Another Study: Women Prefer Circumcision

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.

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?