[ ARC forum 2 ]

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

Written by RJK at 23 Apr 2001 18:45:30:

As an answer to: Re: In re situations where gal won't marry uncirced written by Paul B. at 23 Apr 2001 14:18:47:

>> ... 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?
The US Midwest is by no means associated with poor educational levels; it is home to many of the highest-rated universities in the US. Whether the cultural entrenchment of circumcision is related to levels of education has been debated.
> 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.
AIDS is not necessarily as common in circumcised as in uncircumcised males. If you question this assertion, just look at a map of Africa that shows the percentage of AIDS in the populations of North African (predominantly Muslim)countries versus the rest of the continent. In every country with a highj proportion of male circumcision, the incidence of AIDS is lower than in African countries where most men are uncircumcised. This is fact, not contention, and is well-known, having been the subject of a widely circulated BBC report, among other communications. Included in the report was the fact that some people who have never circumcised are now encouraging their young men to accept it not because they have suddenly become enamored of circumcision, but because they believe it will help their chances of surviving the current epidemic.
AIDS is definitely NOT spreading as fast in America as in many South African countries, and its spread in North America is attributed more to such lifestyles as drug use and homosexual anal sex than to the presence/absence or circumcision.
> 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: