[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: In re situations where gal won't marry uncirced

Written by Paul B. at 23 Apr 2001 14:18:47:

As an answer to: In re situations where gal won't marry uncirced written by Anon at 23 Apr 2001 03:34:45:

> ... subject of gals that won't marry an uncirced guy on another site.
> It amazed me ... the large number of posts.

Much more widely read forum. More active.

> Anti-circers were absolutely firm in their opposition to a solution by
> circumcision.

Perhaps because it doesn't solve the problem?

> making the glans fit to be touched instead of like your eyeball

So perhaps you should propose that the eyeball also should be accustomed
to being touched, because it's "better for it"?

> the major advice here was to get another girl friend.

Wise advice indeed. It should be crystal clear, that any "gal" who has such
an attitude toward a foreskin is going to have major criticisms about all
manner of perceived faults in her partner sooner or later, and to marry her
would be a recipe for absolute disaster. Far better to take this as a
welcome warning in advance and let her pass on to some other hapless,
circumcised chap. ;-)

> The possibility of such rejection by gals is of some concern to me
> as I have 3 uncirced grandsons, in addition to 4 circed and have
> wondered if in the Midwest US there could be some issue with this.

The "midwest" is associated with poor educational levels, I gather?

Well, there could indeed be. But surely you wish them to find pleasant,
supportive wives rather than critical, shrewish ones? Surely it is far
better they suffer, if they so happen, a rejection at an early stage,
than to be consigned to a married life, whether long or terminated
prematurely by divorce, of abject misery?

> The Japanese expect the foreskin to be positioned behind the glans
> after puberty, it is considered "adult".

This appears to be one of those "urban myths". Based on the stereotype
of the inscrutable oriental and arcane mystic rites.

> At any rate it is time for info on going skinned back was promoted by
> MDs, media, and more of guys ourselves.

I must say, I find it an interesting and reasonably harmless fixation.

> It is particularly appropriate when the proposed significant other
> insists on a clean penis.

As against washing? Wouldn't washing be better? Somehow I think that
it won't fool anyone, even such a "gal". Even if pacified, she'll just move
on to the next dislike on the list.

> It is medically proven that

Not actually. The word is "theorised".

> 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

An interesting theory, based on some numbers and speculation thereof.

> (proving they don't abandon the condom altogether.

It's an interesting possibility that the numbers are due to lower condom
use in uncircumcised men. Unfortunately, AIDS is basically as common in
circumcised males as in the uncircumcised, and it is particularly telling
that it is spreading at least as fast in America (amongst "first world"
nations) despite the high circumcision rate.

Anyway, the theories regarding entry of HIV through the inner foreskin
would if correct, suggest that permanent retraction would be of no benefit.

> Sensitivity doesn't tale near the hit rabid intacters claim.

Run that by me again?

> 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

And as I pointed out in the other forum, this argument applied to FGM
implies it is equally harmless, begging the question of why most "Western"
countries find it so repulsive?


Answers: