# Less Sensitive=Lasts Longer



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

I am so sick of this justification. "Well, my husband feels plenty and if he was anymore sensitive sex would be over in minutes." or, "<Giggle> Well, for women, a man being a little less sensitive isn't necessarily a bad thing."

I'm so fed up.

I wonder what we would think if a man asserted he preferred women have a surgery that delayed or made orgasm more difficult because sexually frustrated women are insatiable?

"Oh, it's not so bad...she wants it all the time and can go and go and go."

We'd be appalled that anyone would suggest performing amputative surgery to decrease one person's sexual sensitivity, pleasure, and function to benefit a sexual partner, wouldn't we?

<grumble>

Jen


----------



## mntnmom (Sep 21, 2006)

Well, I've been with both, it's not necessarily true.
I agree with you that it's horrifying justification. The idea that lack of sensitivity is a BENEFIT to the other partner, is cruel and insensitive!!
Besides, any woman who thinks a man has to rely on "lasting" a long time to pleasure a woman is regretably ignorant. If it we're that they were themselves perpetuating circ', I would pity their narrow experience!


----------



## BigC (Oct 16, 2006)

That argument never ceases to astound me. What those people fail to understand is that intact men have better control because they can feel where their penis is.


----------



## Bm31 (Jun 5, 2005)

Some of the pro-circ's admit it DOES make it less sensitive??? Then why will the rest of them claim that keratinization of the glans is a hoax??







:


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

Also, in "Sex as Nature Intended It", they explain that in the circumcised penis, the tightness of the skin puts pressure on the 'internal erectile tissue' (similar in structure to the clitoris, which extends much further inward than people realize), causing the release of chemicals, which triggers (sometimes premature) ejaculation. So, in other words, circumcised men think that it's their sensitivity that makes them ejaculate faster (hence the statement "Man, I wouldn't want to be anymore sensitive then I already am!!!"), but that's actually not true, and does not have much to do with their sensitivity. With intact men, they are more exquisitely sensitive, but can "hold it" longer (b/c there's not too much pressure on the internal erectile tissue, releasing chemicals that makes them ejaculate sooner then they should.)
My dh has said this to me as to why he's glad he's circumcised... "Man, hon, I find you so sexy and I'm so sensitive down there, I couldn't imagine being _more_ sensitive then I already am." He doesn't get it.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bm31* 
Some of the pro-circ's admit it DOES make it less sensitive??? Then why will the rest of them claim that keratinization of the glans is a hoax??







:

I think the rationalization usually goes:

It doesn't decrease sensitivity.

If it did decrease sensitivity, they wouldn't have anything to compare it to/know the difference. Ignorance is bliss...who cares?

So what if it does decrease sensitivity, that's not necessarily a bad thing. My husband said he'd explode in 90 seconds if he was any more sensitive.

Gah.

Jen


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

That's exactly what I was talking about in my post (we posted at the same time).


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
I think the rationalization usually goes:

It doesn't decrease sensitivity.

If it did decrease sensitivity, they wouldn't have anything to compare it to/know the difference. Ignorance is bliss...who cares?

So what if it does decrease sensitivity, that's not necessarily a bad thing. My husband said he'd explode in 90 seconds if he was any more sensitive.

Gah.

Jen

Yep.

With a lil' "...and it's more attractive, anyway."

Bleh...


----------



## Bm31 (Jun 5, 2005)

I've heard that from other guys before, Jen, but the truth is they wouldn't really know. I point blank asked one that question once, and he was stumped for a response. Really, I think it's all relative; by the time a guy is sexually active he will acclimate to it. And I think there's a difference between sensation and sensitivity too.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

This was from a post a long time ago







. I pulled it out from some of my saved material. I think this is a good analogy!

____

Sports Car Analogy- this is the best analogy I can think of - the
car thing is in no way an attempt to talk down to guys- it's
honestly the best one I can come up with. If I told your DH that I
had a great handling sports car, one that handles even better than
the one he has right now... a more sensitive car... Would he
say, "No way- that's impossible- if a car was any more sensitive
than mine- you could not drive it! You could not keep it on the
road!" No I doubt it. He would probably want me to explain how the
car was more sensitive- and I could tell him that the car has
stiffer shocks and race tires and a big engine which accelerates
fast- but fantastic state of the art breaks that can bring it to a
standstill effortlessly... he would not assume that this more
sensitive car was all acceleration and no breaks would he? He would
not assume it was all torque and no steering? So why would he assume
that the only sensitivity lost in cirucmcision is the sensitivity
that leads a man down to the road of no return? Could he ever
imagine that maybe the sensitivity lost in circumcision was the very
sensitivity that would allow him to enjoy making love without
fearing that he would explode? That maybe it's a type of sensitivity
that gives a man the feedback he needs- and the breaks from vaginal
wall friction to AVOID exploding when he does not want to?

___

And, it is EXACTLY the opposite of what the pro-circers think. Premature egaculation is much more prevalent among the circumcised. They lack the sensitivity and have less control and are less aware of how close they are to orgasm so they can't alter things to stop in time. So sad.


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

Wow, phatchristy, great reply!


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
I think the rationalization usually goes:

It doesn't decrease sensitivity.

If it did decrease sensitivity, they wouldn't have anything to compare it to/know the difference. Ignorance is bliss...who cares?

So what if it does decrease sensitivity, that's not necessarily a bad thing. My husband said he'd explode in 90 seconds if he was any more sensitive.

Gah.

Jen

All I am going to say is with a DH who is restoring, according to him there are actual NEW SENSATIONS that just didn't exist before in his tightly circ'd state. Just whole new things...a difference and experience. Sort of like broadening the horizons.

Think of it too as an artist who has only black and white to paint with. Then, just imagine getting a new color, then adding a new color...there is just more there.

Don't know how to put it any other way.


----------



## blsilva (Jul 31, 2006)

Oooh, I wish I had known about the Sports Car analogy 6 years ago! My dh tried to pull that one on me, and I had no answer for it. All I could do was fall back on the old major pain/not worth it strategy- which worked, btw, but I would have liked to have this argument under my belt too!


----------



## laprettygurl (Dec 22, 2004)

I've been with both and I'd rather have 5 minutes with an intact guy than hours with a circ'd guy.


----------



## baybee (Jan 24, 2005)

In one circumcising cultural group, there's a saying that there are 3 good reasons to circumcise. They are: 1. We last longer 2. We last longer 3. We last longer. Seems to me that's a sad sales job to keep the practise going for future generations. In that same culture, there's a 14th Century scholar who warns against allowing the women of this group to experience sex with an intact man because she will be lost to the tribe if she does. Very mixed messages.

Circumcision is a good way to make an individual schizophrenic and I think it's also a way to make a culture whacko.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

Well, to me, lasting longer = getting sore, bored, and pain that lasts for days. Not fun.

I'm sure it's a "male myth" about lasting longer being better, what woman wants them to go on and on and on and on, just pounding away? Being with a man who lasts forever results in me not wanting it at all, who wants to equate sex with pain? (Ok, I know some people do, but that's a different situation.)


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

I think b/c so many cirumcised men prematurely ejaculate, that the myth of "lasting longer = better" came about. Had these men stayed intact, they could've had more sensitivity AND lasted longer! (which circumcised men cannot even fathom!!!)


----------



## purposefulmother (Feb 28, 2007)

Circumcision is a good way to make an individual schizophrenic and I think it's also a way to make a culture whacko

Right on with that!


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

My husband can last forever, and it's one of his reasons for why he wants to circ any future sons (won't happen). HE is the one who uses this reason, not me, and it's hard to refute (I just say it doesn't make sense to deny a son sexual pleasure and that I don't think him lasting a long time has anything to do with being circ'd, but more something physiologically different about him and his dad (since his dad is the same; trust me, I didn't ask & have no personal knowledge)).

And FTR, it's not that he has a harder time climaxing or can't climax . . . he can just very easily choose when he wants it to happen, so he can always last as long or short as we want. Which is really nice. I didn't have that experience at all with the one other sexual partner I had prior to dh. That guy came in 5 seconds; it was terribly boring. Oh, and he was circ'd too.

Sigh. It's really frustrating when you can talk in circles and never get anywhere. Dh does not say keritanization of the glans is a myth; he says it's a good thing. Yeah, we don't talk about circ anymore.

Julia
dd 1 year old


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 

Sigh. It's really frustrating when you can talk in circles and never get anywhere. Dh does not say keritanization of the glans is a myth; he says it's a good thing. Yeah, we don't talk about circ anymore.

Julia
dd 1 year old










You know, there is no "cookie cutter" circ...no two are alike. Any adult who was circ'd as an infant was done to the personal taste of their circumciser. So, you can have one circ'd man who is very tightly circ'd, with very little inner foreskin left (scar is nearly next to the glans), and the frenulum scraped out. Then, you can have another who has a looser circ with most of the frenulum left.

It's something that should be left to your son's to choose. Honestly, if they reach 18 and they want to have it done (which is VERY unlikely btw...I've read fewer than 1 in a 1000 choose to have it done as adults even in this country--USA...in other intact nations it's like 1 in 17,000) they can have it done and they can minimize the most sensitive tissues that they lost. They can find a doctor who will leave the frenulum and innerforeskin there as much as possible.

Your dh's logic fails me for that reason. Maybe he doesn't understand that some men who are circ'd are VERY bad off. Maybe he just got a "better cut" than a lot of circ'd babies. Why RISK it even that his son winds up even worse off than daddy?

Anyhow, just a thought.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phatchristy* 
You know, there is no "cookie cutter" circ...no two are alike.

Indeed.

Penises are just like snowflakes.









Jen


----------



## AllieFaye (Mar 7, 2007)

As a women who has had both intact and circ'ed partners, I am so very sad over this argument.







: It presumes that women *need* partners who can last a long time. They forget that sex for the woman is less satisfying with a circ'ed partner as well. The foreskin provides stimulation for the g-spot for women - that almost mythically hard to find spot in American culture. The foreskin does all the work, and generally women don't need as much stimulation to orgasm (on average, again - every penis is unique.







: ) The whole "it's takes a lot of work and a long to get a woman to orgasm" is so very, very sad.








When I lived outside of the US, I noticed that they don't sell ribbed "for her pleasure" condoms. Don't need to.

Dh is the only circ'ed man to make it easy for me. Every intact man had no problem. Let's just say that statistically those odds are abysmal.


----------



## Monkeygrrl (Oct 9, 2005)

my partner actually has nerve damage from his circ...there are times when he wants to climax, it feels good, etc, but cannot because his penis will not cooperate...and he feels this is a direct result of the circ, because there is no other medical explanation for it (and we have been to the docs)...

and personally, just because it can go on for a while, doesnt make it pleasurable...just as men like it a certain way, so do women...and i am not a fan of being sore the next day because sex took a while...

peace...


----------



## InDaPhunk (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
I am so sick of this justification. "Well, my husband feels plenty and if he was anymore sensitive sex would be over in minutes." or, " Well, for women, a man being a little less sensitive isn't necessarily a bad thing."


There was a time I might have said this. He!!, I probably _did_ say this.

I was not always the intactavist that I am today. I was as shallow and uninformed as they come.

But I changed. And changed quickly once I did about 10 mins of research.

The annoying thing is when people don't change- with or without research







.


----------



## Monkeygrrl (Oct 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InDaPhunk* 
The annoying thing is when people don't change- with or without research







.

exactly!!!!









it depresses me to see it on another board i am on...







: i just cant click those message links anymore... *sigh*

peace...


----------



## ilovetiger (Feb 12, 2007)

here is an example of how an "anti circ" attitude gets out of control.. Instead of sticking to the real authentic, justifiable reasons that support in-tactness, these other ridiculous issues to strengthen their support surface. Premature ejaculation is 90% psychological and mental. Despite research that suggests any phsyical explanations to the contrary, it's miniscule compared to the overall psychological and mental influences that dictate climactic results. C'mon... The "findings" that are being mentioned here would be like a man saying: "in my sexual experiences, the women who had the best figure and kept herself in shape and exercised regularly and took a multi-vitamin every day had better sexual feelings than any of the overweight women I've been with." Any overweight women out here would have difficulty believing this, if SHE HERSELF thought that her sexual feelings were as good as they could possibly be. If a circ'ed guy believes that sex feels amazing, and couldn't imagine it being better, then who cares about what he might be missing?? If he's missing anything, then so perhaps is a women who takes for granted that being 20-30 pounds overweight isn't "missing out" on something that she doesn't have.

The point here is it's probably not as important what is present PHYSICALLY, but what is going on within the individual MENTALLY, and PSYCHOLOGICALLY. This is where being satisfied or dissatisfied lies, for BOTH men and women.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovetiger* 
here is an example of how an "anti circ" attitude gets out of control.. Instead of sticking to the real authentic, justifiable reasons that support in-tactness, these other ridiculous issues to strengthen their support surface. Premature ejaculation is 90% psychological and mental. Despite research that suggests any phsyical explanations to the contrary, it's miniscule compared to the overall psychological and mental influences that dictate climactic results.

OK, show me the research that says that circed and intact men have equal rates of premature ejaculation.







I agree that part of PE is going to be psychological/mental.....but why do you dismiss so easily the idea that surgically altering the genitals to completely change the mechanics and remove the most sensitive areas might affect a man's performance? There's plausible evidence to suggest that the ridged band, which is always removed with circ, is the primary ejaculation trigger in an intact man.

It's plausible that circumcision will make some men last longer, because they no longer have the sensitivity of the foreskin....and it's also plausible that it will contribute to PE in some men, because they're missing the fully functioning system that triggers ejaculation and don't have the control/fine-tuned sensitivity that an intact man does.


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

*i love tiger~* You're very wrong. It's PROVEN that if a circ is too tight, the blood-filled caverns press on the inner erectile tissue too much, causing the release of chemicals that trigger ejaculation (which may or may not be premature, depending on the woman's preference, I guess!). You missed the whole point of the thread. We are talking about _people who are pro-circ for the intention of "making a man last longer"_ and we are saying that being circumcised DOES NOT GUARANTEE that you will be able to last longer! and lasting longer is not always great with a circumcised man whose glans penis is ripping you apart and pulling all of the moisture out of you, instead of an intact man whose foreskin prevents this type of mechanical irritation. Also, one last point, just b/c you are more sensitive with a foreskin, doesn't mean that you will ejaculate faster. That's the point that circ'ed men just don't get! (but if you read through all of the posts again, instead of becoming defensive, b/c YOU obviously are circ'ed or are pro-circ., you would learn why this is, physiologically!!!) BTW, NOONE is saying that ejaculation isn't mostly psychological, we're saying that "circumcising a newborn baby, just so he will 'last longer later in life' is ridiculous, as there's NO GUARANTEE of this!" (Well, it's ridiculous on many other levels, this is just one example!) Good luck becoming educated on the subject, without being too defensive- I sincerely mean that; it must be hard to accept.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

I've talked to several men who were intact, circ'd as adults (who later restored) and all three of them said they had better egaculatory control when they were intact. That includes both the circ'd and restored states. Of course, that in anticdotal...but research also shows that premature egaculation is actually *higher* rate wise with circumcised men.

The way the former intact men have described it to me is that they seem to have a winder range of levels of excitement which is really easy to alter. After being circumcised their sensation is decreased and they don't have so many levels to discern where they are in terms of being ready to egaculate.

Hope I'm explaining it so it makes sense.

Of course, there are also those men out there who have so much damage that they can go on forever. But, these also tend to be the guys who have to pound away with a lot of force to even egaculate.

(wow, I am so tired, please excuse me if I have serious spelling errors...DS has a tummy bug and I've been up for a while--he woke me up by throwing up on me ewww.....)


----------



## ilovetiger (Feb 12, 2007)

Some of you are REALLY stretching for anti-circ arguments. Gimme a break. The research is flawed, and the experimental sample shows nothing representative of ANYTHING of importance when attempting to derive at a plausible conclusion about circ vs intact and HOW LONG ONE WILL LAST, even with the undeniable changes in sensitivity. As soon as you admit that there are many exceptions, then it's an unworth argument..."they all wore the same underwear...".

I'm gonna start a thread entitled, "Physical characteristics that influence pain tolerance", as if to say that pain tolerance is determined by something pyhsically distinctive in an individual.. Regardless of what you FORCE YOURSELF to find with regard to a physical explanation, it's mental and psychologically controlled. It's all about training and experience.

I ADMIT there are physical differences, and they are, perhaps, factors, BUT they are unnoticable due to the tremendous amount mental and psychological factors that go into the sexual experience.

I have a few analogies of my own, which I'd be happy to share, but I think I've already made my point.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...710&query_hl=3
Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?
_"Overall satisfaction was 61%. CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."_

*Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction.*
_"Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised."_
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...453&query_hl=3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...526&query_hl=3
Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation.
Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A.
_"In the dysfunctional group, circumcised men (49 +/- 16 years) were significantly younger (P <0.01) than uncircumcised men (56 +/- 13 years)."_

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...371&query_hl=3
_"However, *the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision* (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication."_

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...200&query_hl=3
_"Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision]
[Article in Chinese]
Shen Z, Chen S, Zhu C, Wan Q, Chen Z.
Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, China. [email protected]
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the erectile function of adults after circumcision. METHODS: Ninty-five patients were investigated on erectile function by questionnaire before and after circumcision, respectively. RESULTS: *Eighteen patients suffered from mild erectile dysfunction before circumcision, and 28 suffered from mild or moderate erectile dysfunction after circumcision*(P = 0.001). Adult circumcision appeared to have resulted in weakened erectile confidence in 33 cases(P = 0.04), difficult insertion in 41 cases(P = 0.03), prolonged intercourse in 31 cases(P = 0.04) and improved satisfaction in 34 cases(P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision has certain effect on erectile function, to which more importance should be attached."_

************************************************** ********************
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...X.2006.06685.x
"OBJECTIVE

To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.
RESULTS

The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.

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."

Full Text:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...rells_2007.pdf

************************************************** ***************************************

Looks like if you want to totally screw up your son's sexual prowess as an adult, circumcision is the way to go.

I feel sorry for you ilovetiger, you clearly do not understand the serious consequences for the adult man, of carrying out this surgery on a child, and you clearly do not like what you have read here.

Stick around and you'll find that everything that you see here is true, we have studies and papers that we get our information from, I hope that you find it informative and educational, and that you will not do this horrible mutilation to any children you might have.


----------



## ilovetiger (Feb 12, 2007)

Stick to supporting in-tactness because of the mutilation factors. That's fine with me...I fully support intactness!!!!!! I'll say it again..I fully support intactness...But stick to REAL reasons....things like why a child shouldn't be "mutilated"..that works fine with me.. Don't stretch for other "scientific" reasons that use poor population samples to reach other refutable conclusions. We've gone from mutilation to staying power?? Focus on your few genuine reasons that justifiably support intactness.. Don't allow yourself to get recruited into these other ridiculous and poorly experimented findings.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

Actually, ranting doesn't help either - and you are coming across as ranting.

The OP was talking about women using "staying power" as a reason TO circ their sons. They seem to think it's an advantage, and we were all pointing out that it is far from an advantage.

Why can't we have a discussion about other things without you getting excitable about it?

This is a board that is for discussion about intactness and information sharing, not debate, there shouldn't be ANY procirc people reading this board (and if they are I hope they're feeling suitably guilty) so what are you talking about? That we shouldn't discuss, here of all places, our experiences and exchange information?


----------



## Treece (Apr 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovetiger* 
Stick to supporting in-tactness because of the mutilation factors. That's fine with me...I fully support intactness!!!!!! I'll say it again..I fully support intactness...But stick to REAL reasons....things like why a child shouldn't be "mutilated"..that works fine with me.. Don't stretch for other "scientific" reasons that use poor population samples to reach other refutable conclusions. We've gone from mutilation to staying power?? Focus on your few genuine reasons that justifiably support intactness.. Don't allow yourself to get recruited into these other ridiculous and poorly experimented findings.

Th truth is we have science on our side. The truth is procirc does not. Circumcision in America (RIC) was not started to increase a man's sexual prowess, it was started to decrease sensitivity.Check it out, you might learn something I'm sorry the history of it does not support its continuation. Please, inform yourself. Check out some of the links in my siggy. If you don't believe them, watch a video. I promise they are all true. I really do hope you inform yourself and learn that this is bad news. Please stop attacking us, we do not "believe" circ is wrong, we KNOW it.


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovetiger* 
here is an example of how an "anti circ" attitude gets out of control.. Instead of sticking to the real authentic, justifiable reasons that support in-tactness, these other ridiculous issues to strengthen their support surface. Premature ejaculation is 90% psychological and mental. Despite research that suggests any phsyical explanations to the contrary, it's miniscule compared to the overall psychological and mental influences that dictate climactic results. C'mon... The "findings" that are being mentioned here would be like a man saying: "in my sexual experiences, the women who had the best figure and kept herself in shape and exercised regularly and took a multi-vitamin every day had better sexual feelings than any of the overweight women I've been with." Any overweight women out here would have difficulty believing this, if SHE HERSELF thought that her sexual feelings were as good as they could possibly be. If a circ'ed guy believes that sex feels amazing, and couldn't imagine it being better, then who cares about what he might be missing?? If he's missing anything, then so perhaps is a women who takes for granted that being 20-30 pounds overweight isn't "missing out" on something that she doesn't have.

The point here is it's probably not as important what is present PHYSICALLY, but what is going on within the individual MENTALLY, and PSYCHOLOGICALLY. This is where being satisfied or dissatisfied lies, for BOTH men and women.

ilovetiger, I find your posts to be lacking in scientific proof for your position that time of ejaculation is 90% mentally controlled. It is a given that removal of the foreskin interferes with the normal function of the penis, so it would logically follow that the mechanism of ejaculation would also be changed. I do not know whether this would generally make for accelerated or delayed ejaculation, or if it varies among individuals. But if -as the OP said- people are making the claim that 'a benefit of circumcision is an ability to delay ejaculation', one would think there would be much reliable research on the matter. I believe you said there isn't any. I haven't seen any that supports your above assertion either.

As far as this:

Quote:

If a circ'ed guy believes that sex feels amazing, and couldn't imagine it being better, then who cares about what he might be missing??
Well, all of us here care greatly. When a circumcised man feels that way, he's unlikely to understand that he'd be harming his son by removing the best part of his penis. He will probably perpetuate the cycle of circumcision. That's why we feel it's important to bust the myths surrounding circumcision, and to help people understand the *function and the benefits of the foreskin*.


----------



## Treece (Apr 5, 2006)

Besides, why mess with something that nature has profected? We learn all the time that things in our bodies are there for a reason. The tonsils were once routinely removed, yet they serve a vital role in the immune system. It is being learned that the appendix does too. (I don't have a link). There is proof that the foreskin serves a role in immunity. (BTW Langerhans cells are found in the foreskin). Here's the thread we have on that.


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

"We" did not bring this up... circumcised people did!!! Circumcised people said that they are glad they are circ'ed and want to circ. future sons b/c "circumcised men have better staying power/ last longer".
THEY said it, THEY started this whole conversation. WE merely are refuting the comment that THEY made.


----------



## baybee (Jan 24, 2005)

I asked a father to be if he would leave his son intact.

He replied "no, I would want a son to be circ'd".

I said "Are you circumcised?" He said "No, that's why I want my son circumcised."

I was confused. "What do you think circumcision is going to do for your son?", I asked.

He was embarrassed but said "When I first started having sex, I would always prematurely ejaculate. . . I couldn't help it." My reply "Yeah, all teenage boys do that, what else is new?"

He said "No, the other guys told me they could last." I said, "They were lying, trust me, I've been with a few teenage boys in my day and they're not good for much." He said, "Really? Okay I'll keep my son intact then." They had a boy, he's intact. Sometimes we need to clear these things up by sharing our own experience.


----------



## ilovetiger (Feb 12, 2007)

Just continue to recruit other anti-circ members on the basis of circ being "mutilating" and painful and simply unnecessary...I'm with THAT. I"M ALL FOR IT.. I personally would not circ my sons for these reasons alone. I don't need to scramble for other bogus research from Instanbul, Turkey (probably conducted by a Dr. who none of us would ever take our children to) with a sample of 42 men in an attempt to further prove the case against circ.. You've already made your point. Please, just stop stretching. I know too many women who've been with both, and the consensus is..."It doesn't matter to me", and "I don't have a preference..." I, myself am anti-circ...purely due to the unnecessary pain and mutilation cast on infants who have no say. I find no advantages in circ, but it doesn't mean that all who are are disadvantaged...Yes, you say it's about helpless children, but I see it stemming off to how adults are "disadvantaged" because they're circ'ed. This, too, is a stretch, and can't be supported scientifically without affecting individuals who are beside the findings.

Overall...if you don't like Pres. Bush, then say, "I don't like the way he's handling this war in Iraq....he's putting our troops' lives at risk unnecessarily, etc.. you don't have to add: "OH, AND BY THE WAY..HE'S FROM TEXAS...I HAD A BAD EXPERINCE IN TEXAS. SOMEONE STOLE MY RADIO FROM MY CAR...NOW I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HATE BUSH"!!!!

Stay on course. Don't make stuff up with bogus research.. I realize that the internet makes it easy to access this stuff. Don't believe everything you read either. I learned that from a professor in college. I'm done with this topic..

I'm very passionate in how I go about making my point, but mean no disrespect, so please don't take this the wrong way. Good luck to all, and have a Happy Easter.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

ok, riiiight.

We know nothing....


----------



## +stella+ (Apr 17, 2005)

It just seems to me that ilovetiger has given 8 posts telling us now to be appropriate or effective intactivists. We do tolerate differing opinions in general, (see the threads about what approach works better etc etc) but it is quite another thing to disregard certain proof and keep insisting there is only one right way to make a point, and make the same point post after post, when people disagree with it.

Its just not good message board etiquette for one. Passion or not. Not everyone has to agree, for what its worth, it is an untruth that no adults are disadvantaged by routine infant circ, for ANY reason listed, so to belittle any reason they would be is uncalled for, imho.


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

OK, this is getting ridiculous now. It is painfully obvious that you are a circumcised man who cannot come to terms with what happened and what was taken away from you. You have not bothered AT ALL to read ANY of the research we have provided to you. You obviously do not want to become educated on this particular topic. You have done nothing but repeat yourself, without reading anything we have said.

Also, please do not come on here and say that "circumcised men are not disadvantaged" (or what ever you said about that), when there are many men on here who are seriously damaged b/c of the procedure and are _physically_ having a hard time with it. You are making a mockery out of them. YOU CANNOT ALTER ANATOMY WITHOUT ALTERING PHYSIOLOGY!!! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!! Would your eyeballs work properly without your eyelids? Would your fingertips feels the same way without the protective outerlayer of skin or fingernails? Could you hear with the same fineness if your outer ear were missing? No. So, therefore, the glans panis DOES NOT work the SAME _with_ as _without_ a protective outercovering (the foreskin). You, as a circumcised male, may be just fine, thank God for that... but many men are not. (then again you probably aren't even reading this, but are just thinking up your argument back, instead of actually becoming educated.)

I might have to bow out of this, it's getting too frustrating for me to see someone so obviously ignorant, who has absolutely NO interest in actually learning the truth. I feel bad for you, truly I do, you obviously are having a hard time with your circumcised state and the thought that maybe something was taken away from you. I understand that that must be hard. I'm sorry.

Oh yah, and about the "ejaculation is 90% mental" thing... did you ever wonder WHAT makes you actaully ejaculate? What is it that actually, PHYSICALLY happens to _cause you to ejaculate_? What is it that pushes you to the brink of HAVING TO USE YOUR MENTAL STATE TO WITHHOLD? Maybe, if you were intact, you wouldn't _feel the urge to ejaculate so fast_, thus you wouldn't have to _rely on mental processes to keep you from ejaculating_. Maybe... maybe not...


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

*ilovetiger*: Just for the record, I'm a woman who's been with both, and I'm sorry to have to inform you that circumcised sex in _no way_ compares to sex with a man who hasn't been altered. Yes there's a HUGE difference, and the circumcision is NOT an improvement. I hate my partner's mother for doing that to him and imposing this on us, it's the reason I got involved with this movement at all. We don't slice up the genitals of our children over here, male or female.

There, now you have one woman at least who has told you the truth. Sorry. I guess the others were just trying to spare you hurt feelings.

Why don't you try restoring? There's loads of information in the restoration sticky above which should help.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daisyuk* 
*ilovetiger*: Just for the record, I'm a woman who's been with both, and I'm sorry to have to inform you that circumcised sex in _no way_ compares to sex with a man who hasn't been altered. Yes there's a HUGE difference, and the circumcision is NOT an improvement.

I have heard the same exact thing from every single female friend I have who has been with both circumcised and intact men. Most of them did end up marrying circumcised men because they fell in love with the man and not the penis (which is how it should be), but every one of them who did wishes that her dh would restore...

I can't say from personal experience, having never been with a circumcised man, but I trust the opinions of those I know well IRL who have been with both.

love and peace.


----------



## ~Kira~ (Sep 16, 2004)

I for one would love to see some valid, supportable scientific evidence from _ilovetiger_ supporting his/her assertions. You've been given perfectly sound evidence to the contrary, which you have not refuted yet. If you are really interested in making your case, I suggest that you back up your interesting theories with some facts.

- Kira


----------



## Neth Naneth (Aug 11, 2006)

I can't imagine thinking "well I want to cut off a chunk of my son's penis so he will last longer for his future partner." WTH







:


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

*ilovetiger~* First of all, I think it's admirable that you are against circumcision... congratulations! That being said, I've read your other posts and the only things you have said are that "I am against circumcision, but you ladies should just stick with the 'it's mutilation argument' and not talk about anything else." Well, if we didn't live in a country where so many babies are circumcised, to the point where circumcising mothers come up with lame excuses, with which we have to refute those excuses, this wouldn't even be an issue!!! THEY say the things (ex. the locker room argument and the less sensitive argument, etc.) and we refute what they say... THEY start it, WE just finish it!

If WE are faced with all of these lame arguments from pro-circ'ers, we come onto THIS community to learn how to refute these arguments. WE need to protect our boys, not only by not cutting them, but by learning about the other issues that may or may not arise in their lives, so we can help them. For most of us, this is the first experience with this issue, we need all the help we can get with ALL ASPECTS of this issue (and there are many!)


----------



## ilovetiger (Feb 12, 2007)

I appreciate all of your additional rationale...but it's overkill...I say stick to the real reasons why your against circ. We all know it's about unnecessary mutilation, and yes, the chance that the circ procedure can be ill-performed and lead to problems later in life...leave that to the man to restore, if he so chooses; but some of us out here are giving out personal preferences and how less pleasurable their experiences are or were with circ'd men vs uncirc'd....what does THIS have to do with it?? Now the circ debate has spread to where there may be benefits for the selfish female and her preferences?? That would be like a man saying that he's been with women who are "fit", and women who are overweight, and because sex is more pleasurable with a "fit" women, then there's another reason why she should take better care of her body and drop the pounds. Yeah, but he loves her for who she is, but she should consider getting more fit...that would improve my sexual experience....

Imagine a guy saying that??
NOW I SAY: "LOSE THE WEIGHT SO YOU DON'T SUCCUMB TO DIABETES, A HEART ATTACK, OR A STROKE", which is the equivalent to the MUTILATION of circ, which I've explained. Why go any further? This is all I'm saying. Keep your personal tastes and preferences to yourself...don't support intactness because of selfish reasons. If you really care about the baby, the boy, the man, then leave your preferences regarding YOUR sexual feelings out of it. It has nothing to do with you. If you've fallen in love with a circ'd man, then concentrate on your babies and wanting to avoid mutilation and an unnecessary circ procedure...don't talk about MEN, after the fact, and what you "wish" you had. Restoration should only be considered if HE is uncomfortable with how HE feels...Not because some of you LIKE IT BETTER.. Selfish to the max.


----------



## ~Kira~ (Sep 16, 2004)

ilovetiger:

So a woman is selfish because she does not enjoy painful, dry sex?

You are really something.


----------



## ulla (Feb 3, 2007)

Way to pile on. I think *ilovetiger* makes a good point that circumcism is about unnecessary mutilation. It is not about women's sexual preferences. Bringing up one's own sexual history is not relevant and just dilutes otherwise good arguments.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

_ulla:_ I suggest you go and spend a few months arguing with the dimwits on the debate boards. See how far just having the one broken record argument gets you there. You will persuade no-one, and get ripped to pieces and laughed at.

This is the one place on the net where we can have a free information exchange, discuss our feelings and ways to counter the ridiculous arguments the other side brings up. If you and _ilovetiger_ don't like the discussion here, please feel free to not look or post.

Trying to spare circ'd men's feelings are part of the problem, if it was admitted by all just how damaging it is to both men _and_ women, less women would be willing to impose it on their sons, and less men would be insisting on it to validate what happened to themselves. _Everyone_ would be horrified that this has been done in the past, and it would vanish overnight.

I feel sorry for _ilovetiger_, I truly do, it was done to him without his consent, he clearly doesn't like the idea of being altered sexually to his detriment and there is nothing he can do about it except restore, but why should a woman have to put up with painful, dry sex that goes on forever, because another woman thought her son should have "staying power" (which is what the OP was all about)? Why shouldn't that woman be told the truth?

There is also the causing-pain-to-your-partner factor. If there was something about my body which was causing physical pain and distress to my partner (which is NOT a personal preference like being fit or slim) then I would be looking into what I could do about changing it, rather than being in denial about what was happening. I love him, why would I want to cause him pain when I could do something to fix it? But in order to be able to do that _someone has to tell me first that there is a problem and I have to believe it_.

Why should men who have been altered be allowed to blame their wives (which does happen) for their lack of enthusiasm and/or lubrication when it is _their own_ altered physiology causing the problem? Who's being selfish then?


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:

I say stick to the real reasons why your against circ.
Gee, you sure do claim to know a lot about us. Who are you to tell us A) What we believe and B ) How to go about dsicussing and fighting for those beliefs







:


----------



## AllieFaye (Mar 7, 2007)

I strongly disagree with the notion that circumcision only affects men's sexuality, not women's. That's a key part of the pro-circ argument, "Well, dh has a penis, so he gets to decide if we circ Junior." Women who make this statement imply that they don't think circumcision affects them - _but it does._ They are revealing their lack of knowledge as to the sexual function of the foreskin - _for women._ I have not heard a woman who has had an intact partner make this pro-circ argument, maybe that's my own limited experience. I have heard from other women, who have experienced both, admit that there is a big difference. The difference is so huge that it turned them into intactivists.


----------



## InDaPhunk (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovetiger* 
...and yes, the chance that the circ procedure can be ill-performed and lead to problems later in life...leave that to the man to restore, if he so chooses;

_All_ infant circumcisions are ill-performed. Surely you're not saying that there's a correct way to perform RIC?


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllieFaye* 
I strongly disagree with the notion that circumcision only affects men's sexuality, not women's. That's a key part of the pro-circ argument, "Well, dh has a penis, so he gets to decide if we circ Junior." Women who make this statement imply that they don't think circumcision affects them - _but it does._ They are revealing their lack of knowledge as to the sexual function of the foreskin - _for women._ I have not heard a woman who has had an intact partner make this pro-circ argument, maybe that's my own limited experience. I have heard from other women, who have experienced both, admit that there is a big difference. The difference is so huge that it turned them into intactivists.











Ilovetiger and ulla - I hear what you are saying, but I think you would benefit from reading a bit more about circumcision and all of the harms it causes.

It is unnecessary painful mutilation of a helpless newborn, yes. And that is a good reason to be against it.

But it is FAR from the only reason.

Circumcision alters male sexuality, which necessarily alters female response to that male sexuality.

That's just how it is.

And it's important that we are honest about what circumcision is and ALL of the harm it causes.

It sounds like you both want to limit discussion to only the immediate harm to newborns. But that is amazingly short-sighted.

And it also can (which I suspect you might be aware of) lead to a pro-circ argument: i.e., if we can make circ painless in newborns, then it's perfectly fine to do it, because circ has no other harmful effects.

Even if foreskins really ARE wafted off by kitten kisses & the baby sleeps through the whole thing blissfully, circ is still an extremely damaging surgery which constitutes a violation of man's bodily integrity and it has life-long ill effects. Which often get worse as the man gets older (talk to men who were facing impotency at young ages and then restored, to find that they no longer had an impotency problem, for example).


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

ilovetiger, the point is that different arguments work for different people. People have different reasons for why they want or plan to circ their sons, and it's important to address all of these reasons. When there's research to back it up, that's even better.

There's a post earlier in this thread with multiple resources on the subject - not just the single study you're objecting to. And don't forget that the "opposition" as it were is perfectly happy to cite equally questionable sources to defend their position. Therefore we can each poke holes in the others' research, but it's worth it to get that information out there so that parents can make their own informed decision.

Bottom line, not everyone is going to think it's mutilation or painful. In fact, a lot of people will immediately write off painful, either with "He won't remember, so it doesn't matter/I don't remember, so it doesn't matter" or "There's proper pain relief available; that must work so I won't worry about it." And a lot of people are simply turned off by the word "mutilation" and don't believe it's applicable at all to circumcision. They might liken it to a tonsillectomy. A tonsillectomy is technically a mutilation, but parents would be offended if you said they mutilated their child when the determined a tonsillectomy was necessary. The analogy is imperfect, but that's not the point. The point is that simply stressing that circumcision is mutilation isn't going to work on an awful lot of people - the best way to approach them may be through other arguments or by debunking other misconceptions they hold.

I think your view of the issue is very narrow and shortsighted, and would lead to otherwise preventable circumcisions. In my opinion, it's worthwhile to address EVERY pro-circ argument. Something you may find unimportant may be paramount to a parent making a decision.

Julia
dd 1 year old


----------



## Blarg (Oct 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
I am so sick of this justification. "Well, my husband feels plenty and if he was anymore sensitive sex would be over in minutes." or, "<Giggle> Well, for women, a man being a little less sensitive isn't necessarily a bad thing."

The very first people I ever opened up to about my "dissatisfaction" at having been circed (I didn't reveal how badly it had really affected me) responded exactly like that. I could have taken it as their attempt to make me feel better except for the way they phrased things. It came across as very demeaning. It haunts me to this day. I didn't open up again to anyone about circumcision for at least a year after that.

The idea that someone ought to be allowed to permenantly deprive me of sexual pleasure for the sake of someone else's sexual pleasure is atrocious to me, and I get fumed at comments like those more than any others. At least the other arguments--while misguided--are more oriented toward benefits to the guy. But treating the guy's penis as nothing but an instrument for women's pleasure is extremely demeaning, belittling, and horrifying when taken to that extreme.
I _do_ like the idea of the penis being an instrument of pleasure for women--don't get me wrong. But I hate it when it's treated like that's _all_ it is, and thus should be carved up to women's specifications.
I cannot even begin to describe how terrible and angry comments like that make me feel.

EDIT:

Having read through a bit more of the thread, and noticing ilovetiger's comments, I have a couple of things to say:

1) ilovetiger: My assumption is that most of the discussion going on here is less about intactivism, and more about discussing personal experiences and current research related to circumcision that is interesting and topical.
2) ilovetiger: If my assumption is wrong (which I doubt it is), I find some of this discussion at least a little distasteful simply because using women's pleasure as a real argument either for or against circumcision is--again--treating men's penises as tools for women, rather than as a body part that belongs to the owner. I have no problem with women's pleasure as a discussion point, but I do have trouble thinking of it as a point of argument for intactivism simply because the heart of it seems totally misplaced for such a purpose. It is for that reason that I assume this is just experience sharing and discussing current research that is interesting and related to circumcision. The women here--in my experience--are all very compassionate and recognize the heart of the issue, which is the rights of a person to their own body.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

I just had an experience with this very recently. And I can tell you that I was amazed at the LACK of control a circ'd man has. I felt awful for my friend and wanted to cry







: DH is intact and we've never EVER had problems with him finishing too soon or prematurely or whatever. I totally believe that some circ'd guys honestly can't feel things enough and are so desensitized that it causes problems. Circ'ing definitely didn't help my friend last longer.







I'm gonna go feel sorry for him now....


----------



## Bm31 (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovetiger* 
I We all know it's about unnecessary mutilation, and yes, the chance that the circ procedure can be ill-performed and lead to problems later in life...leave that to the man to restore, if he so chooses

You really don't know much about the complications that can be caused by an "ill-performed" circ. It's not always a matter of simply choosing to restore.


----------



## ~Nikki~ (Aug 4, 2004)

Hmm, just scrolled through quickly, and I'll have to go back and read more closely because this thread looks more interesting than I initially thought.









Just wanted to add, that I can say with confidence that being intact doesn't mean that the natural amount of sensitivity will cause the man to prematurely ejaculate. Quite the opposite. My intact husband has much MORE control and restraint than the circumsized men I've been with. He can last quite a long time (I suspect sometimes just to annoy me, ha!) But one of the nice things about him being intact is that regardless of whether it lasts a few minutes or an hour, it never gets painful, as it did with circumsized men. It's enjoyable for both of us.

In my experience, the "goal" of intercourse with a circumsized man is to reach orgasm as quickly as possible, because that's the enjoyable part for both participants. During intercourse with an intact man, the "journey" to the end is the best, and the orgasm is just icing on the very delicious cake.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

So, according to ilovetiger, we're allowed to say that circ is mutilation, but not to discuss the tangible consequences of said mutilation?







:

N-kay.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Ya know, I've had SID issues my whole life, and in college had a situation that required nerve testing for skin receptors. It was found that my skin has more nerve-endings per square inch than can be calculated, because there was simply no point at which I stopped feeling the testing, which would have given a reference point to calculate the sensitivity. This was true of every single test done.

So tell me, ilovetiger, does this mean that my SID issues or pain tolerance are 90% mental?

Any why exactly do they perform these tests to measure sensitivity??









.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira* 
So, according to ilovetiger, we're allowed to say that circ is mutilation, but not to discuss the tangible consequences of said mutilation?







:

N-kay.









That's pretty much what I got







And of course, he'll be the judge of what is "allowed" and what isn't since we, apparently, have no idea what we're talking about







:

love and peace.


----------



## ilovetiger (Feb 12, 2007)

I appreciate the posts from all of whom I'd expect to be posting on such a topic...but it's gone beyond the efforts of what's really important for the male. I totally expect intact males to be extremely satisfied as adults with their sexuality, and they are, perhaps, very fortunate to have maintained the penises that they were born with...Kudos to those guys....My argument is not with them. The problem I have is that the selfish sexual issues some of you women have adopted have become the hot topics being used as a selling point for anti-circ arguments. This can only be perceived as belittling to circ'd men who themselves feel very satisfied with their sexuality, as do their female partners, in many cases. This recruiting process that is going on has become much more than how to make better MOTHERING decisions for their babies....NOW some of you are attempting to influence women (whether directly or indirectly) into what would be the better CHOICE for them as a partner ...Congrats to all of you who now have some women saying, "I love him, but do you think he'd consider restoration?? I never complained, but they keep telling me it will be even better than it already is. It's like night and day.. one woman on the forum said she'd rather spend 5 minutes with an intact guy than 2 hours with a circ'd guy...".
Maybe the grass is greener on the other side.. It's the nature of the beast..."Let's see if I could get something BETTER FOR ME!!!!!"


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

ilovetiger,

Please watch this video, and then get back to us with your thoughts:

*The Prepuce - a D.O.C. video (wmv)*

View (requires Windows Media Player Plugin)
Download ( use "save link as" )
See also:

NOHARMM: Anatomy and functions of the male foreskin:
http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm

CIRP: Anatomy of the Penis, Mechanics of Intercourse:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

CIRP: The Penis and Foreskin: Preputial Anatomy and Sexual Function:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/

Jen


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

_ilovetiger_: I feel for you, I really do. There is nothing on this forum that we have said that isn't true.

Sad to say, when it comes down to it, men do not get any choice in the matter, it's mostly women who make the actual decision (whether they decide to "defer" to their husbands or not, it is their decision that counts in the hospital, and it's them that protects the baby if they are so inclined). Any truthful information that influences a woman against circumcision, including the knowledge that by so doing she is sexually damaging her son, is good information.

You still haven't addressed my point about why women should continue to accept the blame for "female sexual dysfunction" which seems to be so rampant in the US, when it is most likely their partners' "iatrogenically deficient" penises causing the problem. Why shouldn't women be told that the pain and dryness they are suffering is because their men are circumcised, since it's true?

Equally, why shouldn't women tell other women about the difference, and why shouldn't they have a preference as to which type of penis they prefer? I prefer tall men with dark hair and brown eyes with tattoos, am I not allowed to state this now? (According to you). What is wrong with preferring a penis that hasn't been altered and not liking dry painful sex?

Circumcised men have got to get past this "there's nothing wrong with me" thing, for the benefit of the next generation, it's men like yourself who cannot accept that they have been changed sexually who are helping to perpetrate and continue this atrocity.

If we're talking selfishness, it's men like you who seem quite prepared to sacrifice a woman's comfort and wellbeing on the altar of your ego, even to the extent of causing her actual pain and harm.

Does it ever occur to men that if the woman was enjoying it, she'd want sex more often?


----------



## Nodtveidt (Dec 21, 2006)

As a circ'd male, I used to go by the premise of "going longer", although I never saw it as justification for infant geneital mutilation (if someone wants half of their penis cut off, they can do it themselves, I've always believed that). However, I don't go by this premise anymore, and frankly am looking forward to restoration so my wife and I can _both_ enjoy sex the way Mother Nature intended. Anyone who uses this myth as justification needs to have something else cut off...


----------



## jee'smom (Mar 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovetiger* 
The problem I have is that the selfish sexual issues some of you women have adopted have become the hot topics being used as a selling point for anti-circ arguments. This can only be perceived as belittling to circ'd men who themselves feel very satisfied with their sexuality, as do their female partners, in many cases. This recruiting process that is going on has become much more than how to make better MOTHERING decisions for their babies....NOW some of you are attempting to influence women (whether directly or indirectly) into what would be the better CHOICE for them as a partner"

Procirc women use the "cut the foreskin off so he'll last longer" as an argument _to_ circumcise their sons. We just refuted what _they_ said, then you come on here and attack us.







: We didn't start this whole conversation, or make this up to make circumcised men feel bad. _They_ started this conversation, we just refuted it, don't attack us... go onto a pro-circ. board and attack them! Which I'm sure you would NEVER do, even though they are saying the same thing!!! "_I prefer_ circumcised men, b/c they last longer." I don't see you getting all upset about _them_ saying _that_! and then cutting off part of their son's penis as justification for their "selfish pleasures."


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jee'smom* 
Procirc women use the "cut the foreskin off so he'll last longer" as an argument _to_ circumcise their sons. We just refuted what _they_ said, then you come on here and attack us.







: We didn't start this whole conversation, or make this up to make circumcised men feel bad. _They_ started this conversation, we just refuted it, don't attack us... go onto a pro-circ. board and attack them! Which I'm sure you would NEVER do, even though they are saying the same thing!!! "_I prefer_ circumcised men, b/c they last longer." I don't see you getting all upset about _them_ saying _that_! and then cutting off part of their son's penis as justification for their "selfish pleasures."

























This bears repeating.


----------



## Nodtveidt (Dec 21, 2006)

When it comes to sex, quality is always preferred over quantity! Ask anyone...


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:

Originally Posted by *ilovetiger*
...and yes, the chance that the circ procedure can be ill-performed and lead to problems later in life...leave that to the man to restore, if he so chooses;
Do you know that some parts can never be restored? Restoration is not 100%. Also, cutting it off takes minutes, while restoration takes years. Seems to me that it is better to leave it on and he can take it off later.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommiska*
Circumcision alters male sexuality, which necessarily alters female response to that male sexuality.

I have read that a circed man needs to move his penis slightly differently to get proper stimulation, and that those movements are less compatible with the needs of a woman in reaching orgasm.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommiska*
It sounds like you both want to limit discussion to only the immediate harm to newborns. But that is amazingly short-sighted.

And it also can (which I suspect you might be aware of) lead to a pro-circ argument: i.e., if we can make circ painless in newborns, then it's perfectly fine to do it, because circ has no other harmful effects.

Even if foreskins really ARE wafted off by kitten kisses & the baby sleeps through the whole thing blissfully, circ is still an extremely damaging surgery which constitutes a violation of man's bodily integrity and it has life-long ill effects.









:

--------

*Blarg*









My husband's penis is important to me, not just because of the pleasure it brings me. It is part of him, and I wouldn't like to imagine ANY part of him being damaged or removed or pained in any way. I can't see why people would want to cut up a body part, and especially one that is so sensitive and special and precious. And I can't see why they think it is no big deal to do so.

I have a friend who is very angry at his parents for letting doctors circ him when he was about 3. Then immigrated to the US, and the doctors said he needed it (he doesn't remember why, but it was probably something along the lines of him not being retractile yet and the doc, inexperienced with intact penises, thinking he had a problem) so his innocent and naive parents consented. He feels very wronged by his parents. I tell him that I doubt they did it deliberately to harm him, it was ignorance. (He understands that logically, but can't "feel" it like that.) And the one he should direct his anger at is the doctor who acted like he knew what he was talking about but didn't. (If a doctor prescribed a medication about which he knew little, for a condition about which he knew little, and passed himself off as an expert on it, and if the patient suffered harmful consequences, that would be grounds for a malpractice suit.) He wants to one day confront his parents about it. Their relationship is currently very fragile.

-------

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Poot*
I just had an experience with this very recently. And I can tell you that I was amazed at the LACK of control a circ'd man has. I felt awful for my friend and wanted to cry DH is intact and we've never EVER had problems with him finishing too soon or prematurely or whatever. I totally believe that some circ'd guys honestly can't feel things enough and are so desensitized that it causes problems. Circ'ing definitely didn't help my friend last longer. I'm gonna go feel sorry for him now....

I just asked my intact husband if he ever felt like he was ejaculating sooner than he though was ideal. He said no. I asked him if he used methods I have heard about, like running sports scores in his head, to hold out longer. He said never. In the 9 years we have been together, I have never noticed him have any issues with control, or lasting too short of a time. But, as he is the only partner I have had, I don't know if that is typical for intact men, and how circed men compare.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Nikki~*
In my experience, the "goal" of intercourse with a circumsized man is to reach orgasm as quickly as possible, because that's the enjoyable part for both participants. During intercourse with an intact man, the "journey" to the end is the best, and the orgasm is just icing on the very delicious cake.

From what I have read, it sounds like intact men get a wider variety of sensations, and a longer build-up. My husband always says that the more build-up before ejaculating, the better it seems to be. I would think that the issue is not just the EXISTENCE of the orgasm, or the SPEED of the orgasm, but also the QUALITY.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovetiger*
The problem I have is that the selfish sexual issues some of you women have adopted have become the hot topics being used as a selling point for anti-circ arguments. This can only be perceived as belittling to circ'd men who themselves feel very satisfied with their sexuality, as do their female partners, in many cases.

Please note that anti-circers never started off saying that the pleasure to women was an issue. But, we face it every day in talking to people. There are huge numbers of people who use that as their rationalization for why a circed penis is more ideal. In order to counter that thinking, this thread was started to discuss the fact that circing has not been proven to cause the effect they claim, and to discuss how to bring that info into the public knowledge to balance the false claims.

Also, while I am tactful with circed men, who I know tend to not want to realize that they have been mutilated and lost something of value, I don't see a need to protect them from the truth. If circed men persist in perpetuating the myth that they are somehow improved in their ability to please women, which I assume is a stance they take in order to comfort themselves, then I do see that we have a responsibility to protect the intact men who feel belittled by these false claims.

This is not to say that the feelings of intact men should be protected from belittling while the feelings of the circed men are not important. Rather it is a matter of the simple fact that pro-circers have made this an issue about which way is better for female pleasure, and both can't be declared better. In that case, the TRUTH suggests that, if we have to be forced into choosing the superior type for female pleasure (as the pro-circers are pressing this challenge), the honestly better type is the one left as nature intended.

(Note that personally I never take up this topic, but will respond if I think a pro-circer is spreading false info. In another board, a good friend of mine gave this argument about why it is so great that he is circed. I didn't say anything because I knew the other members were already very anti-circ and wouldn't be swayed, and the friend would not be helped by explaining to him that he has been victimized and lost something of value he can never get back.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daisyuk*
Equally, why shouldn't women tell other women about the difference, and why shouldn't they have a preference as to which type of penis they prefer? I prefer tall men with dark hair and brown eyes with tattoos, am I not allowed to state this now? (According to you). What is wrong with preferring a penis that hasn't been altered and not liking dry painful sex?

Our culture has developed a view that circed is better. I have heard women telling me they wouldn't have sex with an intact man because it is ugly and dirty. I don't see why, since this door has already been opened, we can't counter what is pouring through the door, with truthful info.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

LadyLila -























Your post deserves a bump. Very well said.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Thanks! I didn't think anyone would read it because it was so long.


----------



## Microsoap (Dec 29, 2005)

I don't quite now how to put this into words, but I will try.









I'm a happily intact male for 31 years now and not a single problem. I am very attached to my foreskin, meaning loving it, and wouldn't part w/ it for anything in the world!

When I masturbate a lot in a given amount of time, say a few times a day, my penis feels-- and here's the part I have problems properly putting into words-- "well used". Meaning, my glans feel very sensitive. It's a small pulsing, but not in a negative way.

I value the natural protective layer my foreskin provides when I cover the glans to give it some "resting time" (that is if I can resist the urge to go at it again!).









My ex-partner is cut (at birth) and from my knowledge (of his words), his glans just don't feel "well used" after several masturbation sessions. See, I'm saying that as a NEGATIVE on his part and a POSITIVE on mine! It makes me feel, well, sad for him. Sad that his glans are toughened that he doesn't feel that natural pulsing after stimulation that I feel... and I assume women may feel in their clitoris (???). The fact that he doesn't mean he's not as sensitive and WTF is that good for??!! Feeling LESS sensitive sexually? That's _not_ natural; that's _not_ right! It's gotta show you that circumcision can't bring a positive to your life sexually. I guess I was editorializing in that last line, but that's how I feel. Even if you chose to get cut as an adult.

Oh, and the myth that "cut = last longer" suuuuuuuuuuuure isn't true in MY case!!! Every one's different sexually, meaning psychologically. THAT'S where the release valve is located. And even if it WERE true that being circumcised equalled lasting longer, you have to ask yourself what the heck you're giving up to last longer! Is it worth it??? I say a determined: *NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!*


----------



## Mamm2 (Apr 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jee'smom* 
Procirc women use the "cut the foreskin off so he'll last longer" as an argument _to_ circumcise their sons. We just refuted what _they_ said, then you come on here and attack us.







: We didn't start this whole conversation, or make this up to make circumcised men feel bad. _They_ started this conversation, we just refuted it, don't attack us... go onto a pro-circ. board and attack them! Which I'm sure you would NEVER do, even though they are saying the same thing!!! "_I prefer_ circumcised men, b/c they last longer." I don't see you getting all upset about _them_ saying _that_! and then cutting off part of their son's penis as justification for their "selfish pleasures."


Well said!!!


----------

