Another Study: Women Prefer Circumcision

G

goodbutnotgreat

0
This one appears to have been conducted by an actual research MD employed by a university. He also does not appear to have a website selling his book on the matter that contains links to erotic stories about foreskin and "fictional explorations" explaining why men without foreskins can't seem to emotionally connect with women. So, have a look . . .

*****************************************************************

Women's Preferences for Penile Circumcision In Sexual Partners

Marvel L. Williamson, Ph.D., R.N.
Assistant Professor, College of Nursing
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

Paul S. Williamson, M.D.
Associate Professor, College of Medicine
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA


Abstract

Regardless of pediatricians' attempts to negate routine newborn circumcision, U.S. circumcision rates remain constant. This study hypothesized that, because circumcision is usually a maternal choice and the circumcised penises are perceived by young women as more attractive, most women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons.

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83% preferred circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed.

Visual appeal and sexual hygiene were predominate reasons for favoring circumcised sexual partners. Even among women having sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised penises for sexual partners. Eighty-nine percent of the sample had had their sons circumcised. This study furthers debate over whether circumcision decisions should be based solely on medical considerations limited to the newborn period.

In spite of recent attempt by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations to persuade the public to abandon the practice of routine newborn circumcision, new parents have continued to request the procedure at the same high rates. In the United States, approximately 75-90% of newborn males are circumcised, compared to only 10% of Europeans and 20% of males in general worldwide.

One survey of 200 women concerning their maternal attitudes circumcision revealed that mothers were not giving medically valid reasons for having their sons circumcised, and the authors concluded that health care providers needed to do a better job of educating parents about the medical risks and benefits of the procedure.

Even after other researchers launched extensive programs to inform prospective parents about the lack of "absolute medical indication" for circumcision, no significant change in the rate of newborn circumcisions could be observed in targeted samples. Parents within the United States who do not have their sons circumcised report the main reason is cultural. That is, most are a part of a subgroup, often Hispanic, that traditionally does not circumcise.

Only 10% of the subjects who choose to leave their sons uncircumcised cite being convinced on the basis of reading or on physician's advice.

It has been demonstrated that mothers more than fathers usually decide whether to have their sons circumcised. Although informed consent for circumcision now includes information on how easy it can be to give proper penile hygiene to an uncircumcised baby, mothers persist in their desire to have their male infants circumcised. This trend is particularly noteworthy within the current financial context in which many third party payers deny coverage for newborn circumcisions.

Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework

Controversy characterized the history of circumcision.

Circumcision has existed since the Stone Age for unknown reasons. In earliest written records documenting its use, religious beliefs required that the male foreskin be removed as an outward display of faith and membership in the group.

In some cultures, circumcision signified a boy's entrance into manhood. In whatever setting, the uncircumcised were looked down upon for being pagan or unmasculine.

Later, the European elite class made circumcision exclusive privilege in the Victorian era. This notion persisted even into the early twentieth century as evidence that a man had been born into a situation where the luxury of circumcision could be afforded.

Circumcision has not solely been a status symbol, however. Within certain circumstances it was a necessity. Entire armies found themselves immobilized by balanitis, a painful inflammation under the foreskin due primarily to lack of access to bathing facilities. Societies that live in arid, sandy environments where water is precious learned long ago about the merits of circumcision.

Even today, hygiene can be so difficult within some segments of the health care system, such as in institutions for the elderly or the mentally handicapped where patients may resist personal hygiene care, that circumcision eventually has to be performed to prevent infections or other complications of the foreskin.

Inadequate penile hygiene, which is more likely in uncircumcised men, is resurfacing again as a predictor of carcinoma of the penis. After the proclamation by the American Academy of Pediatrics against circumcision, studies have since begun reporting a relationship between uncircumcision and the incidence of urinary tract infection in male children.

Other complications, especially balanitis, bring about significantly more medical visits for uncircumcised boys than for penile problems in circumcised boys. Good hygiene, which itself can be difficult for even the best intentioned parents, does not entirely eliminate these problems.

It is argued, therefore, that pediatricians have an incomplete perspective in the current debate over whether circumcision for newborns is necessary. Furthermore, medical indications and contradictions aside, insight into the cultural and sexual rationale for why the American public and American women in particular prefer circumcision is missing. Social reasons for circumcision, when conceded at all, are dismissed by medical personnel as being unjustifiable existing "scientific" proof.

In addition, arguments that cite historical fallacies about circumcision fail tests of logic when posing as premises for concluding that circumcision for any reason is wrong.

The debate on medical grounds seems to miss a major portion of the reasoning, though. In the face of the current campaign against circumcision, why is it still requested at such high rates? What motivations do American women have for wanting American males to be circumcised?

In a study by Bean and Egelhoff of 277 new mothers of sons, 78% reported favoring circumcision even before becoming pregnant and having to make a conscious choice affecting a son, and 91% ultimately decide to have their newborn son circumcised. Even those woman whose husbands were uncircumcised overwhelmingly opted for circumcision.

The reason must seem important enough to woman for them to withstand pressure from physicians and others who oppose circumcision. Brown & Brown go as far as to say that "the circumcision decision of the United States is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result of medical misunderstanding among parents".

One idea that has been overlooked is that the penis is a sexual instrument, not just a passageway for urination. For example, circumcision at puberty in nonliterate cultures is in some ways a sexual recognition of the emerging man. The permanent exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool.

Most research conducted previously on the reasons newborn males are circumcised fails to include a reference to the perceived sexual appeal of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one.

Typical lists of reasons from which the subjects could choose offered only hygiene, religion, father's or sibling's circumcision status, and other traditional explanations. At the most, an "Other" category included in some surveys caught untold thoughts on the perceived advantage of circumcision. Without the inclusion of sexual attitudes toward penis type on such a list, respondents would typically hesitate to spontaneously present sexual rationale favoring circumcision, particularly in reference to a newborn penis.

Admitting to sexual desires and preferences is difficult enough for subjects even in straightforward studies. Without the researcher conceding the possibility, it is not likely a mother would volunteer information about her hopes for her son's future sexual attractiveness.

It was not until a study on cultural values associated with the decision to circumcise, in which Harris used unstructured interviews, that the sexual overtones of newborn circumcision were explicitly reported. One of her findings was that a circumcised penis has a certain "cosmetic appeal," that in America the exposed glans is more pleasing aesthetically.

She concluded that circumcision could be an acceptable practice based on cultural values, and that the health care delivery system could be a more "perceptive cultural broker" with regard to honoring a society's view of beauty.

In asking various groups about why circumcision may be indicated, a few surveys have included a response category labeled "cultural," which may have been construed by some subjects to include sexual attitudes.

One such study found that significantly more obstetricians than pediatricians believed that the culture was a valid reason for neonatal circumcision.

What the concept of culture means, though, is that to many Americans circumcision seems to be normal because that is what they are accustomed to seeing. This could certainly be true, in that what people are used to is what they prefer.

This cultural perspective brings circumcision into a new arena, one in which the rigidity by some health professionals fosters alienation and resistance. Some go so far as to say that opting for circumcision indicates an emotional response that is not based on rational decision making.

A study of female preference for certain male body parts showed that 89% of woman students at a southern college preferred pictures of circumcised penises over uncircumcised ones.

This is as close as the literature comes to facing the persistent preference by American women for circumcision, as best displayed by new mothers of male infants. To date, no study has explored the possible sexual motivations behind circumcision, however.

It was the purpose of this investigation, therefore, to determine if women, particularly mothers who recently made a decision about circumcision of their newborn sons, do indeed prefer circumcised sexual partners, and if so, for what reasons. This study hypothesized that most American woman prefer circumcised penises in their sexual relations, a factor unrelated to the purported lack of medical indications for the procedure.


Methods


Women 18 years of age and older who delivered full-term healthy sons within the previous month at a major midwest medical center comprised the targeted sample. Candidates for the study were chosen during a 6-month period based upon their willingness to participate in an earlier study that dealt with who and what influenced their decisions to circumcise or not circumcise their babies. The sample had been randomly selected and 85% made up the group to whom questionnaires were mailed for this study.

Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their forms yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a final sample of 145. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the questions, this rate compares favorably to the other research studies investigating such personal sexual issues.

Because there had been no previous data collection tool seeking this type of information, it is necessary to first confirm the content validity through it's review by several experts. The survey instrument was tested on a pilot group of women who gave subsequent feedback about its clarity and the completeness of the response options available from which to choose. By comparing the outcome of this questionnaire to certain items on the previously conducted study on the group of 269, it was also possible to establish the reliability of the individual subject's responses over a period of time.

The survey was highly personal, asking the women about their own sexual experiences with men and about their preferences for circumcised or uncircumcised penises for various sexual activities. No reference was made to the women's decision to circumcise their own sons or not.

This survey dealt entirely with adult sexual experiences and preferences in order to distinguish the two issues and allow for correlational tests between their choices as parents and their attitudes as sexual adult women.

Each subject had received a thorough review of circumcision at the hospital when deciding about their son's candidacy for the procedure. Each was also shown drawings of both uncircumcised and circumcised penises. It was assumed, therefore, that the subjects knew what circumcision meant and what types of penises their sexual partners had. Lay terminology was used in each question. Prior to implementation of the study, all procedures and tools received approval by a human research subjects' rights board. Confidentiality was guaranteed to the subjects and was maintained throughout the study.

Results

Most of the newborn sons of mothers in the sample had been circumcised (89%). This percent is similar to the circumcision rate prevailing in the geographic area at the time of data collection.

Of the women in the sample, 83.7% were married, 12.8% were single, and 3.5% were separated, divorced, or widowed.

By race, 97.9% were Caucasian, 1.4% were black, and 0.7% were Hispanic. Another characteristic consistent with the midwest population generally was religion: 46.1% were Protestant, 21.3% were Catholic, 29.1% claimed no religion, 0.7% were Jewish, and the remaining 2.8% listed other religions.

The group was well educated. All but 12.7% had finished high school and 25.3% had at least some higher education. Fourteen percent had finished college. There was a weak correlation between higher education and the choice to circumcise the newborn (rpb =3D 0.27).

In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Only 5.5% had sexual experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners, and the remainder of the sample was sexually experienced only with circumcised men.

The responses to "If you could choose anyone for your ideal male sex partner, which circumcision type would you prefer he have for the following activities?" as shown in Table 1. There was a strong correlation between the circumcision status of her newborn son and a woman's ideal male partner's status for the purpose of intercourse (phi =3D 0.86)m, and a moderate correlation for visual appeal (phi =3D 0.50).

To investigate any possible relationship between the circumcision status of one's father or brothers and the preferred type of ideal sexual partner, correlational tests were made on those subjects who knew whether these family members were circumcised. No similarities were found that could be attributed to childhood exposed to penises of either type (phi =3D 0.12 for fathers and 0.06 for brothers).

It was interesting to note that 22% of the sample did not know whether their fathers were circumcised and of those who had brothers, 9% did not know whether they were circumcised.

TABLE ONE

Activity Penis Type


Circumcised (%) Uncircumcised (%) Either (%)
Sexual Intercourse

71 6 23

Looking at to Achieve sexual arousal
76 4 20



Giving manual

penile stimulation
75 5 20



Giving Fellatio
83 2 15



It could be surmised that some women prefer circumcised penises because that their sole experience in sexual contacts.

However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01).

Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners (N =3D 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their preferences. For each of the sexual activities presented, approximately half of this sub-group desired an uncircumcised penis and the other half said that penis type did not matter.

Evidently, almost any sexual exposure to a circumcised swayed women to sexually prefer circumcision. That is only 1% of the entire sample consistently preferred uncircumcised partners for all sexual activities, and those subjects came entirely from the group which had had sexual experience only with uncircumcised penises.

When asked "Why do you prefer one penis type over another for sex?", subjects were instructed to mark all options that applied to them.

Among those preferring a circumcised penis, the reasons they indicated appeared in the following ranked order from most frequent to least:

Stays cleaner (92 %)

Looks sexier (90%)

Feels nicer to touch (85%)

Seems more natural (77%)

Smells more pleasant (55%)

Stays softer (54%)

It was fascinating to find that so many women thought a circumcised penis seemed more natural, probably meaning to them "familiar" within the American cultural context.

Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that to them it looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought that an uncircumcised

Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that to them it looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought that an uncircumcised penis looked sexier.

Overall, the factor correlating most strongly with whether the newborn son was circumcised was the subject's favorite penis type for sexual intercourse. There was little or no correlation between the newborn circumcision decision and demographic factors including race, upbringing, or sexual experiences.

Conclusions

This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised men.

Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or have uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still prefer circumcised sexual partners.

Women state a preference for circumcised penises particularly for sexual activities like fellatio, but also for intercourse, manual stimulation, and visual appeal.

They say that this is primarily due to circumcised penises being cleaner and looking sexier.

The cleanliness of circumcised penises within the sexual context means something different from cleanliness as a hygiene factor to prevent balanitis and other complications.

To a sexual partner, cleanliness is important because the penis tastes, smells, and looks more appealing. Spontaneous sexual activity is more likely to be enjoyable with a man who is circumcised, because bathing efforts last for longer periods of time. For the uncircumcised, washing under the foreskin must be attended to frequently to prevent the accumulation of any smegma, whereas in the circumcised male, the constant exposure or the coronal ring and the glans to air prevents the build up of odors and secretions.

Of almost equal importance to cleanliness of the penis for sexual activities is the visual attractiveness of a circumcised penis. What is sexier about a circumcised penis?

Perhaps visualizing the glans, the urinary meatus, and the corona without them being hidden under a foreskin is arousing. After all, such is the appearance of an erect penis, and sexual imagery of the erect penis involves exposure of the glans.

While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect. Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful, for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.

These findings suggest that the decision to have a new-born son circumcised may not be significantly affected by increasing the already rigorous efforts to explain the supposed lack of medical indications. While many mothers may not consciously view their sons as sexual beings, many may opt for circumcision with the belief that the son will be more sexually attractive to his future sexual partners, based on how they themselves feel. Future research can address this issue within a different cultural setting where most males are uncircumcised.

Newborn circumcision need no longer be performed without local anesthesia, silencing the outcry against circumcision as a form of "barbarism". Removal of the foreskin may be viewed as preventive care, not unlike procedures done in other areas of health care (such as the extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth).

The opponents of circumcision argue in return against the imposition of such a decision without the affected newborn male's consent. In response, those favoring circumcision point out that the many men who later want or need to be circumcised face a major surgical procedure that would have presented only a minor inconvenience if done as an infant.

Circumcision has, therefore, now become a much broader issue than one that can be dismissed on such narrow grounds as those proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Not least among the considerations is the worth of sexual preference for male circumcision within the American culture as a valid reason for continuing the practice.

*****************************************************************

Damn, that's a long one. Persoanlly, I think it supports what most men know already, but, as they say, whatever. Ask some women in your life. The other article on women's preference says that 6/7 prefer an uncut penis, and that circumcision pretty much ruins sex. Read them both, make an evaluation.

Here's the link, by the way

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/womenpref.html

I don't know where it was originally published, but if you are interested I would encourage you to contact the author of the website for information.

Still waiting for some links from you Kong . . .
 
Swank! OMG! lol

You don't even know how big a moron you look like now! This study was described in my original post and discounted because only 15% of the women had even had relations with an uncircumcised man!

Regarding this study...Hmmmm, let's see... only 15% had had experience with both cut and uncut men. In the study, 15% said that they prefered uncircumcised men for sex. So what you are saying is that 100% of the women who had fucked uncut cock prefered uncut cock! OMFG, dude, duhhhhhhh! Hey, thanks for supporting my ideas! You're great, man! :D
 
Kong, read it closely.

In the study, the women who had experienced both were used as a subsample and their perferences were similar to the grout at large. They make this VERY CLEAR in the study.

I have to say, I suspect oyu have some difficulties with reading comprehension due to the constant misinterpretation of my comments and nearly anything that you read.

Also, I would like to repeat that this study was conducted by research MDs and collegiate professors at a university with a highly esteemed medical faculty. They are quite clear about their methedology and the artcile is clearly and plainly written. None of these are true for the other article describing a contradictory study.

That article was also conducted by individuals who we have yet to identify as any kind of expert on the matter or even qualified or experienced
reserachers. We do know they are selling a voraciously anti-circumcision book from their website, and that a portion of the book claims to be able to show circumcised men how to overcome their handicap as well as information on FR. Hmmmmm . . .

Kong, you have often described the medical establisHydromaxent as a money making scheme. You also often accuse me of being a closed-minded idiot (I've heard these two phrases from you a genuinely crude number of times). Well, if you are in fact so open-minded, then consider that the FR angle can be used to exploit people for money as well. Do you not see some conflict of interest there?
 
Oh, yes. I see it now. Only 15% of those women have actually had sex with both cut and uncut men. 15% of that group of women say they like the uncut men better. However, they don't count because they don't support your view. The other 85% of the women in the same group who have never had sex with uncut men are the only ones that count because they say they prefer their men circumcised. I'm sorry. I guess I misread it somehow. Guess I should have finished college.

lol

About FR being a money making scheme...all I can say is "bail while you still have some credibility". You're sinking fast. Yes, I will admit that I have spent approximately $60 in the last 10 months on FR products like the [words=http://TLCTugger.com/MOS]TLC[/words] [words=http://TLCTugger.com/MOS]Tugger[/words] and Johnson and Johnson Bandaids. Oh, the horror...! :D Dude, I spend more than $60 on toilet paper in 10 months! Maybe you should look into that...! :D
 
Once again, you have misread. I am not sure if you do this intentionally or not, but it seems to happen with nearly every post I make.

I was referring specifically to the author's of the study which you have used as evidence of your claim that nearly all women prefer an uncircumcised penis. The authors are selling a book about how circumcision seperated men and women sexually but can be overcome with FR and use of techniques to compenstate for the circumcision.

My exact words were: "consider that the FR angle can be used to exploit people for money as well"

THIS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ENTIRE FR MOVEMENT and I believe that nearly anybody reading this can see that.

Didn't I ask you not to put words in my mouth? Once again, you have made an ad hominem attack against me and failed to address the issue that I raised.

Anybody reading this can clearly see that you dodge discussing anything with some substance by making comments about me, and frankly it's very dissappointing. I think it also reflects poorly on you and your positions, and you ought to at least consider addressing me rather than these brief and callow posts on the state of my intelligence and character.
 
You are a hypocritical moron, and I will say it until you realize it.

You say that my study is discounted because the researchers published a book about it and are (gasp!) trying to SELL their book!

Yet your pro-circ study, conducted by doctors-- who make approximately 1 BILLION dollars every year from circumcision-- is perfectly okay.

How many copies of that book do you think they sold? Do you think it possibly approached 1.2 million? That's the number of circs done every year on non-consenting babies, but somehow I don't think my "dubious" authors ever got to the best sellers list.

I am not dodging your questions, swank. I am turning them over and fucking them in the ass, one after another. You just can't comprehend that...or the fact that you might be wrong.

PS-- Your study supports my viewpoint. You can't change math to suit your mindset. 15% actually had both. 15% prefered uncut. :D So funny!
 
Kong, the study was authored by collegiate reserachers. They don't work for hospitals or HydromaxOs, they are professors of medical study. They don't stand to make a red cent from circumcisions. I would hardly call that an "ass-fucking" so much as you displaying a lack of knowledge about the professional world, but lets not quibble. Those men don't make any money from circumcision.

My study doesn not "support" yours. As it was conducted by individuals who hold advanced educations and are skilled in evaluating data, they would say as much if that was their findings. For the record:

The sample of women that had sex with both cut and uncut men still preferred circrumcised men in proportion with the rest of the study. This is quite clearly defined by the authors and a read of the article will clear up any confusion about Kong's assertion that it supports his point.

Please do no confuse Kong's difficulties with numbers and research principles with the actual results of the study.

Read it for yourself and see.
 
Okay, heed closely.

100 women are asked if they prefer cut or uncut
Only 15 have had both.
15% of the group say they prefer uncut.

NOW IF 85% OF THE WOMEN WHO HAD HAD BOTH CHOSE "CUT" (AS YOU SAY THE WOMEN WHO HAD HAD BOTH WENT ALONG WITH ALL THE REST), HOW CAN THE REST OF THOSE ANSWERING "UNCUT" BE THE WOMEN WHO HAD NOT EXPenis EnlargementRIENCED SEX WITH AN UNCUT MAN?!?!

We'll call this brand of math "swank-metic"!

:D

PS-- Where do you think the grant money comes from to do these studies? Do you think McDonald's would pay for a study that examines the health hazards of a fatty diet? Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
 
Heading out the door, don't have time to fully address the post. When I next get a chance I will fully explain the error in your reasoning here, as well as break down the differences between the two articles.

The university most likely provided them with reserach funds as part of their tenure, or they were awarded grant money. No academic study is conducted with the intention of making it fit a ceratin outcome.

Your comparison of a clear and standard research experiment that fully explains it's methedology and results and was conducted by credentialed professors to a an opaque and bizarre study conducted by people that are trying to sell a book on an ameteurish website that contains links to foreskin erotica and is marketed towards men pissed off about their circumcisions is a poor one in my opinion.

Two health reserachers who hold PHDs and are employed by school of medicine are not the same as a husband and wife team that market an internet focused book that is clearly meant to capitalize on internet hyoe surrounding circumcision. We at least are assured that your authors will monetarily profit from men becoming upset about being circumcised.

Once again, lots of capital letters and an insulting tone do nothing to bolster your contentions.
 
100 percent of the women in the study I presented had sexual relations with both cut and uncut men.

85 percent of the women in the study you presented had sexual relations with only CIRCUMCISED men.

Yet, both were asked the same question: what do you prefer, a circumcised or uncircumcised penis?

It's so ludicrous I just laughed sitting here at my desk!

You can talk about PHDs and use words like "accredited" and "academy" til you're blue in the face, but anyone can see how flawed that study is! The term "educated idiot" was coined for a reason!
 
Sorry to butt-in yet again here guys. But I normally read all new post and this one really caught my eye. Allow me to explain. And I am not picking or choosing a side here. I just read the study presented by Swank and came to my own conclusions.

1st point.

I refer to this line:

"Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their forms yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a final sample of 145. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the questions, this rate compares favorably to the other research studies investigating such personal sexual issues."

In my opinion, this is not nearly enough women to get a proper across the board, reliable result. I will also add that from here it goes on to say that 16.5% had had sex with both.

"In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both circumcised and uncircumcised men."

Now...16.5% of 145 is 24. So now we have 24 women who have had sex with both. Fine. And now this line:

"Only 5.5% had sexual experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners"

5.5% of 145 is 8.

I now have these number break downs out of 145 women:

8 have only had sex with uncut men
24 have had sex with both---key group
113 have had sex with only cut men.

I note the 24 being the key group because that much is obvious. Now, to quote further from the study my second main point;

"However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01)."

According to that line, it would mean that 16 of the 24 women in this test favored the cut men.

Also this line intrigued me as well;

"Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners (N =3D 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their preferences. For each of the sexual activities presented, approximately half of this sub-group desired an uncircumcised penis and the other half said that penis type did not matter."

This line tells me that only 4 of the 8 women that have only been with cut guys want to only be with cut guys.

Out of all of this, I have come to several conclusions;

1. 24 is no where near enough women to get an accurate result.
2. The study plainly states that out of the 24 that have had both, 16(66%) prefer cut.
3. The study also goes on to say that out of the 8 that have only had uncut, only 4 of them want only uncut while the othe 4 said it didn't matter, even though those 4 had only had uncut.

My opinion;

Kong, I agree with you 100% that this is no where near enough women to have an accurrate test and I refer to this line of your immediate post;

"Regarding this study...Hmmmm, let's see... only 15% had had experience with both cut and uncut men. In the study, 15% said that they prefered uncircumcised men for sex. So what you are saying is that 100% of the women who had fucked uncut cock prefered uncut cock! OMFG, dude, duhhhhhhh! Hey, thanks for supporting my ideas! You're great, man! "

To be fair, I can see you using 15% as a round number even though the test clearly states 16.5% of the 145 have actually had sex with both. However, the study does break down the sub groups and it clearly says that only 4 of 8 of the women who have had sex with only uncut want to only have sex with uncut. Which is completely against what you said above, that 100% of the women who have only had uncut want to stay with uncut. And you saying that, "100% of the women who had fucked uncut cock prefered uncut cock!" is entierly misleading as well as that group who had had both, 66% prefered cut.

I think that either you are misreading this study or missing the part about the 2 sub-groups, or, you are dismissing it entirely due to the low number of test subjects that actually had both, or you are being obtuse intentionaly just to goad Swank. The numbers you present in your post that refer to this study do not reflect the numbers actually found in the study. But, in your defense, I again state that 24 women is just not a fair number to even come close to an accurate result.

I hope I have not pissed anyone of, I just wanted to state how I interpeted the study and what the numbers said to me.


kookman
 
Last edited:
To each their own. And in regards to whomever my woman is, she needs to prefer me, whatever I am...circumcized or not. All there is to it.
 
I would also like to state the following to go with what I just posted.

Until there is a large enough test to include variable factors such as age, mariatial status, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. It will be very hard to clearly understand the truth about a woman's preference. I also would say that the only organization large enough and with the proper funding to conduct that sort of large study would most likely be the medical field and I would think they would never, ever fund such a large, defining test due to the fact that it could effect how many women would change their minds about having their sons cut at birth. I do not think the current medical field would spend that much money on a large scale test that could possibly lose them money in the long run.

Sorry...I had to add that.

kook
 
While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect . Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful, for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.

Their preconcieved bias is really showing here. When was this study done? In the 60's? It's still talking about penile cancer and the horrors of having to wash an uncut cock! Oh, the humanity! :D
 
Kooky, thanks a million for explaining that for folks in such a clear and concise manner, saved me another long post.

I agree with you 100% about the sample size, nor do I think that study is a very convincing argument for much at all. I primarily posted it to show anybody can dig up some research to support their claims. There are detailed acrticles about finding human footprints inside that of dinosaurs, claiming to disprove the fossil record and evolutionary theory. This doesn't mean those studies are accurate or from reliable sources. I think the same can be said for much of the information about circumcision circulated by certain activist groups.

Kong, how many times are you going to need to call me an idiot before you feel good about yourself? You're averaging at least a personal insult directed at me per post these days. And also, I've certainly never used the words 'academy' or 'accredited' that I know of. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not sure where they'd fit into my rhetoric here. I believe I know what variety or language you are referring to, which is realted to my tendancy to not place a lot of faith in poorly sourced material on the internet circulated by independent anti-circumcision websites, but what is the deal with repeatedly saying I said things that I did not? Even in minor details you fabricate things.

Esteban, way to call it. Probably the best attitude a man could have.
 
I agree with you on one thing, swank. It's not very convincing.

Sample question: "Okay, Mrs. Jones, which penis do you prefer to have oral sex with? This gorgeous, squeaky clean and flowery smelling good Christian circumcised penis, or this hideous, smelly, wrinkly heathen uncut penis that has germs and balantitis under the foreskin?" Woman screams!

Furthermore, why would 15% of the woman who had had only cut cock answer that they prefered uncut, especially in a cultural climate in which circumcision is considered the norm?

This whole study smells as fishy as my day-old smegma!

Finally, why ask me for sources to discount them, then present your own sources only to discount them? If you don't even believe in what you are arguing, why argue? Are you that bored?
 
Kong, I wouldn't necesarily say so. The researchers say that not one of the subjects selected an uncut penis as more visually appealing, but that only a few women found it to be more 'natural looking.'

The authors make a major point of saying that a primary draw of the circumcised penis, as per their findings, is that women across the board found it to be more asthetically appealing and sexy looking. It can also be construed that there is a natural level of feminine excitement when seeing the glans exposed in terms of evolutionary sexuality, as this coincides with erection in an uncut male. Just as a man might find an open vagina provokes a more sexual response than a closed vulva. Either way, the study is clear on what women prefer in terms of appearence. Their statement about pornography is also quite true. How much porno do you see featuring men with wrinkly, elongated foreskins prominently featured? This is a bit of trite fact anyways, as most pornography is market to men in the first place.

Now that Kooky has explained the statisitical break-down in very decisive terms, would you care to apologize for suggesting that I'm a moron, since you are actually the one who was incapable of properly understanding the information?
 
It seems that you guys wont give on this. Commendable BUT, unless youre having fun I dont think its going much of anywhere. In my opinion neither of you is wrong, because "a preference" is just that "a preference". You will always find someone that prefers what you prefer and you will always find someone who prefers exactly what you are fighting to stop. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the only option.

I have my own personal opinions on circs. Not going to jump in on that though. Because they are just my thoughts without any research.

Esteban nailed it. As long as you are happy with what you have and your mate is happy with what you have then that is all that matters.
 
Kong, you have no idea what the questionare looked like, nor what the phrasing of any of the questions were. As far as I know the only terminology expressed by the authors is 'circumcised' or 'uncircumcised.'

I don't know why 15% might answer that, but I know that your study says that women conclusively do like circumcised penises, and mine says otherwise. Mine is conducted by doctors and their university name is attached to it, meaning the university likely is aware of and approves of it's publication.

Yours is conducted by people who we know nothing about who are selling a book to men who are mad about being circumcised, promising to help them overcome the effects of circumcision.

If mine is fishy, yours is rotten.
 
jakb, agreed all around. I have no problem with people getting into FR. I've explained my reasoning for presenting the other side in one of the other posts.

Kong, I didn't discount my own study, which I actually think is probably quite valid, just not conclusive. I would never suppose that one study is the be all end all of any debate. I explained why I felt it was valuable in my response to kooky. Your study, by the way, also used a realativel small sample size. It also coughed up to recruiting women from women who subscribed to anti-circumcision magazines, but that's another story . . .

Neither of our arguments are predicated on a single study. You posted one, so did I. You'r says one thing, mine says another. As always, now they're there for people to read. Both sides of the story.
 
Gee, and when you click on the link at the bottom it takes you to the Circumcision Headquarters, where you can find out such wonderful things as why anti-circ groups are rabid fanatics, and how uncut men spread aids, and then you can link from there to www.circlist.org, where you can indulge all your penile mutilation fetishes! You make me want to vomit!
 
Another difference I would like to point out is that the study you present here concerns itself almost exclusively with preferences, which is governed by social values of beauty, where the study that I presented concerns itself exclusively with the actual act of intercourse, taking into account the more physical side of coitus.

I can conclude from that that, yes, women may prefer an cut cock as far as what they may perceive as cultural acceptable desires...but when push comes to thrust...an uncut cock gets them off better.
 
Also, too, your survey group is mothers of newborns, most of whom had only had intercourse with cut men. This suggests that 1) they are younger 2) they have not had as many sexual partners and 3) they are not as experienced as the majority of women in the general population.

In my study, the requirement for respondents was that they had had sex with both intact and cut men (logically, duh). This means that, due to the relatively small number of intact men in our country, the women in my survey group would need to have been intimate with a much broader range of partners. They are older, more experienced, and probably not nearly as likely to answer the way they think society would expect of them. Believe me: you ask a 20 year old and a 40 year old woman the same question about sex and you'll get VERY different answers!
 
Extend the findings of our two studies further and you get this:

Younger women tend to think that cut cocks are more socially acceptable in our country.

Experienced women get off better with uncut cocks.

I know which one I would pick!
 
I do apologize for calling you a moron. Your survey has enlightened me! However, if read closely, it does not discount mine at all. It has a totally different focus. Yours is about norms, mine is about mechanics. This you have to admit to, if nothing else.
 
A very great way to end it jakb. I talk with my wife in great detail about my Penis Enlargement. I then explained to her about the taping I was experimenting with. I told her what I had learned from some of Kong's post about kenalazation(sp?) and that it would help with skin stretch. I then asked her that if it were possible for me to restore completely, would dhe want that. Her answer was a very defining no. I didn't ask her if she had ever had sex with an uncut guy nor did I ask her if she had even seen one for herself. I asked the one person who brings me pleasure by what she does to me and her preference was that she liked mine cut. Period. This is the same woman who has never, ever told me "no" to giving me head when she is not in the mood for sex and even then I above and beyond sex I normally get awesome oral 3-4 times a week. That was all I needed to know.

Let me also state that I did not want to pick on Kong or Swank. It just seemed to me that there was some confusion on what that study's stats were about and it actually took me a few reads to break it down. And to add further. A woman could have awesome sex with either a cut or uncut, then never want to see either one because that is what her ex-boyfriend was and she hates him now. A woman's preference could change from man to man or year by year. Come on guys, you all know how women can be sometimes.

kooky
 
Really, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Sorry to keep posting. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. Everything is clicking together for me. Even the illogical survey results with the cut-only picking uncut as their preference. These gals are young (new mothers) and probably not even experienced enough to be completely sure what they are answering, just going by what they THINK they should answer. :D Oh, swank! I think I even know why you are so pro-circ! This survey struck you because it is all about looks and preference and social acceptance. You are threatened by FR because you are self-admittedly a vain man, very concerned about his physical appearance. You are proud of your cut cock because 1) it is large and 2) it conforms to our current cultural idea of male beauty. However, if the anti-circ crowd has its way, the new norm would become uncut, and you would no longer feel like your penis as pleasing, appearance-wise. That's what gets you so up in arms about restoring and the anti-circ movement. Swank, don't you know that beauty is only skin deep, and that it's better to get off good than to look good and get off crappy? I love you man. Take it easy. I'm pretty much done.
 
Once again, whoever has used or reproduced the article to support their claims has nothing to with the reserach in question. I highly doubt the University of Iowa is involved with circumcision information groups. What it's linked to doesn't reflect upon the article's origins, so you can put away your barf bag.

My study is not soley based upon asthetic preference - let's not forget the women were all asked questions of a sexually explicit nature as well. In this area it contradicted your study as well by not duplicating the 6/7 women definately do not enjoy sex with a circumcised penis. Mine was just as much about the actual mechanics of sex, and was very inclusives in respect to other preferences (visual excitement, ect.). The authors are quite honest in saying that they believe the American preference for circumcision visually may very much come from cultural standards here in the states. This does not negate the fact that they also claim all the respondents found the uncircumcised penis to be more sexually appealing from an asthetic standpoint.

Your thoughts about age and experience discounting the study are also somewhat odd. Your assumption about the age and experience level of the women is based soley on your reasoning that they are all younger and less sexually experienced because they are having children. In our society women have children at a variety of ages (typically older than most countries around the world), and I would not say that experience level and number of partners is necessarily related to age or pregnancy. There are 15 year olds who may have had dozens of partners, and 40 year olds that may have only been with one person their entire life. You are projecting your own assumptions and biases onto the validity of the study's results - this is not logical, nor grounded in fact, and it does not have any bearing on the study's conclusions.

Likewise you suggest yours is more valid for the same reason. I think the number of men not circumcised in this country is probably closer to 25% or so of the population these days, and there are also likely regional fluctuations (you should be very pleased to know that circumcision rates have dropped to around 30% on most of the west coast according to many different soucres I browsed over). The women would not have to have had an extraordinary number of partners or sexual knowledge to necessarily have experienced an uncircumcised penis.

We do not know what pulbications were used to recruit the women (besides an anti-circumcision magazine), what they knew about the survey in advance, or what region they hailed from, nor do I remember an actual age range or partner average listed (though there may have been and I'm forgetting). So, all of that is merely your own conclusions, drawn from no actual data. Things like these are very important when actually drawing conclusions from data and reserach, and are heavily scrutinized when a study's value is determined. The decision by the researchers to use a subscription anti-circumcision magazine as recruitment platform is quite bizarre.

In the past you have pronounced, in my judgement, a certain belief that all older people are more sexually knowledgable and have necessarily had more partners than anybody younger. This, of course, is hardly a consistent statement with reality.

In regards to the apology, I didn't request for you to concede that my article was superior. I simply meant that you called me an outright moron for not being able to correctly interpret the numbers, but Kooky quite clearly explained that it was you that was unable to understand the data. In essence, you were calling me stupid, but you were the one who was unable to actually comprehend the statement of results. Just to be clear, you were calling me an idiot for a mistake that you were making.
 
Good point about women and the studies Kooky. I would say that in general surveys like the two studies in question, especially with small sample sizes, don't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

Kong, I'm glad that you love me, so please read what I've been posting. I do not dislike FR and I am not threatened by it! I just don't think many of the claims, often stated as fact here are not true, and I challenge their validity. I am also not pro-circumcision. The only real benfit that I see to it, is that in my experience and through certain studies like the one in this thread, plus my own experiences, American women tend to have a stigma against uncut penises. This doesn't mean the stigma is justified in anyway, it's the advantage that I see. That being said, I, for the record, 100% agree that circumcision is unecessary.

I have explained this over and over again each time we have discussed these issues. Each time you act as if I did not say as much and accuse me of being threatened by FR and promoting circumcision as somehow superior to not being cut. I do no such thing. Clearly defining this hasn't stopped you in the past, however, so I don't ecpect it to stop you this time either, so in that sense I guess I'd just like to make that clear for other people.

I am also firm in my belief that it is not as harmful as many claim, and that a vast mythology that I think is rarely based on fact so much as emotion and assumption has sprung up around it on the internet. I'm not threatened by it personally, though you seem intent on insisting this is the case. I just think for reasons that I have listed elsewhere that it is important that the other side of the case be presented.

I'm not threatened by cultural change or close-minded. I'm a strong social liberal and I am based out of San Francisco (world recognized as an open-minded kinda place) when not traveling. You don't know anything about what my beliefs are outside of circumcision, so please don't make broad generalizations about what kind of person I am. I am a man concerned with my appearence, but if I had acutally ever encoutnered some information that was convinced me that I stood to gain anything from FR in my own life, I wouldn't have a problem with pursuing.

By the way, and I meant to post this some other time but forgot, I have a fully intact frenulum (spelling?), which you will see when I post some pictures shortly. In a post a ways back I believe you changed your normal claim from the foreskin being the 'male clitoris' to the frenulum. Well, I've got one, and it's okay, but somehow I doubt the sensitivity there plays the same role in my sexual pleasure that a woman's clitoris does. As I've stated before, there are more nerves packed into a clit than the entire head of a man's penis. Not the same.
 
Last edited:
If you compare the way the surveys questions were worded, you will indeed see a undeniable difference. In your survey, they asked the women what their "ideal" penis would be. In my survey, they asked about frequency of orgasm. Just one example. You have to admit that there is a difference between saying "which one is more acceptable" and "which one got you off best".

Assumption or not, I don't think many people beside you would argue my point that a woman who has had ten or more partners is more likely to be older and more experienced than one who has not even come across one uncut man. I mean, you do say that the uncut rate is like 30% now. That's 3 out of ten. Not bad odds. Also, although women can have children at an older age, I think it's pretty typical that younger women are more likely to be the subject of your survey.

As far as apologies go...well, considering the MOUNTAINS of shit you have shoveled on me today, trying to pressure me into a slip, I guess I was confused by the conflicting reports of your survey, saying women who had only been with cut prefered uncut and vice versa... you can do your "Superior Dance" now... I only hope no one uses my lapse as an excuse to dismiss FR, when they might have greatly benefited from it. It really can help men who have been damaged by botched or overly exuberant circumcisions! It kills me to think that I might have failed someone because I didn't read one fucking line in your opposing survey!
 
"By the way, and I meant to post this some other time but forgot, I have a fully intact frenulum..."

oh my god... you know how I feel...I fucking hate you, you fucker, and I don't care if I get banned for saying it... I fucking hate you, you smug little over-educated prick...what i wouldn't give to have what you have...to at least have something left...it was my body, not yours or anyone elses, to decide whether it should be left or cut off...
 
I think the most important part of all of this is what a person is comfortable with. And if you are married, as Kong and I are, it is even more important that a person shares these things with their spouse or significant other. The biggest applause I could ever in a million years give to Kong is that I absolutely love the way he is so open with his wife about his Penis Enlargement, his FR and their sex life in general. If anyone one here wants to use Kong as an example for anything, I would advise to start there. And as an added bonus, she seems just as open about it all as well. What we get to see more than anything else by way of Kong and Mrs. Kong is awesome honestly and communication in a marriage. I like to think I have the same thing. I am 35 and I have been married almost 4 years(this time) and almost 8 the first time. So I have 12 years of marriage under my belt. Believe me, I know what makes a good one work out (and it can be work btw) and I also know what makes a horrible one the worst nightmare you have ever had.

I find both Kong and Swank make interesting points. While on one hand I am now pretty much convinced that there is no absolute medical reason for every boy born to be cut and I also agree that there can be a certain amount of keranalization(sp) that causes a loss of sensitivity. But on the other hand I don't think every cut man's sexual problem or dysfunction can be directly blamed on his foreskin being gone. I think a man should look into every possible solution for what ever sex problems he may encouter.

I think it is great that Kong is so willing to help so many people with something he completely believes in. But I also think at times his passion could become to imply that ALL sex problems in cut men are a direct result of their circ. This could mislead a lot of the very young guys who cruise these boards. You got an 18 year old who can't get it up anymore and now he has read a few of Kong's post and now he is convinced his mother butchered him at birth and he will suffer from ED for the rest of his life. But, had this same young kid talked to a professional, he would have known that maybe it was from an RX he was taking or something in his diet or maybe he had real vein issues. None of which had anything to do with him being cut.

What I am saying is that while I can appreciate Kong's passion and knowledge of the subject of FR, I can also understand Swank's view of wanting to show the other side of the coin. And that not all sexual dysfunction in men is directly a result of a circ.

So please, let's continue the civil, respectful debate of the topic.

the one and only kookmeister
 
Um, I would not have mentioned the frenulum bit if I thought it was going to piss you off like that, honestly, wasn't trying to rub anytihing in.

If it's any consolation, I never thought it was particularly special and doesn't factor heavily into sexual pleasure for me, the whole head is genreally at the same level of sensitivity, which is very good. In general though, it's about as sensitive as the rest of the head.

As far as the apology business, I was never goading you into a slip. I've made it clear that I find your frequent insults to be in poor taste, and thought maybe an apology was in order since you described me as a moron for not understanding the study. It had little or nothing to do with our contensions regarding circumcision (which is the debate here, much more so than FR).

In regard to the survey wording, I think the question of what they prefer for sex pretty much covers anything in that realm, orgasms included. The authors of my study make note of asking sexually graphic questions in regard to preference. MY study does not strictly cover asthetics as you keep claiming - it covers sex as well.

As to the age question, to clarify, you are just assuming. I believe the median age for motherhood is actually around 30 years old, feel free to look it up. The overwhelming trend in the states is also motherhood at older and older ages. Your whole deal with this is built on assumption that the women in my survey were younger and less experienced because they were having kids, so they don't really know anything about sex. This is a very thin argument and entirely based on what you assume about the sample based on nothing except what is running through your head (which is, in my estimation, a desire to find anyway possible to disprove the findings since, as always in my opinion, it appears to be a good deal more legit than the one that you found).

I think the fixation on the studies is a bit useless anyways, wouldn't you agree? Neither proves much of anything, and certainly the superior study would not deliniate the 'winner' of our conversation. If you're still adament about proving the superior validity of yours, than I'm happy to keep discussing it, though I must admit the organization and data presentation in your is a bit headache inducing. Why the hell did they sum up their findings in such a cryptic fashion? I've worked with similar things plenty and that one is a royal pain in the ass.
 
Kooky, thanks again for the awsome post and well said.

That pretty much sums up my whole deal here, really couldn't have said it better.

Three cheers for civil debate without name calling!
 
whatever, dude... you can spout off all you want about numbers this and numbers that...but it doesn't negate the fact that some men have been damaged by circumcision and that these men need to know that fr can help them... every sentence you write effects what these men think about circumcision...as i said, it is information that could help...unfortunately, it is not readily available because of cultural attitudes toward the subject...so in many cases, these men will have probelms all their life, or never know that they could have had a more satisfying sex life, at the least...you regurgitate your opinions over and over with no personal experience to back you up...but i am here to say that, as a man who had problems with his circumcision, i am profoundly grateful that FR has helped me...your main concern seems to be whether or not you "get me" somehow...i hope the satisfaction is worth it...
 
Ugh . . .

I am starting to feel frustration here. When discussing anatomy and sexuality, numbers and and valid data to support certain claims are important.

My intention, as stated over and over and over and over again is to show an opposing viewpoint to the ones most commonly expressed on the matter, and one which I find more ground, both in fact and experience.

If you were to ask me personally, I would say I have "gotten" you on multiple occassions, but I care nothing for tit-for-tat one-upsmanship on internet forums. My goal is just to clearly express my views and opinions on the matter, which frequently contradict your own, or are simply a reaction to a post of your with which I did not agree.

I'll say this - of course circumcision can and has certainly been damaging to SOME men. I believe this to be a very low number, but that is for others to decide, hopefully by going on more information than what you choose to present. I also don't deny that FR could be a solution for some men. Again, it is my opinion that the benefits of FR are greatly exagerated here and elsewhere, and there are certain negative repurcussions to this.

Once again, you have falsey summarized my views, in your own words. Also once again, I am rather tired of being misrepresented, and in the context of one of your classic "poor me/I'm helping people" posts that usually show up around this point in the thread to boot. I believe I may be helping by showing men another side of the information on this site, which contains posting of a very one-sided nature.
 
How can we get off this merry-go-round, swank?

It is my personal belief that circumcision is always damaging. How can it not be when so much is removed? By it's very definition, it is damaging. It is the removal of human flesh from a vital part of the body.

However, how much of an effect does it have on a man's quality of life...or sex life, rather.

I think that in the cases where the man is loosely cut and has retained his frenelum, there is little need to restore, aside from cosmetic or philosophical reasons and slightly enhanced sensitivity. I think his sexual health and sensitivity are probably not far from that of an intact man, except for the obvious loss of the gliding mechanism and the stimulation of the ridged band. I have stated this several times in the past. With FR, he can even reclaim the gliding mechanism and be close to 90% functionally intact.

In other cases, there is more profound damage. These are cases where FR might be a benefit, but not necessarily a life-altering one. Increased stimulation. Improved appearance and circulation maybe. Perhaps a size boost. Every man is different.

In cases like mine, where there was profound damage and loss of tissue (like the frenelum), FR is definitely called for. Men who were particularly denuded of tissue and then reacted poorly later in life to abrasion (keratinization) can find FR gives them a great, life-altering new lease on their sexuality.

I find that we basically agree on most salient points (FR is not necessary for everyone/FR can help those most damaged/studies are inconclusive so why bother?) so what's the point?

Oh, yeah. You have to be "right"!
 
Ah, such a nice post until the dig at the end. But I must admit, you're getting better. One day I do believe you'll be able to get through a whole post without taking a potshot at me.

There is much I disagree with in your claims, but in that most recent post in particular:

I don't think FR necessarily improves sex, nor do I totally buy into these arguments about the 'gliding motion' and such. Another point - all the FR in the world won't grow another frenulum - you're just elongating skin from the shaft over the head. This won't restore that rigid band thing either. You can't creat new nerves just by stretching your skin, in fact growing nerve tissue is a rather difficult thing.

I believe that of the number of men who suffer actual mechanical difficulty with sex, health problems related to their penis, and mental problems related to sex (or just in general as you have suggested before), a rather low number of them can be attriubted to circumcision. Hence promoting FR as a sort of miracle cure, as I strongly feel it has been branded by you in the past, is handing out snakeoil. Also like classic snakeoil selling, the need for it is created when there is none. Men are made to believe they have problems or are inferior due to circumcision, and so they seek out a treatment, in this case FR.

I do believe you honestly believe in the effects, and that's fine, well and good. As I have always made every effort to make clear, I take issue with your proclamations of FR's effects and circumcision's detriments as both being quite exagerated and offered without any counterbalance of information.

As I also said in the other thread, I believe that you enjoy your self-defined role of expertise on the matter and sincerily enjoy dispensing advice to other men on sexuality in general. Your constant references to helping men and fighting the good fight strongly suggest you derive some self-confidence from feeling that your knowledge and beliefs aid others in the realm of sex and life, and this is admirable. But, I also believe that most of your outrage towards any questioning of your criteria for information or claims about FR and circumcision are probably rooted in your anger at having your guru position challenged. I think in the art of war lao tsu instructs that a strong leader shows neither fear nor anger when challenged, he simply deals with it. Something to think about.

That being said, I have no desire to screw with your ability to counsel men on the forum, they're free to seek advice from whomever they want, and I would say I agree with 99% of your posts that are non-circumcision or FR related. I do take issue with your posts on these topics for reasons I have already discussed at length, and so I post in response. I'm not sure what is so unclear about this, nor do I feel that I am on a 'merry-go-round.' I think the presentation of opposing viewpoints is healthy and productive. Don't you agree that men ought to have the widest variety of sources and ideas to choose from?
 
Last edited:
I believe that most everyone here knows my opinions and understand my viewpoint, and while they do not necessarily agree, they do not keep me up all night, forcing me to defend myself and my beliefs out of some weird sense of one-upmanship. I have sworn to answer your every argument because I believe that FR is beneficial and that ending circumcision is a noble cause that needs to be promoted. I do not think my motives will be called into question.
 
Man alive, go to bed buddy. It's just an internet forum! It will be here in the morning. It's my prerogative to post if I want to, so don't go running around accusing me of sleep depriving you tomorrow. As adults, we're responsible for own actions. And if I'm the one so intent on having a last word, why do you feel compelled to stay up? I plan on posting more in the future on the matter, so these threads aren't a last word by any means. If you're tired go to bed. Don't complain.
 
I hope that you will tire of this masochistic game. This has become an overlong episode of your high-handed opinions versus my crusade. I would like to bring this to an end, but I cannot let one man down. That is how strongly I believe in this. I won't break. Have your fun.
 
Uh, crusade . . . holy shit man. Okay crusader, I don't want there to be a big uproar over me taking advantage of your crusading principles and sleep depriving poor Kong, so this will be the last post tonight.

I intend to post more in the future and am interested in publicizing these threads a bit so that more men can offer input. Kooky seemed to get what I am talking about, but you miss the point over and over again. Hopefully a break in posting will put a stop to the personal stuff, which really is useless and uncalled for here.

P.S. - Go nuts with the posting if you like, I could care less. The threads ain't goin' anywhere brother . . . : )
 
Actually, I get both of your points. I have read enough and SEEN the pics Kong has posted and I am totally disgusted by some of the hack jobs that were done to some of those babies. Having a child of my own, there is no way I could imagine someone doing something like that to my child. But I do not think that any sexual problems I have had are directly linked to my circ. I have had ED problems, I have also had insecurity problems with my size. I fixed the first by having a very open discussion with my wife and my doctor. I fixed the later by being a paid subscriber here and actually taking DLD (and lots of others') time and result proven advice. In fact, I feel more confident and sexy about my "new" cock than I ever have before and I'm 35 for god's sake! I was so proud of it last I measure that I even took pics of it and sent them to my wife in Iraq!

I think the biggest compliment I can give to Kong concerning circ. in generel is the fact that he has opened a lot of peoples' eyes about what really goes on. When my first wife and I were expecting a child, we had decided that if it was a boy that he would be cut because I am. That was it. If my current wife and I ever decide to have kids, I will show her all I have learned here from Kong to try and change her mind if she wants the baby to be cut.

I have also learned from Swank that just because a person is cut it doesn't automatically mean that all of that person's sexual problems will be helped by FR. While I agree that there are certainly men who would benefeit from it. There are probably just as many men who will never have any type of sexual dysfunction their entire life.

BTW guys, with my wife being gone and me not having my kid this weekend, their is nothing more than I love to do than sit up all night having very interesting and thought-provoking discussions regardless of the topic. One of the big things I miss about my wife. Anyone want to debate why I am agnostic next or why I have voted republican my whole life but voted for Kerry this time???

the kook
 
There were some politics discussions sloshing around in deep thoughts a while ago, they died down pretty fast though . . . I'm 100% with you on agnosticism. If you're bored enough, I've bickered with people about religion, politics, and FR at length on the forum. Some of them are rather funny. Personally I'd like to hear your views on some of the past debates Kong and I have had about circumcision and FR. I actually started out of the opinion that FR had medical benefits and that uncut men were more apt to suffer health problems from it. Researching around as a result of these discussions has changed my mind on that matter to be sure.
 
Funny you should mention that Swank. Between post I have been reading a lot of the past discussions. I sum up my opinion of those in the above post. And to add to that, and this is just my opinion and please don't take this wrong Kong, because I know you will read this, but as I said earlier I think Kong need to take it down a notch or 3 and not let his passion get the better of him. There is nothing wrong with being committed to something, it is entirely another thing when you resort to name calling. We are all grown men here and because someone has an opposing view is no reason to call them names. I also think that you Swank, have egged him on by nitpicking some of his post. Now, there is nothing wrong with that and some of the points you brought up during this were really valid.

I think the biggest thing we all need to think about is what impression are we leaving the new folks who cruise by here every so often?

kooky

Are you still here Swank? If so then go to the chat room in the upper left hand corner.
 
Last edited:
Once again, a very solid analysis. You are correct, I played the game and did make inflamatory comments at times, there's no doubt about it.

People, and especially younger and less informed people, who check out this sight are clearly one of my main interests in all this.

I'm thinking that perhaps a poll, or a more publicly visable thread on the matter is a good tie up for all this. With more people looking on, the temptation to devolve into schoolyard bickering for King and myself will be restricted by others, and a larger amount of opinions can be expressed.

You seem to understand this without trouble, but it is basically just my intention to have the full spectrum of information available to people interested in this. Before the debate threads in this forum, I think somebody just perusing would be very inclined to believe some things that aren't grounded in reality, and perhaps they still are if I haven't made any solid points (I felt past threads were far more topical and focused than this mess).

Similarly, I think if they were to ask about them, they wouldn't be directed towards impartial information or told it's possible FR won't help, or that circumcision isn't necessarily causing their troubles. And of course, as I am most chagrined by, I even think they might falsely start to believe that circumcision is causing their troubles, and hence FR is their only option.

It's not a world altering standpoint, nor do I consider it my duty to protect anybody from poor information, it's just a pet peeve of mine to see things like that. In the past I felt like the debate cleared a lot up, but after a short while things are always back to normal, so I guess there is no real solution unless I want to dedicate myself to this full time, which ain't gonna happen!

I have to say though, I am a little disappointed at how low the debate devolved, of which I certainly was a prime contributor. I felt there was a personal element from the beginning when I foolishly used my own experiences with a circumcised unit as a point of proof for my views and was immediately called into question. At that point I had no intention of really getting into things this elaborately. Irregardless, the personal elements and character bickering don't belong here. Only the facts should matter, but when, if ever, to consider personal accounts as good evidence is an interesting question. The logical conclusion is that people ought to see them for what they are - what one particular man's experience is. Unfortunately I don't think it always happens like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top