# Circumicsed men more likely to rape?



## MatrionsRevenge (Oct 3, 2005)

I was wondering about what statistics on rape and circumcision there was. How many circumcised men versus intact rape. Whether there was a difference or not.


----------



## momof3sweeties (Oct 16, 2005)




----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

Harsh, but very interesting. I'd like to see that also. If it did show that circed men were more likely to rape it may possibly be attributed to the idea that circumcision is a child's first "sexual" experience and it is violent and painful?

hmm.Like I said. Very harsh subject, but very interesting.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MatrionsRevenge*
I was wondering about what statistics on rape and circumcision there was. How many circumcised men versus intact rape. Whether there was a difference or not.

http://spl.haxial.net/medical/circumcision/ According to this guy, intact men are less likely to rape, but I am thinking a rapist really won't care if he is circ'd or not.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

ITA. That article seems to be based on opinion. It would be interesting to see stats (of course, we'd have to take into consideration the % of men circed compared to not circed as a whole also).


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

I was raped by an intact man.


----------



## +stella+ (Apr 17, 2005)

yeaaaah not a road i want to go down without a LOT of evidence, and as far as i know, no one is doing a reputible study on that atm.


----------



## Minky (Jun 28, 2005)

People are responsible for theyre own actions. There may be something to the idea that those who are abused have learnt that abusing someone else is an acceptable reaction. And circ is abuse.

But can we realy use that as an excuse for men's action's? "Don't blame me for the rape. I was circ'd at birth and that made me do it"

As someone who was abused (raped) I have never used it as an excuse to sexcually abuse anyone, or to do any sort of violence against children.

Oh and in USA of course you are going to find more circ'd rapist's than intact, as most men are circ'd.

And as for myself I came to the oposite conclusion, my abuser was intact and I asumed that being intact maked men more likely to abuse.





















When I came on a circ board and read smoething about circ leading to violence I nearly went away and made the decision to circ my son.


----------



## ERSsmom (Dec 6, 2004)

I would think that years of socialization from caring families would trump any ill effects of the circumcision as it is only one isolated event no matter how traumatizing. Interesting idea, however.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frontierpsych*
(of course, we'd have to take into consideration the % of men circed compared to not circed as a whole also).









I imagine the amount of circumcised rapists in the U.S. outnumbers the rate of intact rapists simply because the number of circumcised men outnumbers the number of circumcised men.

Psychologically it would make sense, though. Rape is primarily about power and circumcision is an oppressive, brutal, raping act that steals power.

On the other hand, any number of things a child can experience during childhood could have the same or a similar psychological impact. And rape is hardly a rarity throughout the rest of the (majority intact) world.


----------



## LoveChild421 (Sep 10, 2004)

In _Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom_ Dr. Christiane Northrup writes that she believes that if more men were intact that rape would be more rare. I can definately see that from a psychological standpoint. She mentions something about how it is more painful for an intact man to be with a woman who isn't aroused/wet because the foreskin feels like it will rip/tear, something like that. Anyone know if that's true?


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LoveChild421*
She mentions something about how it is more painful for an intact man to be with a woman who isn't aroused/wet because the foreskin feels like it will rip/tear, something like that. Anyone know if that's true?

Hmm... Not quite sure. I would imagine that if they were going roughly and the woman was struggling there might be an increased chance that the frenulum would tear though.

As for this theory? Well obviously it is a highly controversial one but on a pychological and neurological level it might make some sense: although consious memory can not be stored by the body at that point there are theories that experiences are simply stored elsewhere on a more subconsious level.

Now if we accept that (and perhaps we should not) then it is easy to draw speculative conclusions as to the consequences that levels of pain analaogous to torture inflicted upon the penis would have.

However they are purely speculative. Statistics would definetely be required to support this.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Circ may make SOME men more likely to rape, but the VAST MAJORITY of circ'd men are NOT rapists. We all know plenty of circ'd men in our lives who are not rapists.

It's more likely that circ'd men end up with PTSD:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=489437


----------



## momof3sweeties (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

People are responsible for theyre own actions. There may be something to the idea that those who are abused have learnt that abusing someone else is an acceptable reaction. And circ is abuse.
Yes. People are absolutely responsible for their own actions.

I think rapists rape because of how they were raised. If they were molested, abused physically or emotionally or observed abuse as a normal thing then they are very likely to abuse. Also living in such a horrible environment would lead to mental/emotional problems which would be another reason for raping. There has been studies that have shown men who abuse their wives also had father's who abused their moms or wives.

For circ to be abuse the "abuser" would be pruposely _wanting_ to harm and cause pain to their subject. Many parents do so because they think circ is for the _best_. They are doing it because they think they are supposed to do that and they think of it as nothing more than a medical procedure for their baby. _Many parents are misinformed_ or have religous reasons. But to put them in the category with "abusers" is just wrong.


----------



## kldliam (Jan 7, 2006)

I have always thought of circumcision to be a form of sexual rape on a boy. A rape of sexual innocence for sure. It wouldn't be out of the realm of consideration that someone who had been subjected to it might be more predisposed to violent tendencies later in life. That is not to suggest that it is solely a reason, but rather part of a compilation of plausible reasons why men are more violent.

I am sure that there is no desire by anyone, anywhere, to look at the correlations of rape in circumcising cultures vs. non-circumcising cultures and study it in detail.









It would be very interesting to see if rape stats were higher in Islamic and American cultures then in non-circing cultures in Europe and South America.


----------



## Yoshua (Jan 5, 2006)

......

Not that I condone this but I highly doubt the results would matter.

Rapists are world wide, not just american made.


----------



## kldliam (Jan 7, 2006)

"But can we really use that as an excuse for men's action's? "Don't blame me for the rape. I was circ'd at birth and that made me do it"

kldliam says:
I wouldn't say that we should use circ as a way to excuse a man for his violent tendencies, just a tool for understanding how men are also victims of violence too. For me, it's about understanding the overall picture of violence that a rapist has been subjected too, when i try to consider 'why' he rapes. Circ just being one factor of many perhaps.

"I would think that years of socialization from caring families would trump any ill effects of the circumcision as it is only one isolated event no matter how traumatizing. Interesting idea, however"

kldliam
Yes, I agree here. I am not sure if circ is the contributing factor in a violent personality, but it is certainly part of the greater equation of violence that that person has been subjected to in his life.

"I imagine the amount of circumcised rapists in the U.S. outnumbers the rate of intact rapists simply because the number of circumcised men outnumbers the number of circumcised men."

Kldliam
Yes. One would need to compare a circing culture to a non-circing culture to draw any conclusions about the data.

"On the other hand, any number of things a child can experience during childhood could have the same or a similar psychological impact. And rape is hardly a rarity throughout the rest of the (majority intact) world."

Kldliam
Rape is not a rarity around the world, but it would be interesting to be able to look into a child's overall history of violence&#8230;and be able to see what acts of violence that child had been subjected to himself, including circ.

"She mentions something about how it is more painful for an intact man to be with a woman who isn't aroused/wet because the foreskin feels like it will rip/tear, something like that. Anyone know if that's true?"

kldliam
Sex without lube is tricky for anyone I would suspect. Male or female, circ'd or intact.

"For circ to be abuse the "abuser" would be purposely wanting to harm and cause pain to their subject. Many parents do so because they think circ is for the best. They are doing it because they think they are supposed to do that and they think of it as nothing more than a medical procedure for their baby. Many parents are misinformed or have religous reasons. But to put them in the category with "abusers" is just wrong."

Kldliam
Abusers don't always know they are being abusive. You don't have to "want" to abuse to be an abuser. Abuse is negative patterns of behavior, whether it is intended or not is really besides the point. I agree that people who circ are misinformed, misguided, etc&#8230; but I put the blame of 'abuse' squarely on the MD. The MD is the abuser IMO. HE knows better but takes the money anyway.


----------



## momof3sweeties (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

The MD is the abuser IMO. HE knows better but takes the money anyway
Excellent point.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momof3sweeties*
Y
For circ to be abuse the "abuser" would be pruposely _wanting_ to harm and cause pain to their subject. Many parents do so because they think circ is for the _best_. They are doing it because they think they are supposed to do that and they think of it as nothing more than a medical procedure for their baby. _Many parents are misinformed_ or have religous reasons. But to put them in the category with "abusers" is just wrong.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Some people physically abuse their kids because the Bible says, "Spare the rod; spoil the child." I know that's wrong, of course, but that's the justification some people use. The excuse of "intent" is not good enough. Newborns don't know that their parents mean well; all they know is that they are being strapped to a board while part of their body is being ripped off. The psychological effects are the same (evidenced by the fact that circ'd boys have lower thresholds of pain than either girls or intact boys.)


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Don't know any statistics on this but frankly, it seems like a ridiculous argument to make. I mean, throughout history, there have been any number of geographical areas with mostly intact men. Countries where there were few Jews, Muslims or other circing groups. Say, all of medieval Europe, for example.

Was there no rape then? Hardly. Men are men. Some of them are going to be rapists, regardless of the configuration of their penises.


----------



## kldliam (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:

Newborns don't know that their parents mean well; all they know is that they are being strapped to a board while part of their body is being ripped off. The psychological effects are the same (evidenced by the fact that circ'd boys have lower thresholds of pain than either girls or intact boys.)
Great point.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Men are men.


I get your point about history, but wow is this one sentence sexist!!!!!!!!!

The entire sex ("men") is condemned because a very small percentage of them rape???

As a wife to a man, sister to three men, and mother to one boy, I'm glad that "men are men" most of the time!

And it's the whole "men are men" (said is a sexist way) attitude that causes us to negate the feelings of male newborns and circ them in the first place. Then you've created a very vicious cycle.


----------



## kldliam (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:

"it seems like a ridiculous argument to make".
Please read my earlier post. I don't think it is ridiculous to consider circ as a form of violence against men. When you are trying to figure out 'why' a violent person is violent, you need to look at ALL of the violence that he was subjected to in his past&#8230;including circ (the first act of violence against the person)

Quote:

"Men are men. Some of them are going to be rapists, regardless of the configuration of their penises"
We are not talking about all men, just violent ones. The question should be what makes a man violent? His past? What elements of his past? All the violent acts in totality? Just some, just others, which ones? Is circ a violent way to welcome a child into the world? I am sure that you must agree that it is.


----------



## kldliam (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:

And it's the whole "men are men" (said is a sexist way) attitude that causes us to negate the feelings of male newborns and circ them in the first place. Then you've created a very vicious cycle.
exactly.


----------



## njeb (Sep 10, 2002)

I really don't think there's enough evidence one way or the other to support this. Why do some people become violent and others don't? We don't even have the answers to that question yet.


----------



## momof3sweeties (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *njeb*
I really don't think there's enough evidence one way or the other to support this. Why do some people become violent and others don't? We don't even have the answers to that question yet.

Yep!


----------



## kldliam (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:

Why do some people become violent and others don't? We don't even have the answers to that question yet
Right you are! But we shouldn't dismiss any plausible theories about what makes a man violent if we are ever going to successfully answer this question as a society. Every act of violence against a person needs to be weighed when we are trying to figure out "why" an individual is violent to others.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
I get your point about history, but wow is this one sentence sexist!!!!!!!!!

The entire sex ("men") is condemned because a very small percentage of them rape???

As a wife to a man, sister to three men, and mother to one boy, I'm glad that "men are men" most of the time!

And it's the whole "men are men" (said is a sexist way) attitude that causes us to negate the feelings of male newborns and circ them in the first place. Then you've created a very vicious cycle.

Yikes! You have completely misinterpreted what I meant! I did not mean anything sexist at all. And I'm a bit confused as to how you came to the conclusion that my statement condemned all men. I'm the mother of sons myself and that was the farthest thing from my intent.

What I meant is that (barring a very few exceptions), men are the people who rape. Of course not all men! A small percentage of them, fortunately. But given the fact that it is men who rape, and that they have done so throughout recorded history, whether circed or not, the idea that circing may have something to do with rape doesn't seem to hold much validity. That's all.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Yikes! I did not mean anything sexist at all.


I didn't think you had any sexist intent, but still wanted to let you know that the statement "men are men," in the context of a rape discussion, is extremely sexist. It smacks of "boys will be boys" kind of thing.

You pretty much said............men are men = rape (because you discounted all other causal factors across time and culture). That's a huge insult to non-raping men.

Personally, I think rape and circ are correlational, but not necessarily causational. They both occur in violent societies, and are acts of violence.


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

this thread isnt sitting well with me

signed,
sexual assult victim
yes, he was circumcised.


----------



## boingo82 (Feb 19, 2004)

They deliberately stimulate the newborn's penis to erection before clamping part of it off.
Could this have some sort of effect on his young mind? Undoubtedly.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
I didn't think you had any sexist intent, but still wanted to let you know that the statement "men are men," in the context of a rape discussion, is extremely sexist. It smacks of "boys will be boys" kind of thing.

You pretty much said............men are men = rape (because you discounted all other causal factors across time and culture). That's a huge insult to non-raping men.

Personally, I think rape and circ are correlational, but not necessarily causational. They both occur in violent societies, and are acts of violence.

I didn't get that at all. perhaps if you isolate the men are men statement it can look that way.

but then some people can never resist the opportunity to take statements out of context. men ARE men. and some WILL rape. that doesn't make it right...and no one said it was.


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Oh come on, this is really going too far. To even start theorizing that circ makes men rape is too far fetched. Please don't put those rumors out there. Get a grant, do extensive studies on circ/non circ men from every culture and social background & then start this discussion.

Circ & noncirc men both rape and circ & noncirc both DON'T rape. WAY too many variables at play here.


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

I could pretty well guarantee I could do a study showing that it's BLONDE men who rape. Or, short men; ie. the Napoleon complex makes men rape, etc.


----------



## griffin2004 (Sep 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BusyMommy*
Circ & noncirc men both rape and circ & noncirc both DON'T rape. WAY too many variables at play here.

Ah, a breath of fresh air!

Please let's keep in mind the Aristotelian fallacy known as "non sequitur" or "false cause" while we're taking these great leaps of logic. Some people believe pornography is a cause of rape, some attribute it to an entrenched patriarchy, some blame testosterone, some to an act of free will by the rapist.

And while we're at it, can we please get our terms correct? Rape is forcing a person into sexual activity usually involving penetration of some sort. Circumcision may be an assault, but it isn't a rape.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LoveChild421*
In _Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom_ Dr. Christiane Northrup writes that she believes that if more men were intact that rape would be more rare. I can definately see that from a psychological standpoint. She mentions something about how it is more painful for an intact man to be with a woman who isn't aroused/wet because the foreskin feels like it will rip/tear, something like that. Anyone know if that's true?

If I'm not wet then it's painful for dh unless he's sufficiently aroused to be wet himself. I would think that for the circ'd man who has NO natural lubrication (am I right about that?) it would be worse if the woman was not wet...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
Rape is forcing a person into sexual activity usually involving penetration of some sort. Circumcision may be an assault, but it isn't a rape.

So... forcing an instrument between the foreskin and the glans (which is an internal sex organ ESPECIALLY when fused together at birth) is not rape? Is forcing an instrument into the vagina (which is an internal sex organ) not rape then? Not being snarky, just wondering how those two are different...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Quote:

Rape is, in most jurisdictions, a crime defined as sexual intercourse or penetration without valid consent by both parties. In some jurisdictions, rape is defined by penetration of the anus or the vagina by a penis, while in other jurisdictions, the penetration of either the vagina or the anus need not be by a penis, but can be by other objects such as a finger or a dildo.
so "sexual intercourse or (sexual) penetration" I think that infant circumcision would fall under sexual penetration without valid consent. Just because most people don't view the penis as an internal organ doesn't mean that it isn't one. The only reason most people think it's not is because the circumcised penis is not an internal organ anymore and that's all they may be familiar with









love and peace.


----------



## kxsiven (Nov 2, 2004)

I'm not scientist so I have no opinion about this. Rape stats in Scandinavia went up when refugees from circumcising countries started to come here. But was it because they were circumcised or because they could not take the cultural difference(seeing bare skin suddenly everywhere, free sexual culture etc.)or was it because their different attitude towards women?

However there is no doubt that MGM and FGM leaves also mental scars to human beings. Call it assault, rape or whatever. To take an innocent, helpless child, spread their legs and slice&cut their genitals ... I do not think there is a word in any language to such a horrible act.

http://www.birthpsychology.com/violence/baker.html

...Where Sex and Violence First Meet

There is another psychological benefit to keeping our sons intact. Psychiatrist Rima Laibow finds that men carry an unconscious rage against their mothers for betrayal, abandonment, and the assault of circumcision. In other words, the unconscious mind of the son blames his mother for his circumcision, not "the tradition," the circumciser, or the father who wanted his son to look like himself - only the mother. It's just like some bad Jewish-mother joke.

Indeed, for a newborn, his world is mother. If she cannot protect him from violation at the beginning, a baby loses trust. And isn't lack of trust an issue in relationships between the genders nowadays? Can circumcision be a symptom of profound resentment between the genders? Can sexuality be healed on a very deep, unconscious level during the perinatal period?

A connection exists between crimes of sexual violence, rape and circumcision. The first heterosexual encounter is when a female nurse preps the infant penis with antiseptic, often creating an erection, followed by painful cutting! This and the betrayal by the mother, is revenged in sexual assaults against women. As Marilyn Milos, Founder and director of NOCIRC says, "Circumcision is where sex and violence meet for the first time."....


----------



## Susuhound (Jul 5, 2006)

I think in contemporary US society that boys who remain intact have parents with extremely non-mainstream views in many matters. This would mean that the majority of intact boys come from non-mainstream homes, whereas the majority of circumcised boys come from mainstream homes. I think this would show the effect of the mainstream type of child rearing on the liklihood of a child growing up to be a violent criminal. Does this make sense?
In other words remaining intact reflects the environment a child grows in, thus having a positive effect on adult behaviour, being circumcised may have a neutral to negative effect on later behaviour, simply by reflecting mainstream views and practices of childrearing. So not the surgery/mutilation itself. That would be how a social researcher would likely look at it.
My opinion is that of course an horrendously painful mutilating experience in infancy will have long term effects on a person's psyche, especially as the mutilation is of a sexual nature.
Of course, even though a man may have experienced this as a child, and have been damaged psychologically, i don't for a minute believe that they have no control over their behaviour.
I think I make sense. kind of.


----------



## eightyferrettoes (May 22, 2005)

Yeah, I tend to think that circ probably does contribute to our culture of sexual violence... the sheer blatant disregard for pain, the power and control issues, the concept of body-as-property.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that circed men were likelier to be rapists than intact men, but I _would_ say that circumcision has a negative effect on our ability to respect other people's bodily boundaries, which is bound to skew our overall views about consent and control...

If that makes sense. I think it's connected, but in a more roundabout way than "circumcision makes nice people into rapists."


----------



## kldliam (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:

However there is no doubt that MGM and FGM leaves also mental scars to human beings. Call it assault, rape or whatever. To take an innocent, helpless child, spread their legs and slice&cut their genitals ... I do not think there is a word in any language to such a horrible act.
I agree&#8230;rape is too kind of a word for this brutal act against an innocent child.

Quote:

My opinion is that of course an horrendously painful mutilating experience in infancy will have long term effects on a person's psyche, especially as the mutilation is of a sexual nature.
Only if you believe in Human Psychology as a science. Many people don't. I certainly do.

Quote:

And while we're at it, can we please get our terms correct? Rape is forcing a person into sexual activity usually involving penetration of some sort. Circumcision may be an assault, but it isn't a rape.
Obviously circ is not rape 'legally speaking'. That is part of the problem IMO. It *should be* considered a sexual assault! It is sexual in nature, so what kind of assault should we call it??? Call it Rape, call it zucchini, it's a crime with a sexual tinge to it. I'd love to see all the circumcising doctors go to jail for this kind of gross medical fraud, and violation of little children's sex organs. The fact that they have to stimulate the penis to make it erect in order to determine where best to make a cut...is even more compelling to me.

Quote:

Yeah, I tend to think that circ probably does contribute to our culture of sexual violence... the sheer blatant disregard for pain, the power and control issues, the concept of body-as-property.
Genital cutting is without question the first presexual expierence for a boy. I agree that _it most certainly does_ encompass many of the same threads as a real rape would. Violence. Power. Control. Consent . Infrigement on another. The sex organs.
Perhaps it is just too uncomfortable for certain people to think of circ as rape. I could understand why it is a thought that you might not want to entertain. If it were true, then you'd be like: "what kind of f***ing insane society do i live in??!!!" I of course, ask myself this everyday!

Quote:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that circed men were likelier to be rapists than intact men, but I would say that circumcision has a negative effect on our ability to respect other people's bodily boundaries, which is bound to skew our overall views about consent and control...
Indeed, I find this to be true as well.


----------



## momof3sweeties (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BusyMommy*
Oh come on, this is really going too far. To even start theorizing that circ makes men rape is too far fetched. Please don't put those rumors out there. Get a grant, do extensive studies on circ/non circ men from every culture and social background & then start this discussion.

Circ & noncirc men both rape and circ & noncirc both DON'T rape. WAY too many variables at play here.











Way far fetched.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:

And while we're at it, can we please get our terms correct? Rape is forcing a person into sexual activity usually involving penetration of some sort. Circumcision may be an assault, but it isn't a rape.
A device must first be inserted into the penis and forced along between foreskin and glans to seperate the two as at that age they have an overwhelming tendancy to be fused together.

That is clearly an act of penetration would you not agree?


----------



## runningwithlola (Mar 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boingo82*
They deliberately stimulate the newborn's penis to erection before clamping part of it off.

Do you have proof of this? I would like to add this to my anti-circ arsenal, but I need to be able to back it up.


----------



## Fi. (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *runningwithlola*
Do you have proof of this? I would like to add this to my anti-circ arsenal, but I need to be able to back it up.

Dig through threads from the past week or two - I think it was called "another part of circumcision" but it's got exactly what you're looking for.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
Circumcision may be an assault, but it isn't a rape.

It's a sexual assault........that's rape.


----------



## Islay (Apr 29, 2006)

I came to this thread rather late, but I've read through every post, now. All are sincere and many are thoughtfully considered and presented. The subject has merit, albeit contested!

I'd like to add a thought or two from a different perspective.

We all accept that rape is universal. Its victims are young, old, male and female. Its perpetrators are majorly male - but include females, too.

MamaInTheBoonies posted a link from which I quote here:

_'I am sure you know that the entrance to the vagina is NOT an open hole. It is elastically closed, and thus you can understand how when dry it clings to the foreskin, holding it back/outside while the head/glans enters. If the foreskin were not retractable, there would be no problem, the penis could just muscle its way in, but it is the very fact that the foreskin IS so easily retractable (but only to a limit) that causes the potential for pain.
When the woman is aroused, she is wet, and his foreskin easily slides past her labia and vulva. Intact men definitely want their woman to be aroused and wet before they try to penetrate, otherwise... pain!! Whereas circumcised men, having no foreskin, they can just push in regardless of dryness -- they do not experience the pain that intact men do.'_

Notwithstanding the fact that intact males rape, there is truth in the author's claim that penetration can be painful to the foreskin without lubricated entry.

Is this not yet another example of nature's perfect design? Perpetuation of the species is dependent upon the willingness of _both_ partners to copulate. Essentially, penetration requires no more than an erect penis. With no foreskin, the male can enter with relative ease whilst the unready female suffers. Attempt this often enough and the female will run a mile to avoid mating. What chance of a species' survival then? OK, so I'm talking in very basic terms, but it seems clear to me that here is yet another reason why every little boy is born with a foreskin. Female arousal by whatever means is essential.

Then this: *Denmark 'happiest place on earth'*. A BBC News item quotes the latest result of an ongoing study, with some interesting results. I won't say more at this juncture than to note that the USA is high on the list, with the UK 18 places lower. "The frustrations of modern life, and the anxieties of the age, seem to be much less significant compared to health, financial and educational needs..."

Here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5224306.stm

Dare I suggest that the USA could top Denmark (_no_ routine circumcision) if RIC disappeared?

Christopher


----------



## runningwithlola (Mar 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fi.*
Dig through threads from the past week or two - I think it was called "another part of circumcision" but it's got exactly what you're looking for.

Thank you! Will do that in the morning, don't need nightmares tonight. :\


----------



## kxsiven (Nov 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Islay*
Dare I suggest that the USA could top Denmark (_no_ routine circumcision) if RIC disappeared?

Christopher

Hmmm..All Scandinavian countries were at top 10(Finland 6th, Sweden 7th)but I do not know if it has anything to do with circ though. After all most Scandinavians don't even know that such a horrid thing exists.

I think these matter more; ..people in countries with good healthcare, access to education ... And I would add equality. I think what matters most is that we do not have to be afraid. I do not have to worry about saving money to my childrens college education(if they choose to go), I don't have to worry about health insurance or what would happen to my family if we adults got unemployed and so on.

I'm not surprised at all that Denmark won. They are truly happy people and know how to party.







Ofcourse they drink and smoke way too much but who cares - they truly are happy!


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:

I was wondering about what statistics on rape and circumcision there was. How many circumcised men versus intact rape. Whether there was a difference or not.
Unless all the rapists were of age where it was a 50/50 split between being intact or circed, you can't really get a fair idea. The results would be skewed.


----------



## griffin2004 (Sep 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
It's a sexual assault........that's rape.

Nope. A rape is a sexual assault, but not all sexual assaults are rapes.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
Nope. A rape is a sexual assault, but not all sexual assaults are rapes.

Exactly, and circ is a rape which is a sexual assault. See my post above (right below the one of yours that I answered) if you wish to debate it because I've already posted the reasons why it is a rape.

love and peace.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
Nope. A rape is a sexual assault, but not all sexual assaults are rapes.


It's a bloody assault with a weapon upon a forcibly-restrained, unwilling victim in a sexual place with resulting psychological consequences. I call it rape.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
It's a bloody assault with a weapon upon a forcibly-restrained, unwilling victim in a sexual place with resulting psychological consequences. I call it rape.

Do not forget that it entails forceful penetration.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Revamp*
Do not forget that it entails forceful penetration.

good point. And causing an erection beforehand.


----------



## MatrionsRevenge (Oct 3, 2005)

Being man my self I could never use this as a excuse to rape obviously. Or rape any women in general. This is just another excuse to abuse women. At least that’s how I feel about it. Some men go as far as trying to use it to justify there actions so they feel better about them selves. But I will never give them that satisfaction. Apparently many of you agree with me! Thanks I got the answers I was hoping for.


----------



## 5KidsNoSleep4Me (5 mo ago)

Seriously???????


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Sadly, very few doctors are willing to acknowledge the physical trauma caused by circumcision, much less the psychological trauma. I am aware of very little research that addresses this. We often hear doctors, and others, say "Oh, he won't remember it" as if that makes the mutilation O.K. with no consequences. They are referring to Explicit memory - "recallable memory" which develops at around age 3 as a general rule. What they are ignoring, or are unaware of, is Implicit memory. This starts in the mother's womb, and everything the baby is exposed to leaves a trace on it's brain. It is known that some of these can affect the person for the rest of their lives. To what degree likely depends on that individual's personality and the nature of the experience. The bottom line is that very little is known about how a trauma such as circumcision will psychologically affect a person. It is , after all, probably the most painful experience that they will ever have. I wish there was more research done in this area.


----------



## Holly87 (1 mo ago)

LoveChild421 said:


> In _Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom_ Dr. Christiane Northrup writes that she believes that if more men were intact that rape would be more rare. I can definately see that from a psychological standpoint. She mentions something about how it is more painful for an intact man to be with a woman who isn't aroused/wet because the foreskin feels like it will rip/tear, something like that. Anyone know if that's true?


 Yes! This is why I was searching this. I’ve had two uncut men express this.


----------



## Holly87 (1 mo ago)

Revamp said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LoveChild421*
> ...


Yes! I’ve had two uncut men express this. That is what I was searching for. I’d be interested to see real statistics.


----------



## Vary-Cherry (2 mo ago)

What nonsense, not backed or supported by any data or evidence.


----------



## Patty Pagan (Feb 6, 2019)

Vary-Cherry said:


> What nonsense, not backed or supported by any data or evidence.


Yes, rape is still a terrible problem in many areas of the world that don’t circumcise


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Holly87 said:


> Yes! I’ve had two uncut men express this. That is what I was searching for. I’d be interested to see real statistics.


This is not correct. When an intact man engages in intercourse , his penis moves back and forth within the sleeve of his foreskin. Circumcised men have to rely on lubrication, be it his partner's or artificial. For an in depth explanation, go to: www.sexasnatureintendedit.com . Be warned - some content is quite explicit.


----------



## erinn82 (2 mo ago)

Who comes up with this stuff. I don't care what your view on circumcision is. Having or not having a foreskin has nothing to do with your morals or who you are as a person. Both my boys are circumcised and have never been concerned about them raping anyone. That's just crazy.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

erinn82 said:


> Who comes up with this stuff. I don't care what your view on circumcision is. Having or not having a foreskin has nothing to do with your morals or who you are as a person. Both my boys are circumcised and have never been concerned about them raping anyone. That's just crazy.


This is a very old thread - 16 years old - that got resurrected. It started as a speculative question. As near as I know there is no evidence to support any conclusion. I agree with you about morals and ethics.


----------

