A surprise from Cosmo

[Fellow Traveler]

Here is a mind twister, why does Cosmo seem more sane the the NYTs?

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrit...oys-on-decline

"And condoms work equally well on both types of penises."

Didn't really see that piece of obvious wisdom in the NYT.

[Vancouver Mommy]

Cool. What's even more surprising is that every single comment is positive.

[ElliesMomma]

this is really awesome. it seems to me that the tide is truly turning.

[asunlitrose]

Wow. I never would have believed you without seeing it for myself! Amazing.

[eepster]

I don't know why it should come as a surprise that Cosmo would look at circ more sensibly than the NYT. Cosmo is written by sexually knowledgeable women, who have no emotional need to justify what was done to them unlike many circ'd men.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by eepster

I don't know why it should come as a surprise that Cosmo would look at circ more sensibly than the NYT. Cosmo is written by sexually knowledgeable women, who have no emotional need to justify what was done to them unlike many circ'd men.

Eh. They've written some pro-circ stuff in the past, if I recollect. And sadly, many WOMEN help to perpetuate circumcision with "OMG! Foreskins are DISGUSTING" statements.

Anyway, kudos to Cosmo for putting two and two together.

[dmpmercury]

I don't like how they said sex feels as good circumcised as intact because that is far from the truth. I do like that it was not negative towards it at all unlike the other articles. The comments are the best part of the article. It made me very happy to see that a lot of people are aware and that women who had both intact and circumcised men chimed in.

[aprons_and_acorns]

Originally Posted by dmpmercury

The comments are the best part of the article. It made me very happy to see that a lot of people are aware and that women who had both intact and circumcised men chimed in.

I agree! The comments were amazing to read. It only takes a minute to register for an account so I signed up and chimed in with a few words.

[Narmowen]

Originally Posted by dmpmercury

I don't like how they said sex feels as good circumcised as intact because that is far from the truth. I do like that it was not negative towards it at all unlike the other articles. The comments are the best part of the article. It made me very happy to see that a lot of people are aware and that women who had both intact and circumcised men chimed in.

Having been with both, it was just as good both ways. Just depends on the person, IMO.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Narmowen

Having been with both, it was just as good both ways. Just depends on the person, IMO.

You're one of the very few women I've ever heard say that. Of the women I know who have been with both, and who have commented on it to me (or publicly, or whatever), the "sex is better with an intact man" contingent beats out the "it makes no difference" contingent by at least 10 to 1. I'm not in a position to say from personal experience (doctors and parents of my generation were really into cutting up baby boys), but the verdict from those who are in that position is strongly in the "intact is better" camp. Obviously, some people are just better lovers than other ones, but all other things being more-or-less equal, it seems pretty clear that the intact man has advantages. (This makes perfect sense to me, because the biology is different, and the foreskin does serve a sexual function. That function can't be filled if the foreskin isn't there.)

I can't even imagine how that feels to circ'd men. I'd feel pretty freaking crappy if men generalized that sex with a woman like me wasn't as good, because of something done to me as a newborn. I probably wouldn't want to believe it, either.

[philomom]

The comments are very nice.

[NSmomtobe]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I can't even imagine how that feels to circ'd men. I'd feel pretty freaking crappy if men generalized that sex with a woman like me wasn't as good, because of something done to me as a newborn. I probably wouldn't want to believe it, either.

My guess is that that's why Cosmo described them as equal. They didn't want anyone to feel bad and it would be too controversial to say otherwise.

[brant31]

Originally Posted by NSmomtobe

My guess is that that's why Cosmo described them as equal. They didn't want anyone to feel bad and it would be too controversial to say otherwise.

It is also why the AAP and CDC are having such a hard time with this issue. I doubt there is an intact man or partner of an intact man on any of the committees that have been formulating new statements. Putting aside the obvious legal liability issues that arise from saying "Oops, we were wrong -- circumcision is damaging", random comments from committee members and consultants reveal a mindset of "For the life of me, I can't imagine an extra piece of skin would make any difference. I'm fine [my husband's fine], so your son will also probably be better off without it."

[123]

I'm really glad to hear that Cosmo is going in this direction (or at least not in the other direction). I really think that if magazines like Cosmo that are aimed at young women detailed that advantages of an intactness, it would have a significant effect. Their covers are always advertising "10 Ways to Have a Better Time in Bed" or something. Of course, I don't know that they would really do that, but it'd be nice.

On a similar pop culture note, I've noticed that romance novels (in which bedroom scenes are extremely explicit) are now occasionally mentioning the male lead's foreskin. I've always thought that it was silly that even the historicals avoided mentioning that, but I've read two or three in the last year or so that have parts specifically talking about the skin sliding back and forth or something similar. A casual reference like that can really get people thinking about the sexual advantages of a whole penis, since it's nearly always a part of the sex scene. So I see that as a positive step.

[demetria]

This is really good news. Thanks for the link

[jenP]

Originally Posted by 123

I've always thought that it was silly that even the historicals avoided mentioning that, but I've read two or three in the last year or so that have parts specifically talking about the skin sliding back and forth or something similar.

I don't think it's so much that they avoided mentioning it, more like the authors had no idea that sex (or penises) in the 1700's would have been any different than what they (the authors) experienced in modern times in America.

The comments on the Cosmo article were very encouraging.
I've still been meaning to write to Cosmo about an article they wrote about 18 months ago that was pretty clueless about the foreskin. Now I can write to them and say I'm glad they learned more!

Jen

[philomom]

Oh... Marilyn Milos just posted! Neat.