Why WOULDN'T a man want to restore??? - Page 4

[ProtoLawyer]

My SO has facial scarring from a car accident. It's not immediately noticeable, but if you talk to him for awhile, or you're up close, it's pretty extensive. He could have some plastic surgery (or, less invasively, he could use some creams, wear his hair differently, etc.) to reduce or hide the appearance of scarring. He doesn't, though.

My friend lost her left breast to cancer. She could have reconstruction -- her husband wants her to. She could also wear a prosthesis. She doesn't.

Reasons for wanting or not wanting to "fix" what is broken are personal, as personal as deciding whether something is "broken" in the first place. My friend does consider herself, or her breast, broken; but she's elected not to "fix" it, even though her husband has told her he might be more sexually fulfilled if she was "whole." (Notice a parallel?) She doesn't want to go through more surgery, and she thinks the prosthesis is just silly, uncomfortable, and reminds her every day she has cancer (in remission). She's gotten used to her appearance as-is.

My SO, on the other hand, doesn't consider his face broken, even though most people would disagree. Yes, it's disfigured. Yes, it's not supposed to be that way, and but for the negligence of another, his face would be, if you will, "intact." But he doesn't see it that way...he just considers it a part of who he is. He is circ'd (wouldn't circ a son if he had one, though), and it doesn't bother him and it's fine by me as well (and yes, I have been with intact men, too). I'd no more expect him to restore for me (even if it had the potential of making sex "better") as he'd expect me to change my body, even to "fix" something that was "broken," for him. If he wants to do it for himself (and he is aware such a process exists), lovely. If not, that's fine too.

[stik]

In defense of those who think there's more than foreskin at issue here -

The phrase "lie back and think of England" originated in a time and place when most men were intact. There's a significant body of historical evidence to demonstrate that foreskin does not automatically make for tolerable sex.

[Mommiska]

Originally Posted by stik

In defense of those who think there's more than foreskin at issue here -

The phrase "lie back and think of England" originated in a time and place when most men were intact. There's a significant body of historical evidence to demonstrate that foreskin does not automatically make for tolerable sex.

It also originated in a time and place in which women were not supposed to be sexual beings and were supposed to abhor the sexual act. So they were told to 'lie back and think of England' because they had to do their 'wifely duty' (although they were, as well brought up women, NOT supposed to enjoy it) and they also needed to procreate.

I think that phrase was dealing with an entirely different topic.

I really, really think that people should do searches and read the stories of some of the women (and men) who post here. No, having a foreskin does not automatically make someone a good lover.

And lacking a foreskin does not automatically make someone a bad lover.

But in some situations circumcision can have extremely negative effects on a couple's sex life. As in - they can't have sex, because the abrasion is so painful for the woman; they can't conceive naturally, because the man is unable to ejaculate through vaginal intercourse; the man's penis gets splits/etc on it from intercourse, etc.

ProtoLawyer - I do understand what you are getting at. And to a certain extent, I agree with you.

However, if I were in a relationship where having sex with my partner was very important to me, but caused me significant, persistent pain. And this was caused by the extent of my partner's circumcision - then I think that this situation needs to be addressed by both partners together as it is negatively impacting both partners.

No, a man should not be forced/pressured into restoring. It seems to be implied that a loving wife would accept her husband how he is and just get on with it.

But it seems to me that a loving husband would want to talk this issue out with his wife, so that her needs could be met as well. After all, there are two of them in this relationship and his circumcision is affecting both of them.

Yes, it is his body, and he must decide for himself what he wants to do with what he has been left with, after someone else decided to cut him at birth. (ironic, isn't it?)

And perhaps for some men, restoration isn't in the cards for their own personal reasons.

But that leaves the partner in a very, very difficult position. I think this position needs to be acknowledged and not just glossed over (especially not in this thread).

It just isn't fair (or kind) to tell someone that they need to just deal with the situation on their own. In a partnership, both partners need to be sensitive to, and consider the needs of the other.

Incidentally, I don't see the parallel between women wishing their husbands would restore because sex is physically painful for them, and a man wishing his wife would have her breast reconstructed because he would like the way it looked better.

Restoration is NOT about appearance, in the vast majority of cases. It is about function.

[charmander]

I asked DH once if he'd be interested in restoring, but he said he wasn't. And honestly, there are no problems in our sex life (i.e. intercourse is not painful) that are caused by his being circumcised. I certainly wouldn't want him to do it unless HE wanted to.

Why wouldn't men want to do it? I dunno - maybe it's just not worth the hassle if they think their penis works just fine (which is how my husband feels about his.) In other words, he doesn't feel as though a body part is missing, or that he is mutilated or anything, so restoration is simply not an issue for him. Those are HIS thoughts about himself, and he is entitled to him, and they are perfectly valid.

[Daisyuk]

I think it is incredibly dismissive and rather offensive to equate something visual like a scar or bigger/smaller/missing boobs, with a body part that doesn't have its full function and is causing so much pain to the other party that they don't want to have relations with it. If I was causing so much suffering to my partner, especially during an act that is supposed to bring us together, not drive us apart, I'd do my utmost to rectify the situation, what is so terrible about that? And exactly WHY is a woman supposed to put up with something that hurts?

Some of the posters in this thread just don't get it.

[secretresistance]

Originally Posted by ProtoLawyer

My SO has facial scarring from a car accident. It's not immediately noticeable, but if you talk to him for awhile, or you're up close, it's pretty extensive. He could have some plastic surgery (or, less invasively, he could use some creams, wear his hair differently, etc.) to reduce or hide the appearance of scarring. He doesn't, though.

My friend lost her left breast to cancer. She could have reconstruction -- her husband wants her to. She could also wear a prosthesis. She doesn't.

Reasons for wanting or not wanting to "fix" what is broken are personal, as personal as deciding whether something is "broken" in the first place.

The damage of circumcision is more than cosmetic, though. (And please know I'm not trying to minimize the possible hardships of living with a unique physical attribute.)

DP is pretty educated about restoration, but has no real drive to pursue it. He says he couldn't handle sex that's better than what we already have () and more seriously, he's squeamish about such an intimate and unusual commitment.

I wish he would go for it, because of how great our sex life is. I don't want it to fade away as we age!

Edited to add that I just saw that I've cross posted with a lot of people saying the same thing about the mastectomy comparison. Not trying to beat a dead horse!

[charmander]

think it is incredibly dismissive and rather offensive to equate something visual like a scar or bigger/smaller/missing boobs, with a body part that doesn't have its full function and is causing so much pain to the other party that they don't want to have relations with it. If I was causing so much suffering to my partner, especially during an act that is supposed to bring us together, not drive us apart, I'd do my utmost to rectify the situation, what is so terrible about that? And exactly WHY is a woman supposed to put up with something that hurts?

Some of the posters in this thread just don't get it.

But not everyone suffers because their partner is circumsized. So this doesn't apply to everyone here.

[secretresistance]

Originally Posted by charmander

But not everyone suffers because their partner is circumsized. So this doesn't apply to everyone here.

I would say that every circumcised man has suffered in at least one significant way. It's a violation to be surgically wounded for no good reason. And most of the time there's going to be lots of pain. :

Depending on your thoughts about what ritualized genital mutilation might do to a society, the damage of circumcision could be exponentially bigger than at first glance. Hippy-dippy, ok, but I honestly believe that there is more suffering than might be obvious when so many of us are welcomed into the world with violence.

Not that restoration is going to fix any of that. Sigh.

[charmander]

Originally Posted by secretresistance

I would say that every circumcised man has suffered in at least one significant way. It's a violation to be surgically wounded for no good reason. And most of the time there's going to be lots of pain. :

Depending on your thoughts about what ritualized genital mutilation might do to a society, the damage of circumcision could be exponentially bigger than at first glance. Hippy-dippy, ok, but I honestly believe that there is more suffering than might be obvious when so many of us are welcomed into the world with violence.

Not that restoration is going to fix any of that. Sigh.

Yes, I agree with you. But, what I meant was - not everyone's sex life suffers because of circumcision.

[secretresistance]

Originally Posted by charmander

Yes, I agree with you. But, what I meant was - not everyone's sex life suffers because of circumcision.

I can almost agree with that, but I'm just not absolutely sure.

I suppose those who see no improvement from restoration (if there are people who fit that category) are probably less vocal than those who experience a gain in sensitivity.

[ProtoLawyer]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

I think it is incredibly dismissive and rather offensive to equate something visual like a scar or bigger/smaller/missing boobs, with a body part that doesn't have its full function and is causing so much pain to the other party that they don't want to have relations with it. If I was causing so much suffering to my partner, especially during an act that is supposed to bring us together, not drive us apart, I'd do my utmost to rectify the situation, what is so terrible about that? And exactly WHY is a woman supposed to put up with something that hurts?

Some of the posters in this thread just don't get it.

First: No, a woman need not put up with something that hurts.

But I answered the original question: why WOULDN'T a man want to restore. I'm not being dismissive; I'm offering a response that is personal to my situation. I said it's personal -- and it is. My partner doesn't want to restore because he has no desire to -- and there is no extrinsic reason that might change his mind. He isn't hurting me. I've not asked him to do anything about it.

If your partner is actually hurting you, then yes, I think he needs to work on ways to rectify that. If my partner was hurting me, and we determined it was because he was circumcised, then I'm sure he'd research restoration, as well as other ways of stopping the hurt, and I'd hope he'd come to a reasonable decision.

I didn't want to go into detail, or play the "injury to a penis is worse than/not as bad as injury to another part of the body" game, but that car accident (he was hit by a drunk driver) also stole a part of my SO's brain, and the sight in one eye. He really should be dead right now. He lost a lot of memory (this was before I met him); got most of it back but he still needs to make lists and get reminders. Had to relearn how to walk, feed himself, all that. He's got an upped chance of pretty much any neurological condition -- Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and yes, sexual dysfunction is a risk, too. It cost him his first marriage. That can't be fixed through any current technology, just worked around. (That's why I didn't bring it up before, because the analogy didn't make sense -- but I thought of a way it could.)

Now, let's say my SO's brain injury caused him anger-management problems -- well, it did (the injury wiped out a part of his brain that controlled anger and impulse control and he had to re-learn it from scratch), but let's say he was lashing out at me or his daughter as a result. (He hasn't.) I hope this is a better parallel than scars or breast reconstruction: he'd be doing something that hurt me, destroyed our trust, etc., even though it wasn't his fault. You better darn well believe that he'd (and we'd) be doing his utmost to rectify the situation, or I wouldn't be here anymore. That said: He may discover cognitive-behavior therapy is the best way to fix the situation. He may discover that medication, or prayer, or medication, or some experimental brain therapy, is the best way to fix the situation. I'd have to decide whether I can live with the fix he chose, and if not, what to do about it.

It's case-by-case. Maybe, if I had trouble with my partner's circumcision, he'd decide that restoration was not the right path, that there was another, better way to avoid hurting me--and I'd have to decide whether that other, better way was OK with me, and what to do if it wasn't.

Again, I'm not *disagreeing* per se with anyone -- just offering reasons that a man might not want to restore. They may not be relevant to your situation, but they are to mine.

[Mommiska]

Proto-lawyer - that makes a lot of sense.

You and your SO sound like quite incredible, determined people.

[ProtoLawyer]

Originally Posted by Mommiska

Proto-lawyer - that makes a lot of sense.

You and your SO sound like quite incredible, determined people.

Thanks...he is, certainly. I'm just doing what makes sense.

And (OT) credit where it's due: his now-ex wife was an absolute saint through this. She nursed him back to health, put up with way more than most people would in that situation...in the end, he was just a different person from the one she married; their relationship shifted from wife/husband to caregiver/patient, and they couldn't make it work. (Something like 80% of marriages don't survive an accident like this -- and most of the ones that do are older, long-married couples.)

She got the worst of it...yeah, he's at a higher risk of neurological issues I'll have to deal with in 20-40 years, but I knew that going in and I willingly accepted the risk. She went into the marriage as most of us do, certainly not anticipating all of this.

[smeisnotapirate]

My DH is tightly circumcised and yes, sometimes it is painful. If he gets too carried away, if we go too quickly and I'm not yet wet (since he has no lube of his own to help out), if we go too long and can't keep me wet (or don't apply lube frequently), etc. We now both know that all of our sexual "problems" are due to his circ.

But before I got on MDC in August, we had no idea. So we worked things out. He changed his techniques. We came up with a safe word for "too much." I frequently tell him to slow down or to give it a rest. And sure, our sex life isn't perfect (and in my opinion, isn't as good as it would be if he restored), but he doesn't yet see restoration as something he'd be willing to stick with. He always follows my lead when I tell him it's too much, never willfully hurts me, and I would never consider pressuring him outside of his comfort zone to start restoring, though I'd love him to come to the realization on his own.

It's his body - his choice.

He's compromised by changing his technique and by being very perceptive in the bedroom. And yes, many times one or the other of us (or both, on REALLY bad nights ) don't get the kind of pleasure we'd like. But is this something that will make or break our sex life? I hope not!

And people, we sometimes need a reminder of why we fight this battle: it's HIS body, and HIS choice. My DH doesn't want to restore: fine. He's made plenty of other changes that shows me that he REALLY cares about how I feel during sex. Just because he doesn't see restoring as an option doesn't mean he's not trying to rectify our problems in our sex life. Please remember that, and don't be dismissive of that.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

I think it is incredibly dismissive and rather offensive to equate something visual like a scar or bigger/smaller/missing boobs, with a body part that doesn't have its full function and is causing so much pain to the other party that they don't want to have relations with it. If I was causing so much suffering to my partner, especially during an act that is supposed to bring us together, not drive us apart, I'd do my utmost to rectify the situation, what is so terrible about that? And exactly WHY is a woman supposed to put up with something that hurts?

Some of the posters in this thread just don't get it.

Oh, I wanted to say one more thing. Have you seen some radical mastectomies? They are usually not pretty at all because the doctors are just taking out whatever is cancerous with no regards to looks. I can understand it being just as off-putting as painful sex, especially for those partners who remember what their partner's breast used to look like.

My mom's teaching partner's husband broke down after a year and said that he'd tried and tried (and been to therapy over it!) but he just couldn't see her as sexually attractive any more since her radical mastectomy. It happens, and it's just as said and painful for both parties as what we're talking about.

I believe the comparison stands and stands well.

[Mommiska]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

He's compromised by changing his technique and by being very perceptive in the bedroom. And yes, many times one or the other of us (or both, on REALLY bad nights ) don't get the kind of pleasure we'd like. But is this something that will make or break our sex life? I hope not!

And people, we sometimes need a reminder of why we fight this battle: it's HIS body, and HIS choice. My DH doesn't want to restore: fine. He's made plenty of other changes that shows me that he REALLY cares about how I feel during sex. Just because he doesn't see restoring as an option doesn't mean he's not trying to rectify our problems in our sex life. Please remember that, and don't be dismissive of that.

I think many of us have been saying this - that the sexual problems caused by circ affect both partners, and both partners need to be involved in finding a solution that works (at least somewhat) for both of them.

It sounds like you and your dh are working together to try to work around the problems that you have, and that's great.

Other people have said that, at the moment for them, circ is not negatively affecting their sex life, so their partner doesn't feel the need to restore. Fair enough.

This is soooo individual. Every couple is going to be different. I've read some of the stories (and I'm sure people have kept many details private - this is a sensitive subject after all).

I'm fairly certain that there are some cases in which the adjustments you and your dh have made - just aren't going to work.

Again - every couple is different, and this is something that each couple needs to work out for themselves. But I think everyone needs to be careful that they don't assume that what works for them and their partner will work for every couple, you know?

As for the mastectomy analogy...in your example, there is more of a parallel. BUT - it still doesn't work for me. With the mastectomy, one partner is asking the other partner to undergo major surgery. Restoration just is not the same (yes, it's an undertaking, but it does not hold the same risks that an operation under general anesthetic does).

And there isn't anything about the woman's body that 'doesn't work right'. I would guess that the situation you are describing is an extreme one - and again, that couple would need to work out together what they are going to do about this issue.

All of these problems - and all so because everyone wants to do 'what everyone else is doing'. It's crazy, isn't it?

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Mommiska

I think many of us have been saying this - that the sexual problems caused by circ affect both partners, and both partners need to be involved in finding a solution that works (at least somewhat) for both of them.

It sounds like you and your dh are working together to try to work around the problems that you have, and that's great.

Other people have said that, at the moment for them, circ is not negatively affecting their sex life, so their partner doesn't feel the need to restore. Fair enough.

This is soooo individual. Every couple is going to be different. I've read some of the stories (and I'm sure people have kept many details private - this is a sensitive subject after all).

I'm fairly certain that there are some cases in which the adjustments you and your dh have made - just aren't going to work.

Again - every couple is different, and this is something that each couple needs to work out for themselves. But I think everyone needs to be careful that they don't assume that what works for them and their partner will work for every couple, you know?

As for the mastectomy analogy...in your example, there is more of a parallel. BUT - it still doesn't work for me. With the mastectomy, one partner is asking the other partner to undergo major surgery. Restoration just is not the same (yes, it's an undertaking, but it does not hold the same risks that an operation under general anesthetic does).

And there isn't anything about the woman's body that 'doesn't work right'. I would guess that the situation you are describing is an extreme one - and again, that couple would need to work out together what they are going to do about this issue.

All of these problems - and all so because everyone wants to do 'what everyone else is doing'. It's crazy, isn't it?

It IS crazy, I totally agree. But I still think the mastectomy comparison holds. You could look at it this way too: a breast reconstruction is a one-time surgery (maybe two, depending on the kind you get), and then a recovery period. Yes, it has risks, just like any surgery. I'm not trying to gloss over that. Restoration is an everyday commitment for at least a year, if not YEARS (from what I've read). I think that's just as significant, and IMO, more of a commitment from the restorer.

I also agree that it's really individual, and that you're making good points. I'm not assuming that the things we've done would work for everyone, at all; just offering a point of view that says that a partner's care and love for their DW doesn't hinge upon restoration to solve pain problems (I heard a bit of that in a couple other posters' comments). I'm just trying to encourage women whose partners may not see restoration as an option that there can be other options that may work for them that seem to work for us for the time being.

[thixle]

This is going to be long and rambly because I can't make such emotional thoughts totally coherent even to myself. Enjoy!

See, since I had a forced, unconsenting episiotomy in 2005, DH and I have had (compared to what it was) no sex life. Of course, our sex life has been odd- I was pregnant 3 months after we met, with a hormone-fueled sex drive. We had only known each other for a year when our DD was born (and had only had wild and crazy sex together) and it was normal for a new mom to not want sex and have painful intercourse. Two years later, we have tried everything that could be done to me, for me, everything for sex just to not hurt me... I've seen several docs who say my episiotomy is healed well, good sensitivities, functional (hmm, sounds like responses to circ) and my perianum is as good as it is ever going to get. And I found out LAST WEEK that his tight circ could be the main problem, not the episiotomy... Last week. I am a fairly educated person, but had not REALLY thought about circumcision except that I would not cut off a body part of a perfectly healthy child (almost no one in my family is circ'ed for that reason alone- it hurts a baby). No one had ever told me that a tightly circ'ed peinis could cause ME pain.

I had not come to this section of MDC (though I've lurked elsewhere for years) because I'm already against circ, you see. I think the truth is PEOPLE JUST DON'T KNOW, and don't talk about it. So instead of saying, well, it could be an emotional issue, yadda yadda, everyone here should support the simple fact that restoration COULD help. If it is dismissed EVEN HERE, then how in the world is anyone going to take restoration as a valid suggestion? Yes, it is ultimately the man's decision because it is his body, but last time I checked, it was okay to try to sway someone you love to do what you think is in their best interest, or the best interest of the family unit.

I've been talking to my hubby about foreskin constantly for about a week... and it did irritate him. And he was defensive at first, and accidentally saw a stretching device (yipes!) but, he agrees that I have a valid point, his tight circ is part of the problem. And neither one of us knew. I've been with other peni in my life, and never connected the concept of loose skin to my enjoyment. He's never had sex any other way. It took my mutilation, two years, and hours of reading solid information for me to even consider it could be his penis (because, ladies, we all know our man's penis is absolutely perfect and god-forbid we talk about the functioning of a grown man's penis). So, together, last night, we decided that in the best interest of our marriage, we should commit to restoration. Actually, just try to develop some amount of loose skin and go from there (a 2-3 month commitment, as I understand it). And yes, I did take his feelings into account (I emphasized the positives) and made sure to tell him over and over, it wasn't anything he could control (just as he's been telling me about the episiotomy for 2 years)... But at this point, DH is just happy to have me pay attention to his penis, to take an interest in it. Because I finally became conditioned against sex. If it hurts no matter what, I'm not going to do it. If there is something that can be done to restore our sex life, or even just to have us (mostly me) become a sexual being again, then I'm going to try to get DH to do it

Two days ago, he said he would never wear anything that insane looking. Last night, he said that i would have to help him with the tapes.

Yes, there are reasons a man wouldn't want to restore, but the discussion shouldn't be dismissed with, "Cause it's stupid. Cause that's embarrassing. Cause it's my penis and I don't know any different." DH doesn't dream of long elephantine foreskin. Neither do I. But we do want out sex life back. And even if a man decides NOT to restore, HE and his partner should know that the option is there and CONSIDER the process.

Whew- that felt good to get off my chest

[ProtoLawyer]

Originally Posted by thixle

DH doesn't dream of long elephantine foreskin.

I hope nobody does (at least not the way I'm picturing it)...

[thixle]

I've seen so much foreskin in the past week, it's hard to close my eyes :
And I've been looking at restoration sites, not sites with the little babies because that is just heartbreaking. Like I said, I'm already anti-circ.

Luckily, DH and I met while in college and I was taking Life Drawing classes. Really quickly he learned to ignore how many peni I had my life I think we had 6 different male models that semester.

That's what bugs me. I've uh, seen a lot. Consider myself educated and it just never crossed my mind about restoration. That it could relate to me. And there are 2 crazy positions that don't hurt, but sheesh, they are crazy positions and it's just not gonna happen for me.

From the OP:

Any ideas on encouraging restoration in an otherwise educated man? He won't give me what I think of as a "good" excuse... just that "it's dumb".

See, The glans is supposed to be a moist, covered organ. That's the part I couldn't get over. It's not supposed to be dry. I would try to restore my eyelids if they were removed, or at least keep my eyes moist. I wouldn't let them get callused (would eyes do that?)... Anyway, that part alone makes me want him to cover himself for his own pleasure! Don't know if that angle might help you. I know it helped DH :