I recently stumbled onto a blog post regarding the desire to abolish parental choice (actually, abolish the practice, period) in the practice of routine circumcision to male infants.
The implication so “factually presented” (sarc) by the writer of that blog post was that if a man didn’t have an intact foreskin, he would be doomed to “Lousy Sex” without a foreskin during his sexual life.
“Lousy Sex” are not words in the text, but that of the title of the piece—hence, the implied subject of what the piece is about. There was nothing in the particular focus of the presentation that related to both the pros and cons of circumcision—such that could be undeniably supported with outright facts from any sanctioned, scientific studies.
What I have found reading independent analysis of those mentioned studies or research (piece does not reference them), is that the results of them have been no better than speculative. Speculation is opinion, not fact—regardless of the source.
Comments to the piece were genuinely entertaining to me. Those with intact foreskins attested so certainly that sex was better with a foreskin; never having experienced sex without one. Women claimed that sex was better with a foreskin. I suspect that her experience with a man with a foreskin was better than her experience with a man or men without one. She certainly has the right to voice her preference, but it is done as if factually so, when there is no mention of other factors that are involved with sexual gratification.
How about amount of foreplay, technique of the penis owner, fulfillment of expectations of feeling of fullness by the owner’s penis, etc.? Yes, size can or does matter, but how that owner uses it is even more important to most women. Many women don’t care about the size, and hence don’t care even if the foreskin, as claimed by some, makes a penis “bigger” (Oh yeah, by what percent, and as compared to who’s penis—the imaginary partner that would be the stand-in for the circumcised man?).
OK. So, Lousy Sex’s respondents are expected to support the impactAmerica cause. I get it. But it’s interesting, and even laughable, when the owner of a penis with a foreskin can, in any way, profess such personal knowledge from experience. How can that man attest to anything about a circumcised penis? It seems clear he is influenced by biased presentation of specualtion claimed to be facts.
When I merely posted a comment to state that I had found the “Lousy Sex”article biased, and that there was no discussion whatsoever about any of the pros of circumcision, or comparisons to the negatives claimed in the piece, then related my personal satisfaction over my lifetime of being circumcised and a few examples from personal experience that supported my satisfaction. I was responded to with insulting replies that contained no substance other than attempt to demean my lack of rubber-stamping the cause.
Parents world-wide have had the right since long before America was ever a twinkle in Britain’s eye to have their children circumcised. How many laws are there outside America that prohibits circumcision? Certainly, if circumcision is wrong anywhere, it should be considered wrong everywhere. Yet it isn’t considered “wrong” anywhere, its simply a lesser chosen option almost everywhere, compared to America. So how is it that America then gets singled out in this piece about circumcision as “getting it wrong”? (Re: see reference to the Huffington Post blog article prompting the “Lousy Sex” blog through the link below). Everybody else has it wrong?
Enough of this internet crap of uncivil discourse and pointing to speculative arguments to justify the cause, and replies with insults and demeaning comments for anyone who does not jump onto the bandwagon. I don’t call myself Not-So-Subtle because I think it’s a pretty name. No, I’ve been vocal (call it opinionated if you like) all my life. I prefer to analyze facts before drawing any conclusion that would oppose millenniums of practice.
At nearly 62 years old, I won’t stop now. At least when I address an issue, I have prided myself in being able to separate opinions from facts in drawing conclusions (it comes from my education, training and work experience). I’m not trying to speak arrogantly, just confidently. I also don’t claim that by virtue of my age that I should necessarily be considered more knowledgeable or right in my opinions. But I should be respected when I present an opinion.
There are no clear facts of what the “Lousy Sex” article claims.
Hence, I closed my post stating that I was not clearly convinced enough to make a decision as to whether abolishing circumcision had more pros than cons—such that it clearly outweighed removing that right of decision from parents.
Read it for yourself at http://intactamerica.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/lousy-sex/
Diary of A Circumcised Penis
So, here I am. In the course of addressing of how my penis has survived quite fine for 61+ years, I’ll try and bring up discussion points as I complete Chapters of this “diary”. Please add any discussion points on circumcision you would like to be offered in the future chapters, as well.
But lets start here for today’s chosen diary subject matter: Boxers or briefs?
Boxers or Briefs?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m under the belief (opinion) that most men wear underwear around their most prized possession. Let’s classify that underwear to be of two styles:
(1) Boxers, the part-legged shorts with the pull apart fly at the front so the penis can be yanked out to urinate without dropping the pants (hey, what the hell, I’ll admit it, for other extra-curricular activities also ;)o, or something of similar clothing fashion that provides a very baggy and open spaced home to his penis.
(2) Briefs, also nicknamed “tighty whities” if they are white, are the groin and butt hugging un-legged pant that covers penis and buttocks (at least to a certain extent). Of interest here is that they are generally a pant of a size and design men typically wear that hugs the penis to the body. These would include thong and speedo styles. Boxer briefs are closer to briefs than they are to boxers in how they are typically worn—snug to the form. My penis hates baggy briefs.
I know that ladies have often been asked whether they prefer boxers or briefs on their man. I ask them. Some say briefs, some say boxers. Those that say boxers say they would rather have something left to the imagination until they are removed. Some have also said they provide easier access. No problem, I help them with that. I hate making the poor girl work to get to my junk.
Fine, women have their preferences. We men should try to respect them when we can. But I doubt that any woman is going to turn down sex with a man simply because of the underwear he wears, or if the shape and existence of their organs are promulgated by the tightness of the cloth.. That would be pretty shallow, as it has nothing to do with their ultimate pleasure—which is to get hot and wet for sex and pray for multiple orgasms, regardless to how much skin he has on his penis.
Then there are women who express no preference. Mens undies are not on her “turn-on wardrobe” list. Moral of the story—wear whatever suits you. I wear briefs for two reasons; but the most important one being that they prevent my circumcised glans from rubbing around and becoming agitated until I withdraw my penis for a reason, or want to be naked. The only time I will not wear underwear is when I wear baggy, soft cotton, athletic shorts. Its cooler and airy, and my penis enjoys getting outdoors and wiggle around without being irritated. Yes, briefs take the place of a foreskin in that respect. Problem solved.
MY PENIS DOTH PROTEST
“Lousy Sex” expresses the notion that a circumcised man’s glans will shrivel and dry up without a foreskin, and become quickly chafed and abraded such that the glans can no longer function for sexual pleasure.
Really?
My penis is here to tell you that is some of the biggest bullshit it has ever heard since its pre-virgin days, well over 45 years ago. At least that is my penis’s experience. (The fella does have a head of its own)
And why does my penis say that is not true?
…because my penis’ bare glans is still very soft and sensitive after all these years. Taken care of, it’s sensitivity will live long and prosper. (Penie wonders if Leonard Nimoy is circumcised)—oops, I digress. Even if the uncut man is more sensitive, sorry, but more doesn’t always mean better, either. My penis still lets my brain knows what it’s UP to. It doesn’t have to blast messages to the brain. It can be subtle, and leave the being not so subtle to my brain and mouth.
The born-with purpose of that hood over the glans is to protect the glans from harm as much as possible when it is not being used. Sounds reasonable. I’m not a foreskin owner, but I suspect that it is used for three fundamental reasons:
(1) Protect the glans from sensations of contact with external forces; (the squirm factor and a potential erector nuisance)
(2) Prevent the glans from damage due to the unwanted cause of those sensations (wear and tear via abrasion and exposure that might cause permanently reduced sensitivity);
Solution for the above: wear briefs.
(3) Provide the natural lubricant necessary for the foreskin to withdraw from the glans, when needed, such as urinating without spraying, cleaning (hygiene) or even during masturbation, without irritation or friction.
Solution: no need to without a foreskin: No lubricant is needed (less to go wrong during the penis life) if there is no foreskin to withdraw from the glans. Solved at birth by circumcision.
I reject the argument that any purpose of the foreskin is to provide lubrication for sexual gratification. Females provide the lubrication for intercourse. It may help when there is a “problem” with initial penetration, but it certainly solves no problem. If it comes off during simple washing, it gets washed off by the female’s natural “juices”. If she can’t provide the juices, there will be no intercourse without additional lubrication along the shaft. Everyone should know that you don’t solve the problem by covering up the symptoms.
My penis insists on briefs for his own comfort and protection. My partner will be well lubricated before my penis will enter. It’s been that way for over 40 years. I ensure lubrication in one of two ways: with lots of great foreplay that gets her prepared, or send her to the doctor. If you know where the g-spot is, and she is sensitive to it, you’ll also have more lube to get you in than what is needed.
I love my cut cock just as it is. I take care of it. I wear briefs to prevent agitation and abrasion. I don’t have to worry about the hygiene issue. I don’t have to have a woman tell me to go wash because my penis stinks. My penis gets washed in normal fashion with every shower or bath. My penis still gains an erection when it is expected to perform (and even when it isn’t) and the glans is still soft and supple with more than sufficient sensitivity. I wear briefs and have all my life [except for a brief 6 weeks (no pun intended)]. That was my parents choice. I never questioned their choice, as I never had reason to. They knew what they were doing.
I want to make it perfectly clear: I have nothing against men with uncircumcised penises. I have nothing against parents that choose to leave their boys uncircumcised. It is the parents right to choose. They are the guardian. People should have better things to do than try and control others lives. Get a life, uncut crusaders. Leave your offspring’s penis uncut as you choose, but keep your nose out of my kids penis.
My dad was uncut. If uncut men think they know so well that the uncut man is some sort of sexual superman, and that circumcised men can only have “Lousy Sex”, why would an uncut father choose to have his sons circumcised?
So bring it on.
UnCut vs cut: Does it really matter when all the pros and cons are weighed? Or is one truly better than the other based on facts?
Private communications can be sent to iamnotsosubtle@hotmail.com if you feel inhibited from commenting here.
iamnotsosubtle 