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

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 9:48am
The study also says that "The proportion of those claiming to be content, neutral or discontent concerning their circumcision status was almost equal between the two groups." I guess it's just convenient for you to leave out that an almost equal number of uncircumcised males were not content with their intact status?? Is THAT a good thing? Additionally, the study did not pole any opinions from the men on their perceived violation of rights. So, leaving your personal views out of the study, it was very neutral.

As for the anti-circ sites, YES, I choose not to visit them, as they have continuously shown me their incapability of posting unbiased information. Things are often taken out of context, exaggerated, manipulated, and downright made up. It is MY choice to omit them from my research. True, I am completely capable of discerning the truth in what I read (thank goodness, considering I read this board often)...it is a shame that not everyone is able to do this. I am offended that you would refer to my search for unbiased information as "totally nuts." I actually think that allowing myself to be inundated with exaggerations and manipulations would be "totally nuts."

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 9:56am
***As for the anti-circ sites, YES, I choose not to visit them, as they have continuously shown me their incapability of posting unbiased information. Things are often taken out of context, exaggerated, manipulated, and downright made up. It is MY choice to omit them from my research. True, I am completely capable of discerning the truth in what I read (thank goodness, considering I read this board often)...it is a shame that not everyone is able to do this. I am offended that you would refer to my search for unbiased information as "totally nuts." I actually think that allowing myself to be inundated with exaggerations and manipulations would be "totally nuts."**

Talk is cheap..got any proof? As you have stated, this is a DEBATE board--not an opinion board..time to deliver!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 11:01am
You said, "Oh, and just how is sexual orientation in any way relevant to reality?"

I'm not sure how your comment has anything to do with what I was saying. I didn't think we were debating sexual orientation, nor was it the focus of my point.

You said, "I think you have missed the ethical concept that there is no justification for even ONE person to regret having been circumcised"

I think you have missed the point of what the survey was showing, as it relates to circumcision. The data collected proved that there are basically an equal number of circ'd/uncirc'd men who are content, neutral or discontent with their circumcision status.

This study was not at all about any "ethical" concepts.

The "study" that you mentioned investigating the adequacy of condom sizes has more holes in it than swiss cheese. NONE of the men that were part of the study participated as an intact male, and then again as a circumcised male. That is where the only TRUE comparison could be made. Penile size is not relative from one man to the next, as it pertains to circumcision...penis (erection) sizes are individually unique. The study admitted that it could not predict the size of a man's erection based solely on whether or not he was circumcised. Also, they did not take into account the men's ethnicity, where some studies have pointed out that men from various regions tend to have different erection sizes (Asian, African American). The study also admittedly did not relate erection size to other general physical characteristics. Some studies DO show the correlation to height, as well as bone structure, when indicating erection size. None of this was taken into consideration when comparing the erection sizes of the men in that study. Most importantly, this was not a uniformed measurement study where the same person took the measurement of each of the 156 penises. Those men were allowed to measure there own penises, and submit the results to the survey collectors. A man whose foreskin still remained over the glans on his erect penis was able to measure his skin as part of his reported erection length. In reality, that skin would not be part of the erection that his partner would find pleasurable.

To my point, the sites that primarily post this study to promote their cause (anti-circ sites) use abstracts of the study, rather than posting the entire study, with it's admitted flaws, conducted by J. Richters, J. Gerofi, and B. Donovan. The results are then misleading.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 11:25am
Yes, it was "convenient" for me to leave out that fact that some guys were not content with the way they were born. I have no control over that. If you want to make an argument for modifying an infant's genitals because you know exactly how that infant will feel as an adult, then go ahead. Good luck! Luckily, I can assume that most of the intact guys that are not content are that way because of social pressures which would not exist if circumcision were not routinely performed. My conscience is eased by trying to change the social "norm" in the US and knowing that these guys have an option to get circumcised as adults. Now, the circumcised guys, that is different. What option do they have? This was a medical procedure that was forced on them without their consent. They are no longer the way they were born. They were altered. They have a right to be upset because they had unnecessary human genital modification. They cannot get "uncircumcised".

US citizens have basic human rights. There is no need to do a "poll" as to how they feel about their rights. The fact that guys have the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has nothing to do with my personal views on "rights". The rights still exist. Why don't you try to make the case that a child does not have a right to be free of unnecessary human genital modification. Think ethics here.

You are free to ignore any proof that you do not want to look at. It does not make the proof any less true. Links were presented to back up a point. If you do not want to defend the position of the links then so be it. The links then stand as irrefuted proof and you have failed to disprove them and the debate is over.

I am sorry that you were offended by my logic. I have yet to see you explain how a study published in the British Journal of Urology is biased and "inundated with exaggerations and manipulations". I stand by my statement that it is totally nuts for a rational person to ignore facts because the information is available on a site that is anti-circ. That defies logic and reason. The facts are still facts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 11:26am
**I think you have missed the point of what the survey was showing, as it relates to circumcision. The data collected proved that there are basically an equal number of circ'd/uncirc'd men who are content, neutral or discontent with their circumcision status.

This study was not at all about any "ethical" concepts.**

True, but circumcision based on a survey, invariably leads us to the ethical implication that can causing even one person being dis-satisfied with forcefully having HIS body parts removed for no rational reason..

THIS lies at the core of circumcision, and this core is what circumcisers refuse to discuss.

***The "study" that you mentioned investigating the adequacy of condom sizes has more holes in it than swiss cheese. NONE of the men that were part of the study participated as an intact male, and then again as a circumcised male. That is where the only TRUE comparison could be made. Penile size is not relative from one man to the next, as it pertains to circumcision...penis (erection) sizes are individually unique. The study admitted that it could not predict the size of a man's erection based solely on whether or not he was circumcised. Also, they did not take into account the men's ethnicity, where some studies have pointed out that men from various regions tend to have different erection sizes (Asian, African American). The study also admittedly did not relate erection size to other general physical characteristics. Some studies DO show the correlation to height, as well as bone structure, when indicating erection size. None of this was taken into consideration when comparing the erection sizes of the men in that study. Most importantly, this was not a uniformed measurement study where the same person took the measurement of each of the 156 penises. Those men were allowed to measure there own penises, and submit the results to the survey collectors. A man whose foreskin still remained over the glans on his erect penis was able to measure his skin as part of his reported erection length. In reality, that skin would not be part of the erection that his partner would find pleasurable.**

So, I take it this idle speculation is what you consider an adequate rebuttal? Could you perhaps offer ANY study to counter it (them)?

***In reality, that skin would not be part of the erection that his partner would find pleasurable.**

And this OPINION is based on exactly what? The vast majority of women in the O'Hara study found it added greatly to THEIR pleasure.

**To my point, the sites that primarily post this study to promote their cause (anti-circ sites) use abstracts of the study, rather than posting the entire study, with it's admitted flaws, conducted by J. Richters, J. Gerofi, and B. Donovan. The results are then misleading.**

UMM, I know of no site that this study is posted on--this come from the journal itself..perhaps you could post a link to a site that has posted it, I would love to have a link to post.

"admitted" flaws? admitted by whom?

I quess, since you choose to ignore any site you wish to call "biased", that you are not aware that the majority of medical articles on the CIRP site are in fact, complete studies?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 10-19-2004 - 11:30am
""The study also says that "The proportion of those claiming to be content, neutral or discontent concerning their circumcision status was almost equal between the two groups." "

If it is true that similar numbers of circ'd and non-circ'd men are happy with their status, that supports the side of NOT circumcising. We are not comparing two surgical procedures, or even a surgical procedure versus another form of medical intervention. We are comparing performing surgery, versus doing nothing at all, just leaving what nature made perfect alone, and not interferring with it at all. The standard rule for medical procedures is that the potential benefit should clearly outweigh the potential harm before any medical intervention should be employed. Performing surgery, and accepting the risks inherent in that, in order to get a result that would be similar to the results of doing nothing, accepting no risk, just doesn't cut it! It is really hard to undestand why that is so hard for people to realize. Even some doctors, who follow that general rule when it comes to other forms of medical intervention, seem to lose all sight of it, when it comes to circumcising male babies. No one is talking about trying to make men who are already circumcised become unhappy about it, or even to make parents who have already had it done feel badly about it. What we are talking about is trying to stop future babies from having it perpetuated on them.

As for NOHARMM and NOCIRC being "biased", or "propaganda", these are from people who honestly believe that any form of cutting children's genitals is out and out WRONG. When you believe something is wrong, you can't very well be nuetral on it. To try to do so would be going against your own conscience. It would be pretty difficult to present a "balanced" argument for and against, even if someone wanted to, because the statistics and medical literature from around the world are stacked so much in favor of leaving little boys' genitals alone. Furthermore, the people who started both sites are trying to help provide information for others that they wish someone would have given them, or their parents, before they, or their children, were circumcised.

I can't help but wonder if people who refuse to read anything on such sites just don't want to take the risk of finding something that might be hard for them to deny.

Aloha,

Noelani

Pages