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: 03-27-2003
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 5:44pm
""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 survey...one 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. ""

I happen to have been one of the respondants in this. I also know a little about research, since my husband did quite a bit in undergraduate and graduate school, learned more about it during medical school, and then went on to take part in some more research during residency. For half of their questionnaires to have been returned is actually a very good response, statistically. I did a survey on the topic of breastfeeding adopted babies, a while back, and did not get anywhere near half back. You can't really assume that none of the half they didn't get back cared enough about it to respond. There can be many reasons that they do not all come back. Some didn't make to the right address. Some got lost in the mail. Some of the women lost their copy, or decided the questions were too personal, or that they did not have the time to spend on it. Others may have not realized that they wanted respondents who had experienced sex with men with intact foreskins, as many American women have not had that. I don't know how it would take anything away from the credibilty of the study for them not to try to characterize details about those who did not respond. If those women did not respond, then they did not have enough information to do any better than guess, and guesses are not a bit scientific.

I think it is also important to consider the fact that "anti-circ" Americans are not people who were born that way. We were born into a circumcising culture, just as the rest of Americans were. I think it is safe to say that the majority of us have had at least some point in our lives when we did not question it. Something has come along to make us question it. In my case, the experience with both a circumcised man and a noncircumcised man has been part of that, and I am sure that is common. My experience was representative of less than many of the questionnaires, as mine was a whopping total of 2 men, my first fiance, who was circumcised, and my (now ex) husband who is not. I will see if I still have a copy of that questionnaire, if anyone is interested.

There have been other surveys done, too. I remember one that claimed that most American women preferred circumcised men. However, in reading the details, it said that the group with the highest percentage of women who said that preferred circumcised men was the group that had never had sex with a man who wasn't circumcised, which is meaningless.

Aloha,

Noelani

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 3:48pm
The only opinion tht matters is the opinion of the owner of the penis. All other opinions are irrelevant.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 3:31pm
***But we are talking about benefits to HIM, not you and your preferences.



I'm not, I'm talking about the benefits to ME, & I am talking about my preferences.***

Good for you, but neither of these OPINIONS seems enough to forcefully remove the most erogenous part of an infant's penis. As difficult as this might be for you, please try to imagine having the most sensitive part of YOUIR genitals forcefully removed for these pathetic excuses.

So far all I see, is ME ME ME--the true sign of a parent interested in what is best for one's children--NOT!

***It is about ME, & many of my friends & associates as well. We all have the same preferences. In fact everyone of my friends I asked agree they like the feel of the non gliding action. Some have had both circumcised & uncircumcised for comparison & they don't agree with you in saying our body's were designed for just the "normal" gliding action. It's absurd, even the guys said they like the feeling without the "normal" gliding action & are glad they are circumcised & if a choice would NOT want the "normal" gliding action.**

So, I am to accept the word of some stranger on the internet and discard the study published in a medical journal that so fully contradicts the assertion of the internet stranger?..give me a break.

And thanks for those anecdotes about all those happy men, but also once again, we have studies that contradict your assertion.

I find it amazing how people can have a preference when they are completely ignorant of what they lost--makes me wonder just what those preferences is based on--it can't be anything logical or from first-hand knowledge.

***I'm not sure about your definition of "normal" sex, I have to say everyone of my friends believe we have "normal" sex, & many of my friends don't have foreskins & so far none of the guys have ever wished they had a foreskin either.**

And their wishes are based on WHAT?

Ignorance is bliss, denial is divine, and chosen ignorance is a religious experience.

"normal sex"? This is easy to answer--normal sex is sex with normal body parts..not too difficult a concept.


Edited 10/8/2004 3:40 pm ET ET by millies33

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-05-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 2:04pm
But we are talking about benefits to HIM, not you and your preferences.


I'm not, I'm talking about the benefits to ME, & I am talking about my preferences. It is about ME, & many of my friends & associates as well. We all have the same preferences. In fact everyone of my friends I asked agree they like the feel of the non gliding action. Some have had both circumcised & uncircumcised for comparison & they don't agree with you in saying our body's were designed for just the "normal" gliding action. It's absurd, even the guys said they like the feeling without the "normal" gliding action & are glad they are circumcised & if a choice would NOT want the "normal" gliding action.



I'm not sure about your definition of "normal" sex, I have to say everyone of my friends believe we have "normal" sex, & many of my friends don't have foreskins & so far none of the guys have ever wished they had a foreskin either.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 12:16am
My ex got circumcised later in life and he said the same thing that you are basically saying. That's why I chose not to get my son circumcised.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-18-2004
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 11:19am
***and then you posted a link to a study from an anti-circ website**

So? Then you must prove that the article was altered by being on that site..or refute the study itself

***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.**

I think you are mistaken, I did suggest that one research and find three articles to support their position, and three to refute their position AND then to check for validity.. there was no implication on my part that the three studies needed to be on the same subject.

***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 survey...one 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.**

It seems that you missed this caveat, which was sufficient for the peer-review board:

"While this study shows clearly that women prefer the surgically unaltered penis, it does have shortcomings. The respondents were not selected randomly and several were recruited using a newsletter of an anti-circumcision organization. However, when the responses from respondents gathered from the mailing list of the anti-circumcision organization were compared with those of the other respondents, there were no differences."

****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.**

SO?

***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.***

So?

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

Which is contradicted by a study solely concering circumcision and PE..

SCANDANAVIAN JOURNAL OF SEXOLOGY, Volume 2, Number 4: Page 103.

PREMATURE EJACULATION AND CIRCUMCISION

BIOGENIC OR A CULTURAL FACTOR

VISSING M

Premature ejaculation ( PE ) seems to be the most common male sexual dysfunction world-wide. Reports from the Middle East, India and Asia show a much higher incidence of PE than in the western world. In these areas the vast majority of men have had a ritual circumcision. In our clinic we also found a significantly higher incidence of PE in men from these parts of the world.

Is it a biogenic factor due to circumcision or a psychogenic disorder due to cultural differences?

We investigated penile sensitivity with TSA 2001 Thermal Analyzer ( cold / warm and tactile sensation ) in normal men and and with PE who had a ritual circumcision and in non-circumcised men. The literature will be discussed and the results presented.

Correspondence

Institute of clinical sexology

Rigshospitalet

Copenhagen Denmark

**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.**

Talk is cheap, offer evidence that the "bias" of the site has altered the study or it's results in any way.. the dragon of Bias is as mythical as any other dragon. "NORMAL" indicates unaltered, and 85% of the world is intact and "normal" in the statistical sense if one thinks outside of the box

***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." **

Thanks for your OPINION.

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 survey...one 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."

Regards,

Lynn






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 sex...so again, where is the advantage to him?

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

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: 06-05-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 9:53am
benefit









ben·e·fit



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.

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?

Julie

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