male circumcision = female sexual power

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2004
male circumcision = female sexual power
36
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 4:03pm
Posts seem to be getting pulled at the moment, including one of mine, so 1st a warning. The title tells you whats coming. If you don't think you can cope, don't read on. I don't want to be accused of offending anyone.

I've posted before on adult sexuality and am doing so again 'cos I think its important. This issue is not just about babies and nappies.

The point: male circumcision gives women sexual power over men. The reason? Circumcision massively decreases the sensitivity of the penis and makes it much harder to masturbate. Therefore, men only get real sexual satisfaction from vaginal penetration. The woman decides whether this happens, so the woman has control.

Justification? - people like sarah jessica parker are always complaining that US guys try to stick their tongue down your throat on the 1st date, and bed you on the second. US teenagers are obsessed with 'getting laid.' Europeans are so much more emotionally sensitive they say. Thats because they're more physically sensitive as well!!! This is also why guys marry younger in the US than in europe - regular vaginal sex without a condom - which reduces sensitivity even more.

Last century, people thought masturbation was really bad, therefore it was suppressed. Teenage girls were controlled psychologically - told their genitals were shameful and dirty, and that only immoral women masturbated. Teenage boys were controlled by circumcision - promoted by a guy called John Harvey Kellogg - he said it should be done without any pain relief, and that it worked for the reasons listed above.

However, in 2004 masturbation is promoted. 1 in 3 women in the US owns a vibrator - you can give yourself a massively intense, rapid, easy orgasm whenever you want - no man needed. John Harvey Kellogg would turn in his grave! Men still get circumcised though - surely not fair!

Why does it still happen? - power.

Last night I was in a bar and some sexist bozo fondled my ass. Was I angry? - no, I smiled sweetly to myself and remembered that the female sex got its revenge in on this guy the day he was born.

Totally and utterly emasculated - condemned to a lifetime of unsensitivity and dificult masturbation - by a woman.

Feminists like Andrea Dworkin often say the penis is a weapon that men use against women. Well - cut part of it off when he's defenceless and maybe you feel a lot better.

We all have female friends who told us when we were pregnant how we 'MUST' have our baby boy circumcised - why? - this was the only time in their lives they would have total, ultimate power over a man's penis.

The next time some circ'ed guy aggressively claims on this board how he really enjoys sex? - Just think - would he really want to believe that actually, women decided the day he was born to put a MASSIVE limit on how much he would EVER enjoy sex? - I think not.

There was a time when we waited for the 1st guy to come along to propose, so we could pay our rent. Nowadays, young women have careers so they don't need a man for financial stability.

Therefore I give you the young woman of today - with her career and her vibrator, she makes circumcised guys crawl on their knees around her. I'm sure anyone here with a teenaged or 20 something son knows exactly what I mean.

This is not an attack on anyone, not women who have circumcised their sons, definitely not the guys themselves. They're just ideas. Thats all. Think about them, respond if you want to.

Michelle

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-22-2003
Fri, 10-15-2004 - 1:49pm
I have read all these posts and I've been trying to put into words how I feel about it. I think the first post has a genuine point. I have often thought about circucision and other adult behavior like rape and other violence against women, i.e. much less instances of sexual assult in Europe than in the US. I know that is off the subject, but I think these arguments are something that we should look at as a society.

As far as the sexual satisfaction aspect... I too have had partners that have been both circumcised and intact. I truly can say that personally I haven't noticed a difference. In fact my partner that I had right before my husband was not circ'd and my husband is. But I can honestly say that my husband and I have much better sex than I had with my uncirc'd ex-boyfriend or circ'd ex-boyfriend for that matter. I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with the anatomy of his penis. I think that it has more to do with myself knowing my body better, having more personal self-esteem and just being really lucky to have a partner that is concerned with my plesure. And without going into too much detail, (I hope I don't offend anyone) my husband is the only partner I have had that I have been able to achieve a vaginal orgasm with. But again I don't think that it has to do with his anatomy. I guess my point is that one's quality of sex doesn't necessarily depend on one's anatomy. Just my opinion.

Emily Attached Mom  to Fiona 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Fri, 10-15-2004 - 2:13pm
***I guess my point is that one's quality of sex doesn't necessarily depend on one's anatomy. Just my opinion**

It did to a large degree for the overwhelming majority of these women..

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-22-2003
Fri, 10-15-2004 - 2:34pm
"It did to a large degree for the overwhelming majority of these women.."

Like I said that is just my personal experiance, and my opinion and I truly in no way imply that circumcision is justifed. I don't believe that it is at all. However, I would like to say that as lucky as I am in the sex department; I have thought about what it would be like if my husband did have his foreskin. In fact, I have even mentioned foreskin restoration to him. I don't think he will go that route anytime soon, but who knows. After getting all the information on circumcision, he did say that he wishes he would have had a choice.

Emily Attached Mom  to Fiona 

Avatar for joolsplus2
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 10-15-2004 - 2:58pm
I agree with you, Emily...it's not so much the foreskin that makes sex different, as it is our own experiences and the relationships we're in.

Julie

9 out of 10 carseats are installed wrong.  Could yours be?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-05-2004
Sun, 10-17-2004 - 12:50pm
In my original post I was not saying that circumcised men do not enjoy sexual intercourse - in fact I was saying exactly the opposite - the ONLY real pleasure they get is from sex, as opposed to masturbation. I also don't doubt that a large number of american women prefer a circumcised penis.

Most of the men I've encountered are ready & willing to get whatever they can, be it from vaginal sex or masturbation. My bf is a perfect example, if I'm having my friend & we get intimate, I'll masturbate him & he seems willing & content to be done that way just as much as the other. I don't know what all women like but I like the looks & feel of an exposed penis, that doesn't say anything about what I think of infant circumcision & whether it's right or wrong. If my guy is circumcised I look at it as an extra benifit to me & I will feed his ego on how great he looks (even though I would still love him regardless). I think if the guys hear negativity about how bad it was for them to be circumcised it will work negatively on their psych's also. All this "anti" rhetoric can make these guys more self conscious & they can lose their self esteem. I likin it as praising a child for doing good or ridiculing him for being handicapped, he can feel good about himself or lose all self esteem. I never thought of it as having control over the guys, but it is an interesting concept you have.


This may be the wrong thing to say on a website like ivillage.com, but hear goes:

I really don't believe that what women want is the most important thing in the entire universe!!!!

How about what men would choose if they had been given the option?

I've never heard any guy I know say he wanted to be uncircumcised, & the one's I've asked are glad they were circumcised & given the option would, but that is their choice & should be. If you listen to some on here they spew out studies at you & try to speak for men when in fact they have no more first hand knowledge about how men feel anymore then men know how it feels to have a period. If you want to know facts go right to the source not the assumptions of some stranger. Don't worry about saying the wrong thing, it's great to hear everyone's views, idea's, facts & assumptions, pro or con.



I'm sure most men would prefer all women to have 36DD breasts but that doesn't mean we all get forced to undergo a painful, unnecessary surgical procedure without our consent...

I have small breasts & have been self conscious about them all my life & considered implants. The guys were talking about breast implants & all the guys said they would rather have the real thing instead of fakes, which made me feel good & I've felt better about mine since the guys reassured me of their views. So I think if I said to my bf I wish he was uncircumcised because I like lots of foreskin I know how he would feel also. Maybe the guys were aware of my struggles & doing what I do, thinking of the persons feelings.







iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 10-17-2004 - 5:58pm
""I've never heard any guy I know say he wanted to be uncircumcised, & the one's I've asked are glad they were circumcised & given the option would, but that is their choice & should be. If you listen to some on here they spew out studies at you & try to speak for men when in fact they have no more first hand knowledge about how men feel anymore then men know how it feels to have a period.""

I don't think anyone is trying to speak for men, by addressing the fact that there are anatomical differences that can be advantageous for sex. It is just a fact that is appropriate to be added into the discussion about whether or not people should have their infants circumcised, which is totally different. What circumcised men say about it really isn't pertinent, IMO. For one thing, if they haven't ever had a foreskin, that they can remember, they are not in a very good position to judge. I don't even think it is appropriate to ask a man who was circumcised as an infant whether he prefers being circumcised. Besides the fact that he has no way of knowing that, it really doesn't belong as part of the discussion of whether babies should have their penises cut. If we were comparing one form of circumcision to another, asking how men who've had the procedure how satisfied they are with their anatomy might be appropriate, but we are comparing the idea of performing amputative surgery on a body part to the idea of leaving a body part normal and perfectly healthy. That is not just comparing apples and oranges. That is comparing apples and bricks! The fact that the person whose body is in question is totally incapable of having any input into it, as well as other considerations, such as the fact that the surgery can be chosen, in the future, but not undone, increase the burden of proof on the side of circumcision proponents.

I think it is helpful to remind ourselves that this board is here for the debate of the question of infant circumcision, and that it is better for the discussion to pretty much stick to that. I think the topic of sexual function has a place, but sometimes it wanders beyond what is really pertinent to the question of neonatal circumcision.

Aloha,

Noelani

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Sun, 10-17-2004 - 6:15pm
I will continue the thread to post some surveys on what men really think about their circumcisions.

http://www.noharmm.org/synopsis.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/bodyimage.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

http://www.sizesurvey.com/result.html

This survey indicated there are 52 million men in the US that are dissatisfied with their circumcision. This number almost exactly duplicates a study in Journeyman in 1991. It must be fairly accurate.




Edited 10/17/2004 6:16 pm ET ET by millies33

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 8:37am
Since the NOHARMM site is notoriously anti-circ biased, I didn't bother to read that propaganda. I did, however, go to the last site you presented, and read this:

ON CIRCUMCISION

"Unlike a previously published study in the medical literature, I did not detect a significant difference in erect length (or the other four measurements) between circumcised and uncircumcised individuals.

Overall, 70% of the subjects were circumcised, 27% were uncircumcised and 3% did not specify their circumcision status. Of the 633 men responding outside of the U.S.A. and Canada who specified their status, 64% were uncircumcised. Not unexpectedly, this compares to 40% of Canadians and only 15% of Americans.

The proportion of those claiming to be content, neutral or discontent concerning their circumcision status was almost equal between the two groups (approximately 66%, 21% and 13% respectively). Among those who were content however, there was a striking difference with regard to sexual orientation. Seventy-two per cent of circumcised straight males expressed contentment with their circumcision status while only 58% of circumcised gay or bisexuals felt the same way (p<0.001)."

(http://www.sizesurvey.com/result.html)

Funny how, when you go to a non-biased site, you end up with fairly neutral information. Thanks for posting it, Millie!

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 8:52am
What is wrong with a website that is anti-circ? Are you saying that ALL information there is false? I'm sure you are more than capable of discerning the truth from what you read. Geez... one of the NOHARMM links was a study published in the British Journal of Urology. Why would you dismiss factual information simply because of the source of the link discussing it? That is totally nuts.

In the sizesurvey study 28% of straight guys were not content with their circumcision status! Is that a good thing??? That is a huge number of guys that had unnecessary surgery and can do nothing about it! Who is looking out for the rights of those guys??? At least the uncircumcised guys still have a choice if they are unhappy. Is this strictly an issue of the majority wins? Last time I read the constitution, the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applied to ALL individuals, not just the majority.

smt

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 9:46am
***The proportion of those claiming to be content, neutral or discontent concerning their circumcision status was almost equal between the two groups (approximately 66%, 21% and 13% respectively). Among those who were content however, there was a striking difference with regard to sexual orientation. Seventy-two per cent of circumcised straight males expressed contentment with their circumcision status while only 58% of circumcised gay or bisexuals felt the same way (p<0.001)."

(http://www.sizesurvey.com/result.html)

Funny how, when you go to a non-biased site, you end up with fairly neutral information. Thanks for posting it, Millie!***

Oh, and just how is sexual orientation in any way relevant to reality?

I think you have missed the ethical concept that there is no justification for even ONE person to regret having been circumcised when there is no proven benefit and a ton of proof of harm.

And about this concept of "bias" affecting a study, the obus is on the person making the claim to prove that the study has in any way been affected by the mere posting on a site that is claimed to be so..

And while we are at this, try this STUDY (not a survey) on for size.

In a study investigating the adequacy of condom sizes, Richters, Gerofi, and Donovan noted that circumcised men had significantly shorter erect penises by a mean length of 8mm than genitally intact men (p<.05). The difference in erect penile size was attributed to insufficient skin to accomodate the erection.

Richters J, Gerofi J,Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? A method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995;8:77-81