Negatives To Being Intact - Page 2

[merpk]

Why I'm jumping in, I don't know ... but blueviolet asked the question I was wondering ... and what is the source of this intact men masturbate less idea ...

And lubrication is often for the comfort of the woman. A close friend whose husband is intact has all sorts of dryness problems. Not the man's issue, oftentimes.

And just to be a wiseass, the last time a governmental or otherwise governing body tried to impose an end to brit milah, we ended up with the holiday of Chanukah, precisely from it. Just for informational purposes ...

edited just to clarify, that last is a reference to the petition linked on this thread ...

Okay, I'll leave now.

[Frankly Speaking]

There was a study back in about 1920 that found that circumcised men masturbate 40% more than intact men as well as engage in "non-traditional" sexual practices at significantly higher rates. Dr. Edward Laumann of the U. of Chicago found almost exactly the same results in 1997 and repeated and found the same in 1999. I wrote Dr. Laumann for some clarifications and his theory is that the foreskin provides some constant low level chemical or electrical stimulation to the glans or vice versa that keeps these urges at bay. When the penis is circumcised, that stimulation is removed and the urges come out.

As to why intact men want sex more, this really seems to be true only for older men, above about 35 or 40 years old. The reason is that they get more stimulation from sex and therefore more pleasure and more reward. Like Pavlov's dog, they start sexually salivating at the thought of sex because of the higher reward.

The lubrication issue is different for every woman and the lubrication is for the woman, not the man. As a long time single man, I can tell you that women produce vastly different levels of vaginal lubrication and even the same woman produces vastly different levels at different times. There is absolutely no question that menopause significantly lowers the overall lubrication level. Even some young women do not produce a lot of lubrication. Younger men are also so hormonally driven that the act is usually very quick and so lubrication is usually not a significant issue but as they get older, the hormones ebb and they require more stimulation and the act takes longer.

Now for the difference between intact and circumcised. The intact man can move the skin on his penis midline from the middle to the tip or to the base. As he enters the vagina, his skin rolls back to facilitate entry and while it may slide some against the vaginal sphincter, there is very little movement. Once he is in, there is virtually no movement against the vaginal sphincter and a seal is made. He can move in and out as much as he likes and there is no lubrication brought to the outside and there is no friction against the vaginal sphincter. It's two internal organs working together. For the circumcised couple, the shaft skin is more or less immoble on the shaft amd moves in and out of the vaginal sphincter and with each movement, lubrication is brought out where it dries. The corona of the glans also works like a squeegee that scrapes the inside of the vagina bringing lubrication toward the sphincter to be pulled to the outside by the moving shaft skin. You then have a situation where the vaginal sphincter was not designed for a lot of friction and the vaginal lubrication is depleted increasing the friction it was not designed to take. This makes long session sex very uncomfortable for many women and at the very time she needs to get it over with fairly quickly, the man is at the age that he needs a longer time and more stimulation to get to where he needs to be.

Does that adequately answer the questions?



Frank

[merpk]

Yes, Frank. It does. It gave me two studies, one from 80 years ago, one more recent, about one question.

The rest was anecdotal, sounds fine. And I could give you anecdotes equal and in opposition to. From adult men who've been "both."

Just so you know, all is not black and white, but generally aquamarine.



Now I'm really going.

[cottonwood]

Originally posted by Frankly Speaking
I wrote Dr. Laumann for some clarifications and his theory is that the foreskin provides some constant low level chemical or electrical stimulation to the glans or vice versa that keeps these urges at bay. When the penis is circumcised, that stimulation is removed and the urges come out.

Hm, well, okay. I guess I'd have to have a look at those studies in detail to really satisfy myself that they were valid. In any case, I guess I don't understand why it's on the list anyway. Why is frequency of masturbation a good/bad thing?

Thanks for the explanation of the function of the foreskin during intercourse -- that was great. Personally, I don't see what's anecdotal about it -- sounds perfectly logical to me. I'd love to see a poll of women with vaginal dryness who have had both circumcised and intact partners. But I guess I'll never know personally, because it's not likely that I'll be having sex with an intact man after I've gone through menopause. Oh well.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally posted by blueviolet
I guess I don't understand why it's on the list anyway. Why is frequency of masturbation a good/bad thing?

A little bit of history about circumcision . . . . During the Victorian Era there was a certain prudishness and hyper-religious atmosphere. Anything sexual was strongly frowned on and masturbation was considered an awful sin. (from the Bible "spilling your seed") Back then a child's natural act of masturbation was something that had to be strongly addressed and in this environment a child was taken to Dr. A.J. Sayre to address this problem. Dr. Sayre was most certainly intact and most certainly had engaged in masturbation at some point in his life. He was well aware of the pleasures a foreskin can provide. As an intact man, he knew how intact men masturbate using the foreskin for the pleasure. Some intact men can't imagine how a circumcised man can masturbate and I'm guessing this was true for Dr. Sayre. Dr. Sayre knew that circumcising the penis would de-sensitize it and guessed that removing the foreskin would take away the mechanical aspect of masturbation making it difficult or impossible. Of course, he was very wrong as boys are very inventive.

By the turn of the 20th century, it was fairly well known that circumcision did not prevent masturbation but by then it was found to be a very profitable procedue and the medical business went on a quest to find something it would cure and some of their findings were bizzarre. The 1920 study was one of these but it did find that circumcised boys masturbated 40% more than intact boys.

Up until the 1950's there was almost no knowlede about either male or female sexuality. Masters and Johnson and Alfred Kinsey were the first sexual researchers and even at that time, they were quite controversial. They were starting from ground zero and a lot of their research is now known to be badly flawed. There still hasn't been a lot of research into human sexuality and the medical and psychological professions are really just in the beginning stages of this research.

Dr. Laumann is working to increase the base of knowledge in this area and one of the ways you do research is to look at past research to see if it can be included in your research. Dr. Laumann needed to confirm and validate the research that showed a 40% increase. He included this and other things that were related into his research and found that the 1920 research was indeed correct along with other things such as circumcised men also participate in "non-traditional" sexual practices at significantly higher rates than intact men. Non-traditional practices include such things as oral and anal sex. This same research also found that circumcised men become impotent years earlier than intact men.

The vastly different rates of masturbation is of interest to researchers because it tells them there is something significantly different about circumcised and intact men. Eventually, someone will take Laumann's research another step and try to learn exactly why circumcised men participate in non-traditional sexual practices more and why circumcised men become impotent earlier. They will try to determine whether it is physical or psychological in order to increase the base of knowledge in human sexuality.

Masturbation is neither a good thing or bad thing. It's just a natural thing. However, the vastly different rates of masturbation is a signal that there is a significant difference in circumcised and intact men and this is something that has previously been denied. Future researchers will use Laumann's work to quantify the difference and explain why there is a difference. This is just one part of the whole that I believe will eventually end the practice of circumcision.



Frank

[Xenogenesis]

Thank you for the informative post Frank. I can't help but wonder if the masturbation ratios vary so greatly because the circumcised males had the experience with "the first place sex meets violence" and if they might grow up seeking something subconcsiously they feel they may be missing. So therefore are perpetually seeking a satisfaction beyond their scope of understanding. As we well know :

"Scientific studies have consistently shown that circumcision disrupts a child's behavioral development." - and - "Numerous other studies have proven that circumcision disrupts the mother-infant bond during the crucial period after birth. Research has also shown that circumcision disrupts feeding patterns. In a study at the Washington University School of Medicine, most babies would not nurse right after they were circumcised, and those who did would not look into their mothers' eyes.66 "
http://mothering.com/10-0-0/html/10-...cision85.shtml

[Greaseball]

More about masturbation...

I read about a group of soldiers who had to be circed before battle back when it was required by the military and the day before it was to be done, they wrote they "[masturbated] for the last time with skins." They said that masturbation was not the same after they were circed.

I think enhanced masturbation is a plus...

[Frankly Speaking]

I've read often of accounts that men had to be circumcised for the military and have found no verifiable evidence of this. I believe it is an urban legend. I have found one anecdotal account of the New Zealand military requiring it for a short time because they were under the false assumption that the Austrailian military required it and they were following their lead but quickly discontinued it when they found it was not true. I have also found accounts of lower level leaders like platoon sergeants trying to impose it on their group. However, I have found nothing on a national level requiring it. If somebody can provide this proof, I will appreciate it.

If you look at the history of war in the US, reason and logic will tell you it probably is not true. The wars we have fought since circumcision got started are the Spanish American, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam. There were almost no men circumcised at the time of the Spanish American War and it was over so quickly that circumcision would have prevented it from being fought. WWI was a similar situation in that our participation came on very quickly and the effort was centered on getting men to the front, not having them recovering from surgery. At that time, the vast majority of men were intact. During WWII the same situation was in effect and I personally know too many intact men who fought in that war. The Korean war also had intact men, two of them were my uncles and both were intact. I don't think there is any discussion that it was required for Viet Nam.

I think that the whole thing is a myth that becomes more believeable as there are fewer and fewer veterans from those eras to refute the myths. There are none from the Spanish American War and at most a few dozen from WWI and survivors from WWII are in their 80's now. Even vets from the Korean War are getting to be few and far between.

Like most of the "facts" of circumcision, I think this one is a myth.



Frank

[Greaseball]

Well, I don't know what motivation these guys would have for lying about it! There are a lot of things that are not documented but that are still proven. A lot of child abusers get away with what they are doing because they do not leave hard evidence behind. Off topic, I know, but sometimes I think the best course of action is just to believe what people say, especially if they have nothing to gain by lying.

You have probably already read the book - "Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma" by Rosemary Romberg.

It could be that it was not required after all, but officials told the men it was, and the men didn't have anyone giving them the real truth. I have heard the same thing (from the same book) about high school sports and coaches writing letters to parents saying the kid had to be circed to play.

[Frankly Speaking]

I'm not accusing anyone of lying, I just know that there are many urban legends that just don't bear up under scrutiny and I believe this is one of them. If you closely scrutinize it, it just falls apart on close inspection. Added to that the fact that there is no official documentation and it becomes even more unbelieveable.

There is also an urban legend I heard as a kid that there was an intact soldier during WWII that wasn't able to clean himself. One time when he stopped to urinate, he pulled his foreskin back and his glans fell off onto the ground. This urban legend couldn't possibly be true because if his infection was that bad, he would have been out of action long before that happened if he were even still alive. Sepsis would have set in long before that and he would have had blood poisioning. Certainly he wouldn't have still been fighting and would have not been able to urinate days before that. It's just an urban legend that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I don't know of another subject that has more urban legends than circumcision. I don't understand why that is.



Frank

[Quirky]

T You want urban legends, check out www.snopes.com.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming....

[sparkeze]

Originally posted by Frankly Speaking
I've read often of accounts that men had to be circumcised for the military and have found no verifiable evidence of this. I believe it is an urban legend.

I have no idea if circumcision is actually required or not but it's standard practice in Korea to get circ'd at age 18 when boys enter required military service. Of course, these days a lot of parents get their sons circ'd at birth to save them from the excrusiating pain they'll experience later on. :

JMO, but I think that Koreans somehow feel that circumcision is "westernizing." Probably since it seems to be so popular in the US. My dad is intact only because he was exempt from military service in Korea and my brother (who was born in the US) is also intact because my dad did a lot of research on the topic (my mom just went along). My DH is also intact because his family moved to the US when he was a child so when we decided not to circ DS it wasn't a hard decision to make. But all my SILs thought I was weird because apparently the Korean American population (and all other Americans) all circs (according to them!).

In Korean TV shows and such I've seen many depictions of high school boys going together to get circ'd after graduating- is that supposed to be some kind of bonding experience?

But anyways, I happened to stumble upon this forum after being on these boards for months and even though this was an old topic I wanted to share. Strangely it never occured to me to check out a circ board since DS is intact... like how I skipped over the vax sections in baby books because I thought they were about information regarding the diseases the vaxes helped prevent! : But that's another story

[Nathan1097]

Go to http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/ then to "History" and then "The Army/Just Like Dad". Gives a short background where these issues came from!

And since is MY site, I'll quote some of it here. (Read more detail on the site, if you want.)

Frederick Hodges, D.Phil.:

"The U.S. military had a tremendous effect on the circumcision rates in this country. During World War I and World War II, the army kept very detailed statistics on venereal disease. Venereal disease was considered a grave problem because it kept men in the hospitals rather than on the battlefront.


"Military doctors published reports proving that Blacks were responsible for the spread of venereal disease and so Blacks were targeted for circumcision. Many- frankly- very racist articles were written about Blacks in medical journals that were published by the Army showing why Blacks were so promiscuous; how they were unable to be taught how to wash themselves; how they couldn't be trusted to learn to protect themselves during sex; and that amputative surgery was the only way of controlling them.

"And when they returned home after the war, they became indoctrinated into the belief that circumcision was necessary. And when their children were born and the doctors began circumcising them automatically, parents didn't object! They didn't have a choice, but they didn't object because they had been told that it was absolutely necessary."

[Xenogenesis]

It's disgusting the way people persecute others.

[AnnMarie]

Re: Negatives To Being Intact

Originally posted by Frankly Speaking

(8.) If you ever accidentally loose an eyelid, the foreskin is used to reconstruct it if the foreskin is still there. Winking at a girl with your foreskin can be considered very offensive by some women.

Love that one! :LOL What was the person's reply to the list?

[Frankly Speaking]

As well as I can remember, he decided that a foreskin is a pretty good thing to have and he would keep his. There were also many other replies to his post so I don't know if the list had anything to do with it at all.



Frank

[Sara29]

[In Korean TV shows and such I've seen many depictions of high school boys going together to get circ'd after graduating- is that supposed to be some kind of bonding experience? >>>>

When I was looking up some turk circ articles at pubmed I cam across a few korean ones.According to the articles I have read Koreans think circ makes the penis cleaner,and the circed male becomes a better lover by having himself cut.

So I guess if you want to be a *real man*(like turks) the prevailing thought is cutting yourself will do it.

Sara

[Frankly Speaking]

The Koreans adopted circumcision right after the Korean War. Three guesses who was the influence and the first two don't count. :

Their reasons to do it are all the same ones here because of (hint, hint) the source. In Korea, the medical establishment strongly encourages it because like it is very profitable here, it is even more profitable there. It has even become more ingrained in the culture there than here and is likely to continue longer there than here because of the lower education levels and lack of access to truthful and accurate information. Of all the things our great country has exported, this is probably the most evil.




Frank

[Justice2]

Originally posted by Frankly Speaking
I've read often of accounts that men had to be circumcised for the military and have found no verifiable evidence of this. Frank

Hi Frank..I am a lurker on this forum but wanted to step forward and say that I do personally know a man who was circ'd by the military. I know that this wouldn't be considered 'verifiable proof', but the next time I talk to him, I will ask if there is any available.

[Frankly Speaking]

Let's get our semantics right here . . . .

There is absolutely no question that the military has performed elective circumcisions on soldiers in the past and as far as I know, they still do. The last report I have seen of this was during Operation Desert Storm I when two soldiers requested circumcisions and they were performed on board a hospital ship in the Indian Ocean.

However, I have heard rumors that the military at one time required circumcision of soldiers as a prerequisite of their military service and I have found no evidence or confirmation of this. As a matter of fact, I have seen statements of policy that contradict this rumor. If you have information that this is not true, I would like to see it. I personally know men who served in WWII, The Korean War and The Vietnam War who are intact. That in itself would seem to refute the rumor.




Frank