[ ARC forum 2 ]

In re situations where gal won't marry uncirced

Written by Anon at 23 Apr 2001 03:34:45:

I ran accross exchanges on the subject of gals that won't marry an uncirced guy on another site. It amazed me as to how much pressure and flaming some respondents repondents exhibited and th large number of posts. Gals of that opinion have 2 main reasons for their view: that it is not as clean, or that it looks different than they are used to. Anti-circers were absolutely firm in their opposition to a solution by circumcision.

In spite of the fact that circumcision does not do the harm portrayed by these people, including reducing sensitivity (other than making the glans fit to be touched instead of like your eyeball), the major advice here was to get another girl friend. The possibility of such rejection by gals is of some concern to me as I have 3 uncirced grandsons, in addittion to 4 circed and have wondered if in the midwewt US there could be some issue with this.

It is disgusting that neither lay persons nor MDs currently are likely to come up with the suggestion that in many instances the foreskin can be trained to remain retracted merely by a concerted effort to return it to a retracted position each time it slips forward, and/or helping the training with taping or o rings placed behind the glans to hold the forskin there.

The Japanese expect the foreskin to be positioned behind the glans after puberty,it is considered "adult". Some tribes of American Indians also accepted the idea. Circumcision at age of puberty is a quicker, more positive way of achieving this. This is also at the root of earlier circumcision which "spares" the male of potential trauma of the action, which is nowhere near as bad as one could be psyched up to believe.

At any rate it ie time for info on going skinned back was promoted by MDs, media, and more of guys ourselves. It is paricularly appropriate when the proposed significant other insists on a clean penis.

It is medically proven that there is better disease rejection by the continually uncovered glans, even to the extent that circumcision is considered capable of reducing the spread of aids in Africa (proving they don't abandon the condom altogether.

Obviously there is the personal prference of the guy to consider. The benefit of attempting to skin back for the gals acceptance can be reversible.

If you can't expose the glans due to phimosis, that is another question, when dealt with conservativelt tends to re occur.

Sensitivity does't tale near the hit rabid intacters claim. There are many sensitive areas in the penis. The strongest, most important ones are not bothered by exposure, otherwise circumcision which started in widely separated areas of the world would have died out by non-reproduction of those involved or by refusal to circumcise that would surely have far more success than current anti circers long ago.


Answers: