# Do women complain?



## Pulsar (Jun 28, 2017)

Circumcision rates have been declining for 30 years or so. If the rates quoted on this board are accurate, then there must be a lot of young women (< 30) who have had sex as nature intended it. At a 70% USA circumcision rate, the odds of any woman who has had two or more partners having at least one intact partner exceeds 50%. While I can't be sure about the distribution of the numbers of partners among young women, I would guess two or more covers a majority of the sexually active women under 30 in USA. Yet most of these women would end up married to circumcised men.

So my questions are: As a woman married to a circumcised man, have you ever complained to your MIL about what she did to your husband? "What were you thinking when you took from ME the best part of my husband's penis?" As a mother of a circumcised son, has your DIL ever questioned your judgement?

This may not be the best venue to pose this question. Given the opinions of most people here, there may be few that find themselves in either of these cases. But, as a "case against circumcision" isn't this a consideration to take into account? 

It appalls me that few pro-circs give any weight to the fact that their son might actually resent it. So it wouldn't surprise me that pro-circs would discount the opinions of their sons' future partners. But women might be more vocal about this than the male victims.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

I have never had the courage to tell my MIL that her decision to cut my hubby as an infant has affected our sex life for the past thirty years. She only knows that I consider it a barbaric practice and that we did not cut our own son.


----------



## ModernTomSawyersMom (Jun 29, 2017)

I'm new here. How does that extra foreskin affect your sex life? I sort of thought it would make no difference at all for the woman.


----------



## Pulsar (Jun 28, 2017)

*Sex as nature intended it*

Kristen O'Hara did some research on the differences between natural and circumcised sex (her terms). There is a website with her results as well links to her book that can be downloaded and read for free. *Warning:* the site (link below) is very graphic and definitely not safe for work. IIRC the book itself is not visually graphic. O'Hara minces no words and portrays circumcision as damaging and harmful not only to men but to the their female partners as well. She presents a convincing explanation.

Of particular interest is the testimony of the women who were her data source. Admittedly, not all of the women noticed a difference between intact and circumcised. But many did, and in at least in her sample of women, the vast majority preferred intact partners. Anybody with a critical mind will immediately note that O'Hara's sample was self-selected from a potentially biased source. That makes some of the numbers she throws around suspect, but it in no way invalidates the experiences of the respondents, herself included. It should be noted that somewhere in the book or on the site that O'Hara acknowledges that not all circumcisions are equally damaging. Some circumcised men retain a fair amount of skin mobility even when erect that lessens the harmful effects. For those that do not have that mobility, she recommends foreskin restoration. Her husband is apparently her hands-on case study for that.

Beyond O'Hara's treatise, there is plenty of anecdotal testimony available in many forums and articles on the web where "which is better?" is debated. It seems, for those who have had sex with both intact and circumcised partners, and who actually have a preference, the tilt is in favor of natural sex.

Sex As Nature Intended It: http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/

Good luck in your research.


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> I'm new here. How does that extra foreskin affect your sex life? I sort of thought it would make no difference at all for the woman.


I would never use the word "extra" to describe the normal parts someone is born with.

With the normal slack skin:

1) The owner retains thousands of specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings densely packed into the end of the foreskin, so he gets more than enough stimulation without being rough with his partner.

2) The glans is protected 24/7 by being covered with the slinky skin tube. So the glans stays soft and supple (like the tongue) instead of rough (like a finger) so it's something that's more comfortable poking into a man's partner and it is more ticklish so that man need not resort to rough treatment,

3) The slinking sleeve of slack skin serves as a frictionless gliding bearing during penetration so there is less friction and more of a plush filled-up feeling for a man's partner. Having this "moving part" means that foreplay doesn't have to rub him to numbness. Instead your hand can give him a sumptuous massage that doesn't ever have to end.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> I'm new here. How does that extra foreskin affect your sex life? I sort of thought it would make no difference at all for the woman.


Be warned that this is explicit, but your question is answered here: www.sexasnatureintendedit.com .

Also, you can find plenty of information at www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org .


----------



## ModernTomSawyersMom (Jun 29, 2017)

Ron_Low said:


> I would never use the word "extra" to describe the normal parts someone is born with.


 I clearly meant extra when compared to a circumcised male.

The rest of that makes sense, but it's worth noting that my circumcised husband has never felt a need to be rough. And while I'm no expert in any of this, I would think rough sex is there to serve much more of a psychological need than a physical one.

While I support keeping things as nature intended them, I guess my problem with this topic is that it assumes that a circumcised male is inferior. It assumes we should be mad to be stuck with a husband with one, and I don't think that is a healthy way to think.


----------



## Pulsar (Jun 28, 2017)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> While I support keeping things as nature intended them, I guess my problem with this topic is that it assumes that a circumcised male is inferior. It assumes we should be mad to be stuck with a husband with one, and I don't think that is a healthy way to think.


I don't think "mad" is the proper term. Disappointed perhaps. A wife loves her husband and he is far more than a penis (hopefully). The fact is that not all men are equally damaged by circumcision. Those with some mobility of penile skin when erect may have some of the gliding mechanism described in detail in the Sex As Nature Intended It site. They may also have the nerve functions that allow for the shorter, gentler stroke that provides the rhythm that best matches a woman's needs. They may not be as indebted to the artificial lubricant makers. Maybe you are lucky in that regard. Your sisters-in-law and daughters may not be. Wouldn't it be nice to change that?

The purpose of the original post, which I may not have made clear, is to open a dialog. Grandmothers can wield immense influence on the circumcision decision. This board is full of stories where mothers and mothers-in-law are badgering their daughters and DILs to circumcise, sometimes at threat of having nothing to do with their grandson if he is left intact. I would consider that "unhealthy thinking." If a MIL/mother can be converted to intactivism, your future nephews and the women they will love may at least have their own choice about how they share intimacy.

It is often very difficult to convince a circumcised man that his son shouldn't also be circumcised. To agree not to circumcise his sons, a man has to acknowledge to himself that something was taken from him that didn't need to be taken, and that doesn't need to be taken from his sons. THAT IS HARD. As a man, I would think it would be very gratifying to have my mother apologize for circumcising me or at least explain that while circumcision was NOT the best decision, it WAS the best decision she could make at the time with the knowledge that she had. If she told me that now that she knows better, she would like to do better in the future, that would make it so much easier to give my son the right to make his own choice about this. If my mother also approached my brothers (and sisters) and apologized/explained her decision and change of thinking, it could very well preserve a lot of nephews their bodily integrity.

Women seem to be able to talk to each other about sexual things much more easily than men. Generally speaking, men don't talk to each other about circumcision, and never discuss sexual matters with their mothers. A woman who has had sex with both circumcised and intact men has great credibility when spreading the intactivist message. The only person with more credibility is a man circumcised as an adult. They are the only two types of people who have had it both ways. That's not to say that others cannot be effective.

In retrospect a more gentle approach might be more effective. "Have you ever considered that your decision to circumcise your son(s) didn't do them or the women they love as much good as once thought? I have information (experience) that suggests this is true. Can I talk to you about that?"


----------



## Ron_Low (May 11, 2007)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> my circumcised husband has never felt a need to be rough.


Circumcision alters sex dramatically. The more one knows about what circumcision takes from a man, the better one can accommodate for what's missing.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> I'm new here. How does that extra foreskin affect your sex life? I sort of thought it would make no difference at all for the woman.


Not to be mean but the 'extra' isn't extra and shows American current thinking. The foreskin has functions and removing the foreskin makes the penis function differently from how it was intended to.

In infancy the foreskin is designed to protect the glans with a tight sphincter muscle on the end. Far better design then us females, males have a inbuilt barrier to bacteria reaching the urethra.

The main functions in adults is for sex. The foreskin adds lubrication. Rather than thinking of rough think of dry. A circumcised penis becomes dryer as a man ages. Really its meant to be an internal organ and be kept very soft and with the foreskin removed it drys out. This can cause painful sex for many woman. The foreskin also contains way more nerve endings and again while young circumcised men are mostly 'fine' -again they have nothing to compare it to. A man I know who got circumcised as an adult said being without his foreskin was like watching black and white TV over colour) As a man gets older (I don't mean old old, even 30 year old men have reported feeling numb areas) they gradually get less sensation which is why erectile dysfunction is so high in the US and why Viagra sells so well.

A circumcised man is missing something important and it was done without his consent. This is why there are angry circumcised men. Most don't know what they are missing and generally a man doesn't even want to think he might possibly be missing something. That is safest psychologically speaking, it's safest to think you are better, enhanced even. Women get outraged at the thought of having anything, even a pin prick being done to them yet are all fine with men having a full body part removed right after birth without their consent. Men have every bit as a reason to be outraged as woman who have been cut do, but society tells them otherwise, it tells them they are not allowed to be angry and that if they do complain they can expect a whole lot of ridicule. Very much a huge double standard in the US.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

joandsarah77 said:


> Far better design then us females


Not better. Just different. :grin:


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> While I support keeping things as nature intended them, I guess my problem with this topic is that it assumes that a circumcised male is inferior. It assumes we should be mad to be stuck with a husband with one, and I don't think that is a healthy way to think.


Well I have a bunch of internal scar tissue from trauma. Circumcised penises hurt me. They tear me up inside because there isn't give from the foreskin. It was a factor in picking my husband that he isn't circumcised and sex with him isn't painful the way it is with a circumcised penis.

That foreskin matters.


----------



## Owlyce (Feb 28, 2014)

I don't have any personal experience, but my good friend says that it is much more comfortable with her noncirc'd hubby than with any of her previous circ'd boy friends.


----------



## ModernTomSawyersMom (Jun 29, 2017)

rightkindofme said:


> It was a factor in picking my husband that he isn't circumcised


So you picked your husband based on his penis? And this is where I'm making a decision to check out of this sub forum. Sorry gals, but it just seems that everyone is drinking too much of the Kool-aid around here. It's one thing to make educated decisions when choosing whether or not to circ our children. It's a whole another thing to judge men based upon their genitalia. I know I don't approve of men judging me on my breast or privates, and by god I won't be hypocritical and judge them on theirs. Bye y'all.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> So you picked your husband based on his penis? And this is where I'm making a decision to check out of this sub forum. Sorry gals, but it just seems that everyone is drinking too much of the Kool-aid around here. It's one thing to make educated decisions when choosing whether or not to circ our children. It's a whole another thing to judge men based upon their genitalia. I know I don't approve of men judging me on my breast or privates, and by god I won't be hypocritical and judge them on theirs. Bye y'all.


I'm cool with you having whatever standards you have. I care about not having sex tear me to shreds so I bleed. I've had sex with an unusual number of penises. I've had problems with everyone who wasn't circumcised. You can think that I shouldn't have the right to judge people by whether they cause me internal pain or not but I really don't care about your opinion.

I'm going to pick my life partner based on whether or not the sex hurts. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Pulsar (Jun 28, 2017)

ModernTomSawyersMom said:


> So you picked your husband based on his penis? [...] It's one thing to make educated decisions when choosing whether or not to circ our children. It's a whole another thing to judge men based upon their genitalia.


Forums like this and elsewhere on the Internet are full of women who refuse to have sex with intact men. In fact, it is one of the pro-circs main arguments for the procedure. "I circumcised my son so he wouldn't be rejected by women." The tide is turning. The number of women who refuse circumcised men will likely increase. I make no judgement about the sensibility of either position.

I read on the Internet (FWIW) that Madonna required her first husband to get circumcised if he wanted to marry her. He did. At least he had a choice. Shouldn't every couple have the choice?


----------



## Pulsar (Jun 28, 2017)

The intent of my original post may not have been clear. It was not to say that women should hate or try to shame their mother-in-laws for circumcising their husband. With rare exception, mothers don't do intentional harm to their children. 

The intent was to open a dialog. By not circumcising our children, our actions speak louder than words and you may think what is the point of mentioning your personal displeasure with your MIL's decision. Fact is, grandmothers in waiting (mothers and MILs) have tremendous influence on the circumcision decision. Probably second (and third) only to the father involved. The forums are full of stories about mothers and MILs badgering the expectant woman to circumcise their grandson. Sometimes that pressure goes so far as to threaten to have nothing to do with the grandson if he isn't cut. Even if they're not pro-circ zealots, a dialog can be useful.

The intactivist mission should involve more than just our own children. There are often brothers and sisters and corresponding in-laws having babies too. If mothers and MILs can be brought into the intactivist fold, there is the possibility of saving the bodily integrity of many men. 

Women listen to each other on things a man would never say to his mother. I can think of no one with more credibility on the circumcision issue than a woman who has had both circumcised and intact sex. Even a woman who hasn't, but has educated herself to the truths her mother/MIL did not have available can be effective. Less accusatory than my OP might be better: "I know you did what you thought was best when you had my husband circumcised. But I can tell you from personal experience (things that I've learned) that you really didn't do him or me any favors. I'd like to talk to you about this in the hope that when you know the things I know, you can help do better by your grandsons." Explain the harm done woman-to-woman. If your husband resents his circumcision at all, tell her. He won't. Then, have your mothers/MILs talk to their daughters and DILs. If you're having trouble convincing your husband to leave your yet to be born sons intact (and even if you're not), have your MIL apologize/explain her decision to him. I would imagine a man might be much more easily swayed if his own mother would explain that while she made the best decision she could at the time, that decision really wasn't the best. It could go a long way towards breaking through his denial issues or healing any sense of loss he may have. Bonus points if the grandmothers in waiting would talk to your brothers and BILs.

I realize this won't always work. Ask yourself what you have to lose by trying. If you succeed, there may be a lot of men who will thank you.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Pulsar, what an awesome post !! You are right on - there needs to much more dialogue on this topic. I am a guy who is hugely resentful about being circumcised and I was always curious about why I had been subjected to such a barbaric custom. I always felt shy about asking, even though my mother was about as open a person as one could find. When I finally did pluck up the courage to ask, my Dad had passed away and I had missed the opportunity to learn what his views had been, and I did not prolong the conversation with my mother either. I really wish that I had, in order to explore all the facets of that decision so long ago. She would have been totally open to any question I had, and to any information that she never had access to. Interestingly, two of the three of us are resentful. The other could not care less!


----------

