Originally Posted by tennisdude23
Actually, no, you completely missed what I was trying to say. I think everybody has the right to preferences. I also think that painful sex due to male circumcision is a valid issue for some, and I don't dismiss that. Nevertheless, the mere fact that a guy is circumcised should not be a determining factor in someone's decision to date the said person. I think that there are factors of much greater importance in determining the success of a relationship. That's only what I am saying. If I acknowledge that one's circumcision is an important factor in determining who dates who, then what I am doing is no better than the person who won't date an intact guy because he/she thinks intact penises are gross.
But the problem is there's a false equivalency here.
Intact = Natural. That's the way we're created, the way we're born.
Circumcised = Unnatural. That's how men end up when their penises have been surgically altered.
Would you ever hear a woman say, "Ew! I can't believe that guy has two eyeballs! One eye is much cuter! I'm only dating one-eyed guys." ? Of course not, cause it's normal to have two eyes.
Just to give another example, fake breasts. While I certainly wouldn't say that a woman with fake breasts ISN'T attractive, I much prefer NATURAL breasts to hard, surgically-altered, fake breasts. Does that make me shallow? Would I automatically turn down a woman who has fake breasts? Perhaps not, but it'd definitely be a strong negative and if I hadn't already formed a bonding relationship with her, I'd probably move on.
As for the circ and painful sex, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's totally reasonable and valid for a woman to seek out intact partners if she's had bad experiences with circ'd ones. Not that it means that every single circ'd man WOULD result in painful sex, I'm sure looser circs would work better. Nonetheless, I don't think a woman should have to endure painful sex just to avoid a "shallow" label. If the parts aren't working right, they just aren't.