Please help me understand why gay men in the U.S. seem to prefer circ to intact

[vachi73]

This is totally a generalization, of course, and NOT TRUE about all gay men in the U.S. But in the past few days, I've read some websites of people that I/others would call circumfetishists, and the authors are all gay men (mostly from the U.S., with two exceptions being one in the U.K. and one in Australia).

I'm just trying to understand WHY this is true. It would seem to me that, since all men (gay and straight) have penises, they would be equally likely or unlikely to want to preserve maximum sensitivity. But my *sense* (again, NOT factually true, just a sense based on all the reading I do on this and related subjects) is that gay men seem to be more vocally in support of circ than straight men.

Please, no flames -- and please, correct me if I am totally off base -- but I really would like to understand this so I can educate if and when the opportunity arises.

Thanks.

[Cyllya]

It seems like women in the US prefer circ'd men too, because they consider intact penises to be weird, dirty, or ugly. I assumed that gay men preferred circ'd penises for the same reason. However, I've only once seen a (person who claimed to be a) gay man give his opinion on this issue: he advocated circumcision because intact penises are ugly.

That I know of, all the sex-related downsides for the circ'd man's parter are only applicable to phallo-vaginal intercourse.

[Storm Bride]

1) Cultural conditioning - the same thing that causes supposedly adult, rational women to make nasty comments about the penises of infants/little boys, sometimes in the hearing of the boys in question, and causes other women to make nasty comments about how they'd react if they found an "elephant's trunk" in the pants of a guy they were attracted to. I don't get it, but it's definitely a big factor.

2) I'm not sure what I'd call it, but I suspect it's related to the phenomenon of "my penis is perfect the way it is" that causes men to threaten divorce, "bargain" with their wives ("you can have your breastfeeding if I get his foreskin", etc.) and just generally act badly in order to ensure that their boys have no foreskins.

Other than that, I can't verify your impression one way or the other. I don't think I've ever discussed this topic with a gay man.

[Galatea]

Well, if it is a man who has a fetish for a circumcised penis, then he would very likely be gay b/c otherwise, why would a penis be the center of his sexual compulsion?

And, to be gentle, your sense is wrong.  Every gay man I know is vocally against circumcision.  Not all gay men are circumfetishists.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Galatea 

Well, if it is a man who has a fetish for a circumcised penis, then he would very likely be gay b/c otherwise, why would a penis be the center of his sexual compulsion?

This is true, but a circumfetisist could also be a woman, and the ones the OP has seen have all been gay men. I thought that was the point she was making - that it was men (obviously gay, as you point out), not women, who have the circ fetish.

[PuppyFluffer]

I know of several gay intactivists.  When I was in Washington DC this spring for the Genital Integrity Awareness Demonstration - a week long demonstration on the west lawn of the US Capitol - two gay men approached us and I talked to them.  One said to me that many men in their community were well aware of the problems of circumcision and very against it.  They were from Arizona, Phoenix if I recall correctly.  It's perhaps because they are from the western US that this was a strong idea perhaps?  I don't know.  They were quite knowledgeable to speak with.

[kawa kamuri]

My experience has been the opposite - that they prefer the penis natural. 

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

This is true, but a circumfetisist could also be a woman, and the ones the OP has seen have all been gay men. I thought that was the point she was making - that it was men (obviously gay, as you point out), not women, who have the circ fetish.

Repetition compulsion, then.

[Sarah]

#1- Do not confuse a sexual preference for circumcised men and circumcision fetish- they are not the same thing. 

The majority of people who say they prefer a circumcised penis on a man are NOT circumcision fetishists.  They are typically just conditioned to think that the circumcised penis is normal, and prefer what is normal to them.  This is simple conditioning, not a fetish. 

Some gay men may be attracted to a partner who has a body similar to their own- or one different than their own- this is not the same as the circumcision fetish.

People who have a true circumcision fetish can be male or female, and they can be gay or straight...and they can be circumcised or intact.  Straight men can have a circumcision fetish too, a man does not have to be sexually oriented toward having sex with other men in order to have a fixation on the circumcised penis or the act of circumcising.  Often the circumcision fetish is connected to domination, submission, pain and humiliation... it is often the emotional aspect or threat of having one's sex organ cut or criticised- typically against their will- and not the aesthetic form of the cut penis that is the focus of the fetishist. This can manifest in either direction as sadistic or masochistic.

[ursaminor]

I dont know, if you go to any circumfetish website it is clear that the 'end result' or scar placement, amount of tissue removed, etc. is very important to them.  I have read some saying they had to to tattoo a scar on their penis because it wasnt prominent enough after being cut.  I know  'high and tight' circumcision is very desirable to them (that being a scar placed at the middle of the penis shaft and extreme skin removal, to the point that the scrotal sac pulls onto an erection). 

[Ron_Low]

I'm just offended by the question, in the same way I'm offended by questions like: "Why do men sit around watching football and scratching themselves?"  (FYI, I'm a man and don't).

There is very rarely any use to generalize about groups of people.  I recently saw a PBS show with a panel (including that non-voting legislator from DC) discussing femimist issues.  The same feminists went from complaining that the economic climate had certain disadvantages for women looking for equal pay for equal work, then to generalizing about what special considerations women might need because of their roles in the family.  That's LAME.  Either you want fair and equal treatment and opportunity, OR you want to perpetuate gender stereotypes.

Every gay man I know is in favor of an infant's right to choose.  I've encountered plenty of "Eew, gross!" reactions when I hand out intactivist leaflets at Pride events, but they are way overwhelmed by the numerous ones who are on our side. 

-Ron

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Ron_Low 
 man and don't).

There is very rarely any use to generalize about groups of people.  I recently saw a PBS show with a panel (including that non-voting legislator from DC) discussing femimist issues.  The same feminists went from complaining that the economic climate had certain disadvantages for women looking for equal pay for equal work, then to generalizing about what special considerations women might need because of their roles in the family.  That's LAME.  Either you want fair and equal treatment and opportunity, OR you want to perpetuate gender stereotypes.

. 

-Ron

Well, this is sure a diversion, but that isn't LAME of confusing to me at all.  The difference is that woman's work at home is unpaid labor, while all of men's work outside of the home is paid labor.  (and there are still studies showing how much more work women are doing at home in 2 career families, AKA the second shift.  So if a woman is leaving work a little early to pick up the kids from school, make them dinner, baths, bed, etc, and a man is able to work later knowing he's coming home to a nice hot meal, well, yea, that's not fair.  Pregnancy, breastfeeding, childrearing, cooking, cleaning, are all enormous amounts of unpaid labor.  Women actually need TIME to gestate babies and pump/nurse them.  And they still need money to live.  The way our economy is set up by default puts women behind.  

So it's not quite fair that under our current economic and cultural norms women are shafted.  (see?  I said shaft, I brought it back to the topic at hand.) 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Altair 

Well, this is sure a diversion, but that isn't LAME of confusing to me at all.  The difference is that woman's work at home is unpaid labor, while all of men's work outside of the home is paid labor.  (and there are still studies showing how much more work women are doing at home in 2 career families, AKA the second shift.  So if a woman is leaving work a little early to pick up the kids from school, make them dinner, baths, bed, etc, and a man is able to work later knowing he's coming home to a nice hot meal, well, yea, that's not fair.  Pregnancy, breastfeeding, childrearing, cooking, cleaning, are all enormous amounts of unpaid labor.  Women actually need TIME to gestate babies and pump/nurse them.  And they still need money to live.  The way our economy is set up by default puts women behind.  

So it's not quite fair that under our current economic and cultural norms women are shafted.  (see?  I said shaft, I brought it back to the topic at hand.) 

Yup, the women get shafted.  Thats why single mothers have the lowest wealth index of pretty much anyone.  It's disgusting.  We definitely get the shaft.  (just like altair, I made sure I was on topic)

[PeterJ]

Considering the rich variety that exists in human sexuality, it is quite likely that just as many people prefer intact to circumcised penises.  I would venture to suggest that happening on a website that talks about 'cirumfetish' doesn't prove one thing or the other, and only provides statistically useless confirmation bias for that particular point of view.