musings of the domesticated godess

Saturday, August 14, 2010

A readers response to the circumcistion post .

This is a response to the circumcision thread from a passionate intactivist male .

"But his dad is cut we want them to look the same"

ME. Having an elephant trunk hanging between your legs can cause serious insecurity, even emotional damage. But not to the owner of the trouser snake with eyelid, but to his Dad. Parents cut their sons because Dad does not want to be reminded of what Nature Intended every time he is a proper modern Dad and changes his son's diaper, or gives his son his daily bath. Mom does not want to be reminded, while she cares for her son, of something that Nature put at centre stage of vaginal intercourse but she does not get to enjoy. Routine circ then follows from the old adage that "out of sight, out of mind." Millions of American parents fear that foreskin would inject inappropriate sexual thoughts into the parent-child relationship.

If Dad and son must look alike, let Dad restore his foreskin. The job will be complete by the time Dad and Son are old enough to use a locker room together.

"Intact is unhealthy"

ME. Yea, if you let weeks go by without skinning it back in the shower, if you have contempt for condoms, and frequent women so trashy they are willing to risk all for a one night stand without a condom. Foreskins are not unhealthy; irresponsible sex is. Last century, a quarter million American gay men died of AIDS. Ang guess what? The vast majority were circumcised.

"but i just think they look nicer "

ME. Nicer in Mom's eyes is irrelevant. And who knows what his future wife will prefer?

When, over the years, I have told fellow men that I defend the foreskin, several have replied as follows:

"Have it your way, but uncircumcised guys can forget about ever getting a blowjob"

Lady Luxe, you did not write that, but I want to inject that into this frank discussion. I have taken the liberty of being very blunt here, because your post was very blunt.

Many American parents silently believe an American boy's first sex act will be a blow job at 11PM on a Friday or Saturday night, in a car parked on a lover's lane, after a dance or game. This will take place 18 hours since his last shower. If he's uncut, his johnson will be slimmy and stinky, and she will balk at doing the deed. Worse yet, she might dump him for having a Weird or Dirty Dick. Worst of all, she might reluctantly agree to vaginal intercourse and risk pregancy or passing on an STD, because she simply cannot face sucking an uncircumcised dick.

This controversy is a polarising one, because I submit that the foreskin is the lewdest part of the male body. It stands at centre stage of vaginal intercourse and foreplay. If we endeavour to preserve it, we are conceding its sexual advantages. In turn, that means admitting that tens of millions of American men and their spouses are at a sexual disadvantage. That is simply not a pretty picture.

The 20th century American Foreskin Holocaust has damaged the sexual side of quite a few American marriages. A host of problems can be laid at the doorstep of routine circ: PE, ED, jackrabbit sex, boring foreplay, chronic soreness, inadequate lubrication, scarring of the penis, not enough skin to allow for comfortable erection, a slow death of penis sensation in middle age. Most of all is the removal of the foreskin glide action during intercourse. Not all women notice this action, and some that do notice it don't especially value it. But some women deem their discovery of intercourse with an intact penis a major turning point in their lifetime journey of sexual self-discovery. There are even American women who say they climax seldom or never with cut men, and always with intact men.

This summer, Cosmo published an article saying that intact makes for better sex. In light of what I have written above, I suspect that's true, but never mind: what counts is whether the typical young American woman will believe it true, which I think is about to happen.

Ladies, please be very careful about putting the info I have set out here into practice, because the full sexual glory of the intact penis requires dispensing with a condom, which I really cannot recommend outside of marriage.


  1. Well written, thorough and I agree completely!

  2. Well-written, excellent points. Thank you!

  3. He left out the part where at 11pm, in a dark car, when fully erect the average teen-aged girl can't tell the difference between circ'd and intact because the foreskin is drawn back and the glans is exposed.

    Of course if the circ'd man has a hairy shaft from lack of skin that's going to be noticeable.

    However intact, circumcised, or hairy shaft, or even gunky with smegma -shouldn't make a difference at all because your son would be smart enough to use a condom for oral sex to minimize the risks of herpes, gonorrhea (which can live in the human throat), and the big bad one -HIV. And probably all the other STIs as well.