 months ago
@tmotofga, there is no evidence that circumcision increases sexual duration. Foreskin nerves probably provide more sensory feedback, so the uncircumcised guy has more control, and is less likely to be "surprised" by ejaculation. Controlling ejaculation is a skill most men need to learn. However, the UNCIRCUMCSED man is better able to acquire the skill.
Foreskin not only conserves glans sensitivity. Foreskin is itself sexually functional tissue, richly endowed with fine-touch nerves.
psandbergnz 6 months ago
@LESREID2 Some parents don't go into it with the best intentions, though. The dad will want it done for no other reason than it was done to him, which isn't good enough, and the mother sometimes wants it done because she juse thinks it looks better. What the boy, who will hopefully live to be a man, will want doesn't even enter into their calculations. An ban on circumcision on minors will protect the sons of such idiots from their parents ignorance.
TheWorstWarlock 7 months ago
@TheWorstWarlock Exactly correct. It's all about the ability to consent to the procedure. If you're an adult and want the procedure for yourself, knock yourself out! Go for it, no one will try to stop ya!
But to impose your own will on a minor in that way, all for aesthetics? To me, that's just selfish and evil.
eagleeye1975 7 months ago