male circumcision = female sexual power

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2004
male circumcision = female sexual power
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.



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-21-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 4:39pm's not often that I am speechless...

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-23-2003
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 11:22pm

I think your post makes a lot of sense!

I have actually had similar thoughts...

And, about taking the ease out of masturbation. (and foreplay for that matter!!!)

Why don't more people realize that?!?!

I think a lot of what can be said against circumcision is plain ol' common sense-Don't people have common sense any more? Why not put it to good use and PROTECT your sweet newborn babies?!?!?!

I say Bravo on your commentary it was quite eloquent!!!!!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 09-24-2004 - 8:08pm
Interesting... but I don't agree with the connections you are making. I don't know what people's real intentions are, but they are indeed emasculating their newborn babies.


relactating for

Leo 4-25-04 intact

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2004
Sat, 09-25-2004 - 3:13pm
well its nice to have some positive feedback for a change!

No, seriously, thanks for your post - I'm really glad to hear other people out there think some of the same things that I do!
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2004
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 1:37pm
I accept that a lot of people won't agree with the connections I made - I'd be interested to know what European women think - I think they might be able to identify with these concepts more as they may have had both circumcised and uncircumcised partners.

I think whats really important is to consider how circumcision affects the behaviour of adult men - if we realise that some of the things about men we don't like are actually worsened by circumicision, that might be a more persuavive argument against doing it than stuff about urinary tract infections.

P.S. a friend read my original post and said that she knew exactly why very few people had replied to it. She said that of course all women knew what I'd said, but that you never talk about it 'cos its one of those big female secrets that we keep the guys from ever knowing - (a bit like the fact that size does actually matter!) - I think thats a pretty poor attitude to be honest.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-05-2004
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 12:15pm
I have always told my bf he was done for my benefit, so it might be a power thing because I tell him he was made to order & have to thank his Mom. We do have a lot more power then the guys know, or maybe they do.
Avatar for joolsplus2
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 1:03pm

So what's the "benefit" to a woman of a circed penis?


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

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-05-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 9:53am


noun (plural ben·e·fits)

1. advantage: something that has a good effect or promotes well-being

They eventually reaped the benefits of all their hard work.

I like the feel of the "non gliding action" penis, just an extra bonus for me. That doesn't mean that I'm for infant circumcision but I want the males to know who have been circumcised that it wasn't done in vain & there are a lot of us out there who enjoy their sacrifice. I don't think the circumcised males should be made to feel inferior by certain people that they are lesser of a person because of being circumcised. My bf's ex used to degrade him with negative remarks because she was anti circumcision & it had given him a low self esteem about it. Both sides can affect the males pysch.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 10:28am
But we are talking about benefits to HIM, not you and your preferences.

And when it comes to women who have had both circumcised and normal sex, the overwhelming majority preferred the normal variety of again, where is the advantage to him?

And remember HE didn't choose to sacrifice a very sensitive body part for anyone--it was taken from him.

And are we supposed to just remain quiet so men do not become aware that their penises are missing the most sensitive part? Why should we promote ignorance--merely to prevent hurt feelings from the truth?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-21-2004
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 10:26am
"And when it comes to women who have had both circumcised and normal sex, the overwhelming majority preferred the normal variety of sex"

and then you posted a link to a study from an anti-circ website

Hi Miliie,

Interesting to see that you chose this survey, and only this survey, to prove your theory that "the overwhelming majority" of women preferred sex with uncircd men. Wasn't it you who was preaching a few threads ago that pro-circs should research at least 3 clinical studies to support their theories before making an assertatation of FACT? Sorry, I don't remember your exact words, but I believe you implied that pro-circs need to back up their "facts" at least three times in order to be able to take an educated stance on that particular subject. Again, I don't mean to misquote you here, so please correct me if I misunderstood you.

With that said, the study you referred to is clearly and admittedly flawed:

This study was initiated by an ani-circ group that recruited women from an anti-circ newsletter to be part of their study. They mailed out 284 surveys, of which only 139 came back completed. So, not even half of the anti-circ recruits felt strongly enough to reply to the which they were told would be published with their anonomous feedback. If I were anit-circ, and I knew I could have an anonomous voice to further my cause, wouldn't I respond to the survey?? I guess only if my opinion would ACTUALLY further my cause. Even more, the study admits that it did not even attempt to characterize any details on those who did not respond. This takes away from the credibility of this study.

Next, the study admitted that it focused generally on women who preferred vaginal orgasms, and of those women, most were age 40 and over. These women were the ones who were specifically noted for most likely having perpetual partners, fewer of them, and more partners who were intact. The women who had more favorable anti-circ comments were the ones that said their most perpetual and recent partner was intact. Well, Duh! Certainly I would prefer sex with my husband over anyone else! The study even admits that when "asking women to evaluate their experience based on all of their lifetime sexual partners, there may be an element of recall bias." Especially when the women targeted in the study are against circumcision. And, the study also admits, that the number of women over 40 that had chosen intact lifetime partners reflects the decreased availability of uncirc'd men of similar age for the younger women. I don't know about you, but my sexual experience with men over thirty is MUCH better than any sexual experience I had in my 20's. So, IMO, there is already a bias there for age, regardless of circ'd status.

Also, the study states that the surveys were not completed face-to-face, so there were many questions that weren't even answered by all respondents. Additionally, contradictory answers clearly indicated that not all respondants understood all of the questions being asked of them. Now, if I were anti-circ, and I didn't thoroughly understand a question, but knew I needed to give an answer, which answer would I choose? Obviously one which would show a favorable response towards my cause.

The only thing the study was able to conclude, without bias, is that the uncirc'd men were more likely to have premature ejaculation.

Lastly, I would like to point out again, that you obtained this study from a widely known anti-circ website. If that's not bias in reporting, I don't know what is! Where are the clinical evaluations of this study? Where are the 2 additional trials of randomly selected participants that would support the claim that the "overwhelming majority" of women prefer sex with unaltered men? You even used the term "normal sex." Well, since "normal" implies one of usual standard and condition (typical)...then "normal" might actually mean that "normal" sex is with a circ'd man- since he is most typical in our society. Even your study points that out.

On a side note, I believe the goal of anti-circ people is to change the views of people who are pro-circ or sway the preference for someone who might be "on the fence." Right? It is my humble and genuine opinion that surveys and information that are obtained from sources that are clearly and publically anti-circ, are not really going to help you (by you, I mean all anti-circs, not just you in particular, Millie) with your cause. People who are pro-circ or undecided, that understand the nature of these anti-circ organizations, might simply just dismiss the information that is obtained from these places (I know I do). Most people want REAL facts, not skewed and biased anecdotal information. I, personally, would be more inclined to consider an anti-circ argument that was based on random, unbiased information that was obtained and reported through impartial sources...and I am one of those people you might consider to be "on the fence."