Hmmm... I know I have outlined my rant against this book/author elsewhere in another post... but I don't remember where.
Yes, because it might be unsettling and upsetting to him... but more, because I think that the author (woman) appoaches the subject from an extremely insulting and demeaning platform, and I think that she is a very poor spokesperson to communicate some of the things she is saying.
I do agree with many of the things she states about the mechanics of intercourse... but beyond that it all falls apart.
My husband's reaction to the book was abject fury. I do know that there are men out there who did appreciate the book, but I think thoise were men who had already come to terms with all the circumcision damage issues and for them the book may have served as a "validation" for feelings they already had... if a man is circumcised and happy with it and currently believing that his sexual function is just fine (even if it is changed somewhat) the premise of the book is going to be extremely insulting... to him, his marriage, and his partner.
Kristen O'Hara takes her own experience and opinions and then blankets the whole world with her ideas about sex, sexual anatomy and "the love bond" She says that natural sex promotes the "love bond" and that circumcision damages it. OK, I can buy that up to there... but then she elaborates by explaining away this adulturous affair with an intact man as if the love bond with her husband was being damaged by the pain that circumcision had introduced into her bedroom... while in the meantime she was being uncontrolabably compelled to screw this intact guy by her primal sex connections which were saying, "What he has is right." (and these and not quotes, they are my impressions)
Well, her husband winds up having a surgical restoration, her love bond is fixed, she develops the ability to tear herself from the primal attachment to her intact love and her marriage is saved through (a totally dangerous and risky form of restoration which could have entirely destroyed her husband's ability to enjoy sex at all) and she tells the world that restoration is the answer... no need to fear, if your marriage is in trouble or you have been sexually harmed by circumcision, for the sake of your love bond you can restore your foreskin and all will be well. She repeats this over and over and it comes off like an infomercial.
Now, my POV... I have had some AWESOME sex with intact guys... and I also know that circumcision does interfere with the way intercourse is supposed to be... but it does not interfere with LOVE... because your love of a man is not to his penis.
I know a guy (not sexually) who was in a motorcycle wreck- and when he crashed- he took a gas tank to the crotch.. he was really damaged in the testes... I don't know if it affected his fertility, and I am pretty sure it did not change his erectile function... but what if it had? Sex with him would not be "as nature itended it" but would his wife leave him, abandon him as damaged goods? go get her jollies elsewhere? explain away her infidelity by a "poor me" story about her husband's damaged package? Would she bemone the shattered "love bond" or would she simply reconfigue the terms and practices of their physical relationship to respectfully, tenderly and lovingly reinforce the physical manifestation of the love for him that she has in her heart?
The book comes off on a female power trip.. that every woman deserves some level of sexual functioning from her husband and without that- marriages fall apart. Well- I know that's the crappy truth for lots of shallow evil women who don't really love their husbands. But for the rest of women, who are married to real men, intact ones and circumcised men, who are married to men with penises that are small or large, or occasionaly not erect at the perfect moment... or men who are not in the mood, or morbidly obese, or who have heart trouble, or AIDS, or who are not sexually inclined, who had a hard day at work, or who have hangups about certain types of intamacy ... shall I go on? Lots of people deal with loving relationships without insisting that their partner change an aspect of their physical reality and perform "just so" or ELSE. Many women would not abandon our husband even if he had an accident with a chainsaw... it's insulting. But the O'hara premise is that even a little bit of interference wih natural sexual functioning is too much of a burden for a marriage to sustain.
I say that although it IS a real imposition... it is not more than a marriage can manage... it's not welcome- but together- we can make it! For better or worse.
And, it's none of my business, but Mr. O'hara's surgical restoration (as opposed to the safer but long term work of non-surgical restoration) haunts me. It feels like physical and emotiona abuse to me... like a woman who would get a boob job to save her marriage. I know that a foreskin and fake boobs are not comparable, but the seeming coercion to get love (back) through changing yourself physically... it makes me feel so sad for him. When Kristen said "I do" he was circumcised... and her cheating on him had nothing to do with faults in HIM... it had to do with faults in HER.
Women cheat on intact men all the time. And women are faithful to circumcised men all the time. Cheaters are cheaters. And love is LOVE.