Pages

▼

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Joseph4GI's Twitter Penis Polls


Touched off by a poll regarding penile lubrication and circumcised men I saw on Twitter, I decided to start my own series of polls, just for fun.

Originally, my intention was to make a better poll that included intact men, but then I thought, well why not try other fun stuff as well?

Circumcision Status and Use of Artificial Lubrication
The first poll concerns lubrication and circumcision status.

It is often assumed that circumcised men are more than likely to use artificial lubrication, such as KY jelly or other material, for sexual activity, including insertive intercourse with a partner and/or masturbation, than intact men.

There might be some truth to this, as the mucous membranes of the glans and inner foreskin remnants of the circumcised penis are dried out, hardened and rough due to the layers of keratin built up over time, while in the intact male, these are moist and supple.




So how true is this?

To see how true this assumption is, I posted the following poll questions on Twitter:

Poll A
Please answer only if you are, or if your partner is circumcised. For intact, please see Poll B. For maximum sample size, please retweet.

How often do you use commercial lubrication (e.g. KY, Astroglide or Alboline) for sex and/or masturbation?

Poll B

Please answer only if you are, or if your partner is intact. For circumcised, please see Poll A. For maximum sample size, please retweet.

How often do you use commercial lubrication (e.g. KY, Astroglide or Alboline) for sex and/or masturbation?

Respondents can each answer one of the following:

Essential
Often, but not essential
Only sometimes
Never

Now, I only posted this yesterday, and the poll is still ongoing, but here is what I have so far:



So far 72 circumcised males or their partners have voted in Poll A, and 38% have said lubrication is essential for their masturbation and/or lovemaking. 24% of them said they never use it, which I find a little hard to believe. 24% responded that they use lubrication often, but it isn't essential, and 15% said they use lubrication only sometimes.

Contrast this with the intact males who responded; only 7% of them say artificial lubrication is essential. In stark contrast, 67% of them say they never use lubrication when masturbating or having sex. 5% say they use it often, but it is not essential, while 21% say they use it only sometimes.

Now, polls are still fresh, so this could change. I'm going to embed the polls here so Twitter users can answer them.








Drugs and/or Devices to Maintain an Erection
After posting these, I also got the idea of finding out what users are more likely to use drugs, such as Viagra, or devices, such as cock rings or penis pumps, to maintain an erection.

Many of us believe that circumcised men are more than likely to use Viagra or penile devices to stay hard, than intact men, because of the keratinization and desensitization over time.

So why not ask on Twitter to see what men are actually doing? I thought...

Now, Twitter's poll feature is very limited, so I've had to play with it a little bit to get it to work how I want it to. So here's what I came up with the the next poll: A two-parter!

So in the above fashion, I've made two, separate two-part polls; one for intact and one for circumcised men. One question asks how often men use Viagra or devices to maintain an erection, the other asks what age range they're in.

So here are the numbers for circumcised respondents so far:


Again, as the poll is still new, there are very few respondents.

It looks as though most respondents never really use Viagra or penile devices to maintain an erection. Then again, the greater number of respondents are within the 25-20 year age range. Few past 51. The others are young, thus probably still very virile.

The assumption I was challenging here is the idea that circumcised men become desensitized and are more likely to need Viagra or the aid of a penis pump or cock ring to maintain an erection as they get older.

Here are the numbers for intact males:



The numbers seem skewed against my assumption when comparing intact vs circumcised men.

More intact respondents indicated that Viagra or a device was essential than circumcised respondents. (17% intact vs 12% circumcised) More circumcised respondents responded "Never" than intact respondents. (78% vs 52%)

But look too at the age of the respondents; more intact men in the 26-50 and 51-75 age ranges responded than in the 25 or younger age range. In contrast, there were more circumcised respondents in the 25 or younger age range, the age where they would still have fairly robust erections; ED may be more related to age than circumcision status.

Again, the poll is still rather early and the sample size still very small, so these numbers could change.

One thing I forgot to ask, but it's a little late to add, is whether or not the men smoke, because circumcision status and age are only two pieces of the ED puzzle; other factors, such as smoking, how much sleep they get, and how often they have sex or masturbate may also affect whether or not a man is able to maintain an erection. Perhaps in a future poll.

I have embedded the polls below so Twitter users can respond.

 Use of Viagra, Penis Pumps or other devices to maintain an erection
Circumcised Edition





 Use of Viagra, Penis Pumps or other devices to maintain an erection
Intact Edition








Have you ever seen your father's Penis?
This poll was touched off by a conversation I saw on Facebook; some mothers want to know precisely how much does a child being a different circumcision status from his father affect their relationship.


A common pretext used to pressure parents in to having their child circumcised is that a child ought to be circumcised if the father is, the rationale being that having a different circumcision status than one's father may affect the way they bond together.

So I asked the following questions:

This is for guys out there.
Have you ever seen your father’s penis? Could you tell whether he was circumcised or not?

 How old were you when you saw your father’s penis?

 This is for guys who answered that they noticed their father’s circumcision status was different than theirs.

How did “being different” affect your relationship with your father?

(Space is limited, so neg = negatively, pos = positively, NE no effect)

Here's what I have so far:





So far almost half of the respondents have never actually seen their father's penis. Most who have saw their father's penis in childhood, between the ages of 1 and 10. A very small percentage, so far, saw their father naked over the age of 21.

Your blogger can tell you right now, he has never seen his father naked. Not sure I want to, either.

And, of those who have responded so far, the most noticeable thing about their fathers' penises are that they were bigger.

Circumcision status was noticeable for some, but when adding the percentages of those who noticed their father's pubic hair or didn't really think much of the experience, circumcision status was not so outstanding.

The poll is still pretty young though, so there haven't been very many respondents, and these results could change; only two votes on father/son bonding experience.

I'm going to embed the Tweets here and Twitter users can respond.









I'd like to point out here, that when circumcision first began in the United States, no one was circumcised, so all children would have been different from their fathers. This rationale wouldn't have worked then.




Locker Room Poll
And finally, a poll I put together just now regarding American intact guys and the locker room experience. 

Another common rationale circumcision advocates use to convince parents to have their child circumcised is that he'll be made fun of in the locker room.

Well, let's see what the situation may actually look like.

The poll is only just starting, so there aren't very many respondents. Twitter users can click below to take the poll.









Conclusion
These polls are informal and can't compare to an actual rigorous study, but they hopefully will give us a ballpark to work with, and I hope this sets the groundwork for any researchers out there that want to look into these matters, and hopefully they can come up with more definitive numbers.

As of today (9/29/2019) the polls are ongoing and close in about 6 days or so. I encourage readers to please share this link wherever they can for a better sample size.
at 4 comments:

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

When Someone Says It's Not the Money...

It's the money.


One of the biggest incentives for American doctors to promote and perform circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting infants is that it's easy money.

And yet whenever this is mentioned, people tend to downplay this factor.

"Doctors don't make much from circumcisions," some will say.

"What doctors make from circumcisions is nil," say others.

So how much does a circumcision cost?

It depends on who you ask, and it depends on what fraction of the cost is being reported.

Parents who want to have their child circumcised get quoted small-time three-digit numbers, ranging from 100 to 400 US dollars.

This doesn't sound like much, but then the question is, is this the full cost?

Is this only what parents pay out-of-pocket and the rest is covered through a co-pay system?

The last time I checked, at least one doctor in Canada charges up to 450 dollars Canadian a pop.

In an article released not too long ago, one doctor says he charges $700.

In this same article it is mentioned that after insurances pay, hospitals in Alaska still collect 340 dollars, which raises the question of how much exactly are insurance companies paying?

According to this article, at least one hospital, Alaska Regional, charges $2,110 per circumcision.

Given this figure, at 1.4 million babies being circumcised a year, American hospitals can be making as much as $2,954,000,000 on circumcision alone.

I thought $2,110 was a lot of money for circumcision, but it turns out this figure may actually be modest.

I recently ran across this revealing Tweet:



Here's a screen shot in case it gets deleted:



It is estimated that 1.4 American baby boys are being circumcised a year.

This means that, at $7,000 per circumcision, American hospitals can be making as much as $9,800,000,000 annually on circumcision alone.

To which I ask skeptics; you still think it isn't the money?

It's no wonder doctors and nurses gush on and on about male infant circumcision; there is money to be made, and hospitals make promoting male infant circumcision to parents their policy.

Reaping profit from non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.

This has got to be the biggest medical scam in American history, and sooner or later those who perpetuate it will be held responsible.

at 1 comment: