This is what I wrote him:
There are definitely negative things about being intact and they can be worrysome issues. It is something that you need to think very seriously about.
(1.) Because all of your sexaulity has been preserved, you are going to enjoy it more and that means you are going to want it more. Your need may out pace the supply. It's not fun to be horny all of the time.
(2.) Since sex will be far more comfortable to your lover, she is going to demand more of it. Demanding women can be a real pain in the rear. They also don't take the "Not tonight dear, I have a headache." story very well.
(3.) There will be many women that have never seen an intact penis and will conspire to sleep with you just to see it when the word gets out.
(4.) You will have to defend yourself against ignorant doctors that will want to take it off.
(5.) Circumcised men masturbate 40% more than intact men. The theory is that the foreskin provides the stimulation that is missing in circumcised men. If you really enjoy masturbating, you'll miss it. You won't want to do it as much if you're intact.
(6.) If you're intact, you won't need lubricant such as soap or lotion to masturbate. That means when you get through, you'll still have a dirty dong.
(7.) You won't need to use lubricant to have sex. Some people find this titilating and part of the foreplay. You'll never have to stop in the middle to put on more lubricant though if you are intact. I guess that one is a wash.
(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.
There are probably some other negatives of being cursed with a foreskin but, I think you get the idea.
Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!
I said that I thought it was the hormones? And she said, nope, definately not. Not that size. :LOL :LOL :LOL
And he's a flirt, too. OMG!!! What'll I do?!?!?!?!?!
|Honestly, though they are funny, I can come up with some negatives. Not that I would ever circumsize, but they are there.|
|Originally posted by Irishmommy
Honestly, though they are funny, I can come up with some negatives. Not that I would ever circumsize, but they are there.
Replying to Irishmommy--not you Frank--I know you're being funny!
I had forgotten I posted that. When I logged on to the topic page, I saw at the top of the list "Negatives Of Being Intact." It startled me and my initial reaction was "What jerk would post that on this board?" And then I saw my name next to it which for a second confused me even more. Then I remembered!
Neither are reason to circ, and dh would never mention it to his dr. as except for the odd time, it's not a problem.
|Originally posted by Irishmommy
Not to get too personal here, but not every adult's foreskin retracts, which can make things a little painful. And no. 7 isn't necessarily true either.
Neither are reason to circ, and dh would never mention it to his dr. as except for the odd time, it's not a problem.
Just thought I would mention it, in case it is a contentious issue for your DH and/or you.
In my experience, other than when using condoms, number 7 is dead on.
If you know a man who is non-retractable, please pass this on to him. He may greatly appreciate it.
"The Ashley Montagu Resolution to End the
Genital Mutilation of Children Worldwide:
A Petition to the World Court, the Hague".
To sign the petition, click on
To read the resolution, click on
For more information about the resolution, click on
Mommy to intact Grant, 3/13/02
p.s. I agree about number 7 -- it is not *always* an issue. My husband is circ'd but we have never had to use artificial lubricant. However, I assume that at some point -- after menopause -- we probably will have to.
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.
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?
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.
|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.
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.
|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.
"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 "
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...
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.
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.
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.
|42 members and 15,739 guests|
|AMG , BirthFree , Daffodil , DahliaRW , Dakotacakes , Deborah , emmy526 , floss&ferd , girlspn , happy-mama , head4thehills , hillymum , imadhealth , Iron Princess , joycef , katelove , lilmissgiggles , Lucee , mama24-7 , mckittre , Mirzam , NaturallyKait , Nazsmum , newmamalizzy , Nusaybah , omarinbox1888 , oversoul86 , plantbasedemma , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , Saladd , samaxtics , shantimama , Skippy918 , Socks , Springshowers , zannster , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 01:21 PM.|