or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Restoration? - Page 3

post #41 of 73
Frank, I think he ment it was my FAULT that sex is sometimes dry for us. He did not realise it takes two to be too dry. He did not know that if he had a forskin his own moisure would override my ocational dryness. But he knows now. And he did have a "spark" of intrest on his face when I said restoring would only improve the already great sex life we do have. I would DEFF be more intrested, more often if I knew it would not end in me "praying" he'd hurry up and "get there".
post #42 of 73
Ja mama:

Restoration is a trip that each man must make for himself. It's not something that someone can help with other than unwaivering support. Just let him know it is an option and be there for him when he is ready.



Frank
post #43 of 73
Angie:

I'm sure he meant it was your fault. That's what I thought. It wasn't a matter of placing blame because I knew that my lover had no control over how much lubrication she produced but I knew that I could provide very little lubrication and so that was her part in it. If there wasn't enough lubrication, I knew we had to artificially provide it and I always was reluctant to put anything artificial in her vagina. I just couldn't see how it could be a good thing to do and may have harmful effects that may not be realized for years.

Where the real problem comes is in the different mechanics of the circumcised penis and the intact penis. An intact man makes a "seal" at the vaginal opening with the loose skin on his penis and also makes shorter strokes. This holds most of the lubrication inside the vagina. On the other side, a circumcised man makes longer strokes with the shaft skin moving in and out and with each outward stroke, the moisture is pulled out. Also, the corona of the glans and the coronal groove works like a squeegee to "scrape" the lubrication from the vaginal walls and bring it out. As the woman gets older, she produces less and less lubrication and what may not be a problem for a young woman can be a significant problem for middle aged women. Add to that the decreasing sensitivity of the man and it can become a real obstacle for the couple's sex life.

My experience has been that very, very little lubrication is needed for comfortable sex if there is enough skin to seal and not move at the vaginal opening.



Frank
post #44 of 73
I am going off on a bit of a tangent here, however - - A lot of good advice has been given by members of this board to those DWs who would like to encourage their DHs to consider restoration. However, do any of you have any ideas on how to convince DW that this is ( or could be ) a good thing ? I am one of those guys that has missed his foreskin ever since I discovered it was gone!! I would love to try restoration, and I know that for me it would be a very positive thing, but DW is totally opposed. This goes way beond the amusement stage. The last time I broached the subject she got really angry and told me that I was a 'sick pervert '. As you can see, getting her to even read anything would be a major challenge, but it is worth a try. Do any of you know of a concise article that clearly states the benefits ? Any other ideas ?? Thanks.
post #45 of 73
WOW HJ, I am really sorry to hear you wife is not suportive. I can see where this can really cuase a rift. I mean it's YOUR penis, you should be free to restore if you want. I can't imagine not being suportive of my hubby. When he started talking about wanting to take some weird pills to lengthen his penis, I thought he was insane and for helath reasosns, I was intirley apossed. BUT he will NEVER know that. I just smiled and said that I though he was just fine the way he was but if he felt he needed to do this for his own self esteme , more power to him.

I would expect the same unconditional support if I had to haev a mascetomy and wanted a reconstructive surgury. Or even just a reduction. It's my body I should not be faulted for wanting to do whatever I want with it as long as it does not physically affect anyone else.

I have no idea what to suggest for you to tell her. My only thought is maybe if you simply just do it, she will come around once she experiences the benifites first hand. I am bull headed, so that's what I'd do. lol. BUT I dunno if that's a good idea either. I am sure Frank will have wonderfull advice for you.

good luck,
post #46 of 73
Howard:

Imagine this: You tell your wife that you want her to use pads instead of tampons, that you don't feel it is right to stick anything in there. What would she tell you? I imagine she would tell you that it's her **** and she will do with it as she pleases. (I put the asterisks in there!) Well, it's your **** and you should do with it as you please! (Again, my asterisks) You have had someone else make a decision as to the form that your body would take and you didn't like it. This time is your time. Don't let someone else make the decision for you again against your wishes.

I faced this situation several years ago. I told (now EX) GF what I was going to do and showed her some pictures on the internet expecting support. What I got was ridicule and mocking. I went ahead with it though and after a while when she begain to realize that this was an important and serious issue with me and when she started realizing the benefits, she started changing her mind. I'm not sure if she was ever totally on board with me but at least the ridicule and mocking stopped. She even helped me make some of the apparatus that was required.

Your wife may never understand or even support you in it but it's not her body. It's yours and it's yours to do with as you please. She didn't marry your ****, she married the total man and just because you want to change a part of it should make little to no difference to her. I could understand her objection if you wanted to have a sex change operation. That would make it her business but putting back a part of your body that should be there and has been stolen from you is none of her business. It's totally yours!

You weren't able to stand up for yourself when it was taken away from you but you are able to take a stand now. Don't let it happen to you a second time!



Frank
post #47 of 73
I am so glad for this thread. I was thinking of approaching dp about restoration, but had only heard of surgical restoration. I didn't want to encourage him to do something painful, drastic or incredibly expensive, and I didn't want him to think negatively about restoration based on that. How awesome that there is a way for men to be in control of their own bodies. I would fully support him in restoration if he were interested.

Btw, it was me who got his parents to apologize to him and his brother. PRetty good for only having a dd, huh? I tend to lurk here b/c I don't have a ds, but I certainly have a stake in circ.

Lauren
post #48 of 73
This thread continues to amaze me. It's on a womens site and is about a man issue and is over 1 1/2 years old but it continues to pop up to the top. What does that mean?

To the point . . . . Surgical restoration is possible but I think there is only one doctor on the entire North American Continent doing it and based on the cost in the mid 1980's, I estimate the cost in excess of $30,000.00. There is also the travel cost and the time out of work for 3-4 separate procedures that I suspect would push the cost to over $40,000.00. That clearly puts it out of the financial reach of the vast majority of men. I have seen the justification for infant circumcision that it is cheaper as a baby and the adult man may not be able to afford the $1,500.00 cost of an adult circumcision. Well how about the cost to repair what was done to him that he may not want??????

One of the justifications for infant circumcision is that an adult circumcision will put him out of sexual action for 2-3 weeks but the surgery to put back what that infant surgery removed will put him out of sexual action for almost a year.

The more sense you try to make of infant circumcision, the less sense it makes!



Frank
post #49 of 73
bump
post #50 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by howard smith
The last time I broached the subject she got really angry and told me that I was a 'sick pervert '. As you can see, getting her to even read anything would be a major challenge, but it is worth a try. Do any of you know of a concise article that clearly states the benefits ? Any other ideas ?? Thanks.
Hi Howard~

Just a thought... with the anger and accusations of being a pervert, is it possible she experienced something horrible with an intact man? Some type of molestation or rape? It's hard to say how you could broach this subject with her, other than very gently. You could always just outright ask her... maybe start with "It's my body... these are my reasons why, including increased sexual pleasure and intimacy with YOU... so is there a particular reason you're opposed to this? A bad experience maybe?"

I would recommend you really focus on the positive impact it will have on your relationship.. How much closer it will bring the two of you. Her resentment could also be connected to feeling like all you want is sex. (something women -heck, HUMANS- in general are offended by, but women with a history of abuse REALLY get angry over. I speak from personal experience.) Perhaps if you also stressed how violated discovering what had been taken from you made you feel. If she was sexually assaulted, she might be able to identify with that reasoning a little more.

I, on the other hand, hope to encourage my husband to make this choice and commitment.. I know he's (read: we're) suffering because of what was taken from him 40 years ago!! Thanks to you and Frank for being easy references for him to learn from!!

lizzie
post #51 of 73
bump
post #52 of 73
I'd just like to add that this thread (and the whole anti-circ board) got me thinking about a *lot* of cultural issues around vaginal "tightness" and "wetness," etc.

One thing from this thread really gave me a little moment, though...

TMI ahead:

When I was a teenager and reading "The Sensuous Woman" by "J" (a popular book in the 1960's-- found it in the back of my parents' bookshelf-- :LOL), I read her tips for oral sex.

Well, I didn't have sex 'til I was married, but DH and I have always been really open and fun-loving in bed, so I tried an oral technique "J" had called "the butterfly flick" on his frenulum. According to "J," "that's the most sensitive part of the penis."

Nothin'.

Nothin' "special," anyway.

He was like: "I guess it's a little more sensitive there."

I didn't really do it much after he said that.

Well, I just read Frank's explanation that for circ'ed men (like DH), the frenulum is not more sensitive than the rest of the glans/head.

Mystery solved!

Now, I wonder if I can get DH to read this thread....
post #53 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmaramba
I'd just like to add that this thread (and the whole anti-circ board) got me thinking about a *lot* of cultural issues around vaginal "tightness" and "wetness," etc.

One thing from this thread really gave me a little moment, though...

TMI ahead:

When I was a teenager and reading "The Sensuous Woman" by "J" (a popular book in the 1960's-- found it in the back of my parents' bookshelf-- :LOL), I read her tips for oral sex.

Well, I didn't have sex 'til I was married, but DH and I have always been really open and fun-loving in bed, so I tried an oral technique "J" had called "the butterfly flick" on his frenulum. According to "J," "that's the most sensitive part of the penis."

Nothin'.

Nothin' "special," anyway.

He was like: "I guess it's a little more sensitive there."

I didn't really do it much after he said that.

Well, I just read Frank's explanation that for circ'ed men (like DH), the frenulum is not more sensitive than the rest of the glans/head.

Mystery solved!

Now, I wonder if I can get DH to read this thread....

Hmmm.....

That hasn't been my experience. Of course, everyone is different, but I can do this trick with my bottom lip to a certain-someone's frenulum area (yes he's circ'd) and the effect is WOW! So maybe its his anatomy, maybe its me, maybe its him, or maybe its all of these things combined, but it certainly isn't anything like what you describe above.
post #54 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmaramba
Well, I just read Frank's explanation that for circ'ed men (like DH), the frenulum is not more sensitive than the rest of the glans/head.
My own experience with men's reports and my common sense suggest that what 'most likely matters most' is (A) how much of our frenulums we've been left with, and (B) how badly the cutting and crimping involved further messed up the connections from our remaining nerve endings to the rest of our bodies.
post #55 of 73
: What exactly is Restoration?
post #56 of 73
Quote:
a man's sexuality peaks in his late teens or early 20's and it is in a downward spiral for the rest of his life. The intact man starts at the top of the spiral. The circumcised man starts more than half way down the spiral.
For some reason, I was thinking about something similar as I read this thread, then I found this statement by Frank.

I just wonder if the whole "sexual peak at 18" thing isn't true only for circumcised guys. After all, when have all the studies been done that show it? It certainly wasn't before circumcision became common. What made me think about it is that dh (intact) feels he's only just hitting his peak now, in his mid-30's. He'll probably be annoyed with me for posting this bit of tmi, but he gets far more erections, far easier, than he did at 18. I just wonder if the whole thing is because circumcised men don't just start lower on the spiral, but actually start going down it a lot earlier than intact men.
post #57 of 73
AngelBee: check out this website: www.norm.org. It will tell you what you want to know about restoration.
Restoration is a non-surgical restoring of a man's foreskin. Many men report increased pleasure and sensitivity afterwards.
Happy reading!
post #58 of 73
I had no clue that was even possible!!!
post #59 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devaskyla
I just wonder if the whole "sexual peak at 18" thing isn't true only for circumcised guys. After all, when have all the studies been done that show it? It certainly wasn't before circumcision became common. What made me think about it is that dh (intact) feels he's only just hitting his peak now, in his mid-30's. He'll probably be annoyed with me for posting this bit of tmi, but he gets far more erections, far easier, than he did at 18. I just wonder if the whole thing is because circumcised men don't just start lower on the spiral, but actually start going down it a lot earlier than intact men.

Our sexuality is determined and driven by many factors but the main ones are (1) instinct, (2) hormones, (3) physical pleasure and (4) physical or emotional attraction.

In a small child, none of these are present so they have little to no interest in sex but as they age and get to their teens, their bodies start producing testosterone in significant quantities. They have the instinct to reproduce once testosterone is being produced. This accounts for the suddenly emerging desire to have sex. If you looked at it from a totally detached viewpoint, sex is a pretty ridiculous enterprise yet from the viewpoint of the instinctual urge that we have all experienced, it makes all kinds of sense. That urge is kicked off and driven by testosterone. BUT, and that's a big "but," if there were no pleasure reward from it, we would all quickly loose interest. Without the influence of testosterone, the physical or emotional attraction would quickly fade as well at the first argument or during other hard times. It would also quickly fade if there were little or no pleasure from the act.

As the man attains puberty, his body is flooded with testosterone. The thinking is that it reaches a peak in the late teens on average. It's possible that in some men, it doesn't reach it's peak until well into the 20's. However, once it reaches that peak and plateaus for a while, it starts to decline. It's at this point that the pleasure reward would become increasingly more important to his interest and desire in continuing an active sex life into his later years.

If the research is correct and if my personal experience is valid and the reports of restoring men is correct, then circumcision does reduce the pleasure aspect of the sexual act. From research I have read and my own noodling out of the information, it is pretty clear that circumcision has a strong correlation with midlife impotency and I believe it is simply because of the decreased sensitivity and thus decreased pleasure the older man experiences. It just falls below the level of adequate and thus, he is not driven to the next pleasureable experience because he has no indication that the next one will rise above the "adequate" level to exert the effort involved.

One thing that I do believe has a significant influence here is the intensity of the emotional bond with his partner. My experience is that as I become more emotionally bonded with my partner, the satisfaction from the sexual experience also improves. This may serve to somewhat replace the lost pleasure and continue the desire for a sexual relationship.



Frank
post #60 of 73
Bumping this terrific thread for my sweet hubby!



And a HUGE THANKS, FRANK!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision