Comment Re:Because it's not analogous. (Score 3, Informative) 210
honey, let's face it -- neither of us has a clue what a healthy, whole, functioning body is because we have both been altered. i had no idea for 50 years that i was not a normal, natural woman. now i wonder what it would have been like, to have had a natural body. i suspect i might have bonded with a man and have had a family and children.
if you ever had a lover who was circumcised, you might notice a big difference between her and other women. men used to tell me, "you're DIFFERENT from other women." i had no idea what they were talking about until i found out about my circumcision.
but i sure could tell the difference between men who had been cut and men who had intact bodies. the cut style didn't work for me at all; the intact did. i didn't understand then what the difference was ... now i do. there is a huge functional difference between the denuded glans and the natural penis with foreskin... a significant difference. on the doctorsopposingcircumcision.org website is a very eloquent explanation in video form under 'continuing education'.
so your girlfriends might say they prefer the cut style, but have they tried the uncut style? I think foreskin is the reason why europeans have a reputation for being great lovers. american and european porn, i understand, illustrates the difference. the men move very differently.
the cut penis only has sensors for pressure, heat and friction. glans sensitivity has been measured to be equivalent to the heel of the foot. the intact foreskin, on the other hand, contains tens of thousands of nerve endings that are similar to the nerve endings in the tips of the fingers and the lips. the cut man needs to push down to stimulate the foreskin remnant, the frenulum... the woman needs him to push up toward the clitoris. he needs to move hard and fast and that rubs her raw. i believe circumcision is the cause of an unnecessary 'war between the sexes'. it's tragic.
the prepuce/foreskin is similar to the eyelid, and you know how smart an eyelid is. it KNOWS when something is threatening it. and it QUICKLY moves to protect the eye. it keeps the eyeball moist and clean. an eyeball without its eyelid would soon dry out and lose its ability to see well.
the foreskin is very smart, like the eyelid. it senses where the man is in the act of intercourse, where the woman is, and it adjusts movements accordingly, so that sex works well for both lovers.
the foreskin is self-lubricating, like the eyelid. the inner foreskin has a mucosal surface. natural sex -- his mucosal tissue touching her mucosal tissue -- is much like french kissing. extremely sensuous -- electric.
you might like the equipment you have now. but if you ever start having trouble with it -- and a lot of men do start having trouble -- at different ages -- some very young -- then you might want to change your mind about foreskin restoration. it helps men who have lost their ability to feel or have erections or orgasms, to have the glans covered and to regenerate some of the nerve endings they have lost. it feels better for the woman too.
the most sensitive part of most men's penises is the frenulum remnant on the bottom of the glans... you were supposed to have fifteen square inches of skin with feelings that exquisite. men who have been intact, then cut as adults, then restore, say that they get most of it back. and many who were disabled in that way, regain their sexual health and happiness.
as for all the reasons you have heard to justify circumcision? do more research, please. i can find no legitimate medical reason for circumcising infants... and neither can any national medical organization in the world. each medical claim/excuse has been disproved -- one right after the other. 80% of the men in the world are intact and healthy. the US is 37th in the world in health, and it leads the industrialized nations in both circumcision AND HIV.
if you read leonard glick's chapter in 'understanding circumcision' (a NOCIRC.org book), you will understand why circumcision has endured and why the foreskin has such a bad rap. it's all based on religio-politico competition hundreds and hundreds of years ago. control. repression. oppression. suppression. power and money.
is it merely a coincidence that jews, english-speaking christians and muslims (the only three groups that circumcise their young) are at war in the middle east? maybe. maybe not.
could circumcision make people irritable and cranky, angry and warlike? they used to circumcise men just before sending them into battle -- we do it at birth. have we created a population of angry, sexually less-than fulfilled, frustrated men? have we undermined the family system by cutting off the bonding material?
i sincerely wonder about these things because i was a very angry woman before i healed my own circumcision trauma. and i have met some other very angry women who were also circumcised. makes me think the sexual violence of circumcision leads to some sort of inner unrest that needs a lot of healing. PTSD, for sure.
oh, and i know you are different and better and grateful for having been genitally cut as a baby. good for you. and best wishes for a long and healthy life.
if you ever had a lover who was circumcised, you might notice a big difference between her and other women. men used to tell me, "you're DIFFERENT from other women." i had no idea what they were talking about until i found out about my circumcision.
but i sure could tell the difference between men who had been cut and men who had intact bodies. the cut style didn't work for me at all; the intact did. i didn't understand then what the difference was
so your girlfriends might say they prefer the cut style, but have they tried the uncut style? I think foreskin is the reason why europeans have a reputation for being great lovers. american and european porn, i understand, illustrates the difference. the men move very differently.
the cut penis only has sensors for pressure, heat and friction. glans sensitivity has been measured to be equivalent to the heel of the foot. the intact foreskin, on the other hand, contains tens of thousands of nerve endings that are similar to the nerve endings in the tips of the fingers and the lips. the cut man needs to push down to stimulate the foreskin remnant, the frenulum... the woman needs him to push up toward the clitoris. he needs to move hard and fast and that rubs her raw. i believe circumcision is the cause of an unnecessary 'war between the sexes'. it's tragic.
the prepuce/foreskin is similar to the eyelid, and you know how smart an eyelid is. it KNOWS when something is threatening it. and it QUICKLY moves to protect the eye. it keeps the eyeball moist and clean. an eyeball without its eyelid would soon dry out and lose its ability to see well.
the foreskin is very smart, like the eyelid. it senses where the man is in the act of intercourse, where the woman is, and it adjusts movements accordingly, so that sex works well for both lovers.
the foreskin is self-lubricating, like the eyelid. the inner foreskin has a mucosal surface. natural sex -- his mucosal tissue touching her mucosal tissue -- is much like french kissing. extremely sensuous -- electric.
you might like the equipment you have now. but if you ever start having trouble with it -- and a lot of men do start having trouble -- at different ages -- some very young -- then you might want to change your mind about foreskin restoration. it helps men who have lost their ability to feel or have erections or orgasms, to have the glans covered and to regenerate some of the nerve endings they have lost. it feels better for the woman too.
the most sensitive part of most men's penises is the frenulum remnant on the bottom of the glans... you were supposed to have fifteen square inches of skin with feelings that exquisite. men who have been intact, then cut as adults, then restore, say that they get most of it back. and many who were disabled in that way, regain their sexual health and happiness.
as for all the reasons you have heard to justify circumcision? do more research, please. i can find no legitimate medical reason for circumcising infants... and neither can any national medical organization in the world. each medical claim/excuse has been disproved -- one right after the other. 80% of the men in the world are intact and healthy. the US is 37th in the world in health, and it leads the industrialized nations in both circumcision AND HIV.
if you read leonard glick's chapter in 'understanding circumcision' (a NOCIRC.org book), you will understand why circumcision has endured and why the foreskin has such a bad rap. it's all based on religio-politico competition hundreds and hundreds of years ago. control. repression. oppression. suppression. power and money.
is it merely a coincidence that jews, english-speaking christians and muslims (the only three groups that circumcise their young) are at war in the middle east? maybe. maybe not.
could circumcision make people irritable and cranky, angry and warlike? they used to circumcise men just before sending them into battle -- we do it at birth. have we created a population of angry, sexually less-than fulfilled, frustrated men? have we undermined the family system by cutting off the bonding material?
i sincerely wonder about these things because i was a very angry woman before i healed my own circumcision trauma. and i have met some other very angry women who were also circumcised. makes me think the sexual violence of circumcision leads to some sort of inner unrest that needs a lot of healing. PTSD, for sure.
oh, and i know you are different and better and grateful for having been genitally cut as a baby. good for you. and best wishes for a long and healthy life.
