Mothering Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
which is healthier? i put my son in boxers because they allow more natural movement and air circulation. i think briefs provide an airless breeding ground for bacteria that i wouldn't want near my son's genitals regardless of whether he was cut or not. (which of course he isn't).<br><br>
my dad hates boxers and insists i could not possibly know anything about boys underwear because i am a woman. he swears briefs are safer and more comfortable, and that my son will be unhealthy unhappy and seen as some kind of a freak if he wears boxers because "all men know briefs are better." he even went so far as to purchase a six-pack of briefs and sneak them to my son with instructions to wear them anyway even if i give him boxers.<br><br>
my son, btw, seems to like both boxers and briefs. he'll wear the briefs because his grandfather has convinced him its "normal" and he likes the comfort of lounging around and sleeping in soft, clean boxers. the one thing he _doesn't_ like are the so-called boxer-briefs.<br><br>
it seems silly to be arguing over underwear, and to be honest, if he weren't trying to interfere with the underwear issue, my dad would be showing me how wrong i am about some other lifestyle choice, like homeschooling or vegetarianism or the fact that ds isn't circumcized. he claims he's not cut either and therefore knows more than any woman ever could about such things (including my son's female doctor.)<br><br>
ds does occaisionally admit to irritation, which his pediatrician says is due to pulling the foreskin too far back while washing - although ds is going through a shy spell where he won't let anyone see it except parents and grandpa and so would undress for our last visit. my dad insists it's due to not washing enough and boxers.<br><br>
end the great underwear debate: boxers or briefs or does it really matter?<br><br>
peace<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/hippie.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="hippie">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
I wear both, but i prefer boxer briefs or briefs. I don't think it really matters, just personal preference more than anything.<br><br>
Eric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
For an intact man, it really doesn't make any difference. Briefs are all cotton and breathe very well and since a man's eqipment is out front and not between the legs, it's not as much an issue as with women. It's all in what they prefer.<br><br>
For a circumcised man, it's an altogether different story. Boxers allow for a lot of movement and with that movement, comes friction and with the friction comes keratinization. That means the movement causes the skin of the glans to thicken in defense and become less sexually sensitive and since they have lost so much sexual sensitivity from the circumcision, they certainly don't want to lose any more. Tighty whities are the only choice for circumcised men because they restrict movement and therefore friction. The tighter, the better because the tighter they are, the less movement and the less friction.<br><br>
I tried boxers once and the friction was just too distracting at first but them it started going away. Fortunately, I realized what was happening and went back to briefs. Thank Gawd I realized what I was doing to myself! Now that I've restored, even tighty whities cause too much friction if I'm retracted. It's the same as when I tried to wear boxers.<br><br><br><br><br>
Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
FWIW<br><br>
DP is circ'ed <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"> and wears silk boxers and has plenty of sensitivity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
And how much is "plenty?" For me, only the maximum amount I was born with is plenty. Anything else is inadequate. The mere fact that your partner can achieve orgasm has nothing to do with it. He is missing a whole realm of sensory signals that his missing foreskin would have supplied as well as significant sensory input that he would have had if his penis had not been turned inside out.<br><br>
The only way a man can know that he has plenty is to know what he would have had. It is possible to know that he <b>had</b> plenty before an adult circumcision and no longer has it but the reverse just isn't true. A man circumcised as an infant can never know if he has plenty because he can't know what 100% was to base the statement on.<br><br><br><br><br>
Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Well, I am Simone's SO. And as far as sensitivity, maybe I'm abnormal, but I have flat out had women comment on how sensitive I am compared to other men they have been with. Sorry, but I was a South Beach slut, clubbed quite often, and had a large number of women before meeting, falling in love with and having a child with Simone.<br><br>
I am sensitive enough to get erect pretty much any time I am rubbed the right way, even with but a brush. I am sensitive enough to get completely lost in the sensation. And I am sensitive enough to feel every little bump in my partner, and every ripple she has when very excited.<br><br>
Yes, I am circumcised. That does not mean I have no sensitivity, even if I would love to experience that which I've lost. Maybe, just maybe, I was cut correctly (well, as correctly as is possible...go ahead and flame away, you jackals <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/wink1.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="wink1"> ).<br><br>
Jason<br><br>
Mate to Simone, father of beautiful Amalie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
Jason:<br><br>
At one time I was just like you. I believed I didn't want any more sensitivity. That was before I restored my foreskin. At one time I was so sensitive that I could barely get it in before I had my orgasm. Premature ejaculation was a very real problem for me. What I learned several years ago is that there are a whole range of feelings that come well before the orgasm that I had never felt and those feelings are almost as good as the orgasm. They are so good that I want to delay the orgasm so that I can experience them longer and delaying the orgasm is much easier now because I am much more aware of when it is coming and can control it better. That kind of sensitivity is exquisite!<br><br>
Even with those feelings, I know that I am missing all of the sensitivity that my frenulum would have provided. You see, infant circumcision always destroys the nerve that sends the pleasure signal from the frenulum to the brain and the frenulum is the most sensitive part of an intact man's penis. The sensitivity and sensory input from the frenulum is anaolgous to a woman's clitoris. Extremely light stroking of the frenulum results in very strong signals just the same as very light stroking of a woman's clitoris sends strong signals. However, the sensations the frenulum sends do not trigger an orgasm. It's the glans that does that.<br><br>
The sensitivity I have regained is from the inner skin that has been re-invigorated by restoration and re-energized. Prior to restoration, I thought the extra sensitivity meant a better orgasm or a quicker orgasm. The restoration did little or nothing for that part but instead opened up a completely different range of sensations.<br><br>
Intact men also tell me that there are also some very nice sensations that come from the frenar band. I have seen discriptions of those sensations but not having the parts that provide those feelings, I just can't quite get my brain wrapped around them. I'm sure it is the same for you.<br><br>
It's a dirty rotten shame that both of us were born with all of the parts to experience all of those "extra" sexual feelings but were forever denied the experience with a procedure that is now known to have absolutely no benefits. It's a shame that men continue to be denied that experience from birth because of ignorance of what's happening and the greed of the medical industry.<br><br><br><br><br>
Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
Jason- I totally hear you. My DH is also a circumcised guy who, appears to have all the sensitivity he needs. He's had a very satisfactory sex life before and after our marriage, has never had any sexual disfunction (by the popular definition**) and he enjoys sex absolutley... but the fact remains- there is a function and range of his sexuality that he does not have nor ever will have because someone took that from him without his consent.<br><br>
He does not confuse (as I don't think you did either by the way) a desire to defend his own enjoyment of sex and his body with an obligation to defend a person who took a sexual liberty with him as an infant and permanently deprived him of what was undoubtedly his.<br><br>
Imagine a menu at a fantastic restaurant that was 5 pages long, it includes appetizers, main courses, desserts, a wine list and even combination platters intened to be shared by two people... Now imagine a waiter who, after sizing you up at the door, decides to give you an abbreviated version of the menu...<br><br>
you may eat till you are stuffed<br>
you may have a wonderful night out<br>
you may enjoy the flavor of your food or drink<br><br>
you may never know you got the abbreviated menu<br><br>
you might even recomend the restaurant to your friends...<br><br>
but that still does not negate the value of all that you never even had the option to know.<br><br>
"I ejoyed the meal" is not the reply to, "someone deprived you of the full menu."<br><br>
The fact is... the menu is not some random thing you may or may not have encountered in your life... no restaurant OWES you a fancy menu... such a place may or may not exist, and if it does not exist, no argument can be made that anyone has been deprived of anything- but this is not a restaurant menu we are talking about... it is YOUR BODY. 100% of your sex organ was yours... and someone took that from you. Someone else sized you up and decided how much of your sex organ would be enough for you. No matter how wonderful what you are left with is... I can't see how that justifies what was done.<br><br>
Love Sarah<br><br>
**by popular definition I mean erection and ejaculation... function is normal... but my husband and I both acknowledge that the disfunction which is the SOLE purpose of circumcision was sucessfully inflicted on my husband, and that IS a sexual disfunction which he now must cope with. The seual disfunction caused by circumcision is no longer acknowledged in medical literture of this century, but a century ago it was well documented when it ALONE was the driving force behind routine circumcision.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top