Less Sensitive=Lasts Longer

[pdx.mothernurture]

I am so sick of this justification. "Well, my husband feels plenty and if he was anymore sensitive sex would be over in minutes." or, "<Giggle> Well, for women, a man being a little less sensitive isn't necessarily a bad thing."

I'm so fed up.

I wonder what we would think if a man asserted he preferred women have a surgery that delayed or made orgasm more difficult because sexually frustrated women are insatiable?

"Oh, it's not so bad...she wants it all the time and can go and go and go."

We'd be appalled that anyone would suggest performing amputative surgery to decrease one person's sexual sensitivity, pleasure, and function to benefit a sexual partner, wouldn't we?

<grumble>

Jen

[mntnmom]

Well, I've been with both, it's not necessarily true.
I agree with you that it's horrifying justification. The idea that lack of sensitivity is a BENEFIT to the other partner, is cruel and insensitive!!
Besides, any woman who thinks a man has to rely on "lasting" a long time to pleasure a woman is regretably ignorant. If it we're that they were themselves perpetuating circ', I would pity their narrow experience!

[BigC]

That argument never ceases to astound me. What those people fail to understand is that intact men have better control because they can feel where their penis is.

[Bm31]

Some of the pro-circ's admit it DOES make it less sensitive??? Then why will the rest of them claim that keratinization of the glans is a hoax?? :

[jee'smom]

Also, in "Sex as Nature Intended It", they explain that in the circumcised penis, the tightness of the skin puts pressure on the 'internal erectile tissue' (similar in structure to the clitoris, which extends much further inward than people realize), causing the release of chemicals, which triggers (sometimes premature) ejaculation. So, in other words, circumcised men think that it's their sensitivity that makes them ejaculate faster (hence the statement "Man, I wouldn't want to be anymore sensitive then I already am!!!"), but that's actually not true, and does not have much to do with their sensitivity. With intact men, they are more exquisitely sensitive, but can "hold it" longer (b/c there's not too much pressure on the internal erectile tissue, releasing chemicals that makes them ejaculate sooner then they should.)
My dh has said this to me as to why he's glad he's circumcised... "Man, hon, I find you so sexy and I'm so sensitive down there, I couldn't imagine being more sensitive then I already am." He doesn't get it.

[pdx.mothernurture]

Originally Posted by Bm31

Some of the pro-circ's admit it DOES make it less sensitive??? Then why will the rest of them claim that keratinization of the glans is a hoax?? :

I think the rationalization usually goes:

It doesn't decrease sensitivity.

If it did decrease sensitivity, they wouldn't have anything to compare it to/know the difference. Ignorance is bliss...who cares?

So what if it does decrease sensitivity, that's not necessarily a bad thing. My husband said he'd explode in 90 seconds if he was any more sensitive.

Gah.

Jen

[jee'smom]

That's exactly what I was talking about in my post (we posted at the same time).

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture

I think the rationalization usually goes:

It doesn't decrease sensitivity.

If it did decrease sensitivity, they wouldn't have anything to compare it to/know the difference. Ignorance is bliss...who cares?

So what if it does decrease sensitivity, that's not necessarily a bad thing. My husband said he'd explode in 90 seconds if he was any more sensitive.

Gah.

Jen

Yep.

With a lil' "...and it's more attractive, anyway."

Bleh...

[Bm31]

I've heard that from other guys before, Jen, but the truth is they wouldn't really know. I point blank asked one that question once, and he was stumped for a response. Really, I think it's all relative; by the time a guy is sexually active he will acclimate to it. And I think there's a difference between sensation and sensitivity too.

[phatchristy]

This was from a post a long time ago . I pulled it out from some of my saved material. I think this is a good analogy!

____

Sports Car Analogy- this is the best analogy I can think of - the
car thing is in no way an attempt to talk down to guys- it's
honestly the best one I can come up with. If I told your DH that I
had a great handling sports car, one that handles even better than
the one he has right now... a more sensitive car... Would he
say, "No way- that's impossible- if a car was any more sensitive
than mine- you could not drive it! You could not keep it on the
road!" No I doubt it. He would probably want me to explain how the
car was more sensitive- and I could tell him that the car has
stiffer shocks and race tires and a big engine which accelerates
fast- but fantastic state of the art breaks that can bring it to a
standstill effortlessly... he would not assume that this more
sensitive car was all acceleration and no breaks would he? He would
not assume it was all torque and no steering? So why would he assume
that the only sensitivity lost in cirucmcision is the sensitivity
that leads a man down to the road of no return? Could he ever
imagine that maybe the sensitivity lost in circumcision was the very
sensitivity that would allow him to enjoy making love without
fearing that he would explode? That maybe it's a type of sensitivity
that gives a man the feedback he needs- and the breaks from vaginal
wall friction to AVOID exploding when he does not want to?

___

And, it is EXACTLY the opposite of what the pro-circers think. Premature egaculation is much more prevalent among the circumcised. They lack the sensitivity and have less control and are less aware of how close they are to orgasm so they can't alter things to stop in time. So sad.

[jee'smom]

Wow, phatchristy, great reply!

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by pdx.mothernurture

I think the rationalization usually goes:

It doesn't decrease sensitivity.

If it did decrease sensitivity, they wouldn't have anything to compare it to/know the difference. Ignorance is bliss...who cares?

So what if it does decrease sensitivity, that's not necessarily a bad thing. My husband said he'd explode in 90 seconds if he was any more sensitive.

Gah.

Jen

All I am going to say is with a DH who is restoring, according to him there are actual NEW SENSATIONS that just didn't exist before in his tightly circ'd state. Just whole new things...a difference and experience. Sort of like broadening the horizons.

Think of it too as an artist who has only black and white to paint with. Then, just imagine getting a new color, then adding a new color...there is just more there.

Don't know how to put it any other way.

[blsilva]

Oooh, I wish I had known about the Sports Car analogy 6 years ago! My dh tried to pull that one on me, and I had no answer for it. All I could do was fall back on the old major pain/not worth it strategy- which worked, btw, but I would have liked to have this argument under my belt too!

[laprettygurl]

I've been with both and I'd rather have 5 minutes with an intact guy than hours with a circ'd guy.

[baybee]

In one circumcising cultural group, there's a saying that there are 3 good reasons to circumcise. They are: 1. We last longer 2. We last longer 3. We last longer. Seems to me that's a sad sales job to keep the practise going for future generations. In that same culture, there's a 14th Century scholar who warns against allowing the women of this group to experience sex with an intact man because she will be lost to the tribe if she does. Very mixed messages.

Circumcision is a good way to make an individual schizophrenic and I think it's also a way to make a culture whacko.

[Daisyuk]

Well, to me, lasting longer = getting sore, bored, and pain that lasts for days. Not fun.

I'm sure it's a "male myth" about lasting longer being better, what woman wants them to go on and on and on and on, just pounding away? Being with a man who lasts forever results in me not wanting it at all, who wants to equate sex with pain? (Ok, I know some people do, but that's a different situation.)

[jee'smom]

I think b/c so many cirumcised men prematurely ejaculate, that the myth of "lasting longer = better" came about. Had these men stayed intact, they could've had more sensitivity AND lasted longer! (which circumcised men cannot even fathom!!!)

[purposefulmother]

Circumcision is a good way to make an individual schizophrenic and I think it's also a way to make a culture whacko


Right on with that!

[Romana]

My husband can last forever, and it's one of his reasons for why he wants to circ any future sons (won't happen). HE is the one who uses this reason, not me, and it's hard to refute (I just say it doesn't make sense to deny a son sexual pleasure and that I don't think him lasting a long time has anything to do with being circ'd, but more something physiologically different about him and his dad (since his dad is the same; trust me, I didn't ask & have no personal knowledge)).

And FTR, it's not that he has a harder time climaxing or can't climax . . . he can just very easily choose when he wants it to happen, so he can always last as long or short as we want. Which is really nice. I didn't have that experience at all with the one other sexual partner I had prior to dh. That guy came in 5 seconds; it was terribly boring. Oh, and he was circ'd too.

Sigh. It's really frustrating when you can talk in circles and never get anywhere. Dh does not say keritanization of the glans is a myth; he says it's a good thing. Yeah, we don't talk about circ anymore.

Julia
dd 1 year old

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Romana9+2

Sigh. It's really frustrating when you can talk in circles and never get anywhere. Dh does not say keritanization of the glans is a myth; he says it's a good thing. Yeah, we don't talk about circ anymore.

Julia
dd 1 year old

You know, there is no "cookie cutter" circ...no two are alike. Any adult who was circ'd as an infant was done to the personal taste of their circumciser. So, you can have one circ'd man who is very tightly circ'd, with very little inner foreskin left (scar is nearly next to the glans), and the frenulum scraped out. Then, you can have another who has a looser circ with most of the frenulum left.

It's something that should be left to your son's to choose. Honestly, if they reach 18 and they want to have it done (which is VERY unlikely btw...I've read fewer than 1 in a 1000 choose to have it done as adults even in this country--USA...in other intact nations it's like 1 in 17,000) they can have it done and they can minimize the most sensitive tissues that they lost. They can find a doctor who will leave the frenulum and innerforeskin there as much as possible.

Your dh's logic fails me for that reason. Maybe he doesn't understand that some men who are circ'd are VERY bad off. Maybe he just got a "better cut" than a lot of circ'd babies. Why RISK it even that his son winds up even worse off than daddy?

Anyhow, just a thought.