Monday, January 18, 2010

January sales and a thesis to prove

Back from holiday and back to work. I have a list now of the details that I'll collect. Mostly because it's fascinating, a bit because it is nice to have a record and know if I don't write it down it could all fade into a haze, and also because I have a theory...

Previous experience has led me to believe that circumcised men complain more about wearing condoms (presumably because they have lost a useful section of skin with about 10,000 delightful nerve endings and because their sensitive internal organ has been forced to become an exposed external organ) and circumcised men are worse at sex (again I assume it is due to the loss of feeling that they need to bang away like pumpjack). Male circumcision never bothered me before but now as I'm seeing the direct effect it has on men the more I am outraged by it.

Obviously whether a man is 'good' as sex or not is personal opinion, so any data I collect on that is utterly fallible. However it has astounded me how many men protest using a condom when with a prostitute. I mean really, what are they thinking!? And those requests can categorically be monitored as they are declined.

I also indulged in the January sales buying 4 cocktail dresses for work. Next month I'll start saving.


  1. What you have noticed (the difference between intact vs. cut men) is surely true world-wide. There are ample research studies on the detriments of male circumcision to WOMEN'S sexual health... Check some of them out here if you are interested:

  2. Thanks DrMomma, I enjoy your website and have found some other amazing information out there on circumcision. I find that a lot of the arguments against it are the pain that the baby goes through, I think what men miss out on in their adult lives is more of an outrage.

    There needs to be more data and more facts on pleasure, sensitivity and circumcision in adult males. I shall dedicate myself whole-heartedly to field research of male pleasure. :-)

  3. I am an American expat living in New Zealand for nearly 20 years. Baby boomer, married since the 1980s. Raising a daughter. Unlike nearly all American men around my age, I have all the moving parts Mother Nature saw fit to give me. I have been a defender of the American foreskin for nearly 30 years.

    I have been arguing since the 1980s that sex workers learn a lot on the job about how circumcision detracts from sex, and that we intactivists should interview sex workers carefully. You are a case in point, especially given how educated you sound. I learned of your show thanks to Hugh Young in Wellington, who owns one of the best anti-circumcision websites it the world. You bear out my long standing suspicion that circumcised men are more reluctant to use condoms. If this proves correct, this could explain why the circumcised USA has much higher rates of STDs than intact Japan and Europe.

    Routine infant circumcision was all the rage in New Zealand, 1920-60. But the Faculty of Medicine at Otago began teaching against it in the 1950s. As these younger doctors came on line, circumcision declined in New Zealand. In 1969, the Crown announced that it would have to be paid for privately. By 1985 or so, the rate was zero. So here in the Land of the Great White Cloud, Gramps is bald down below, Dad may or may not be, boys never are, and nobody stresses over this. There are Kiwi intactivists other than Hugh Young and myself, despite the fact that circumcision has more or less vanished here.

    In the 1970s white urban USA, the rate was 95%+. It's roughly 50-60% now. The big enemies of American circ are "crunchy" mums, mothers who advocate for breastfeeding anywhere any time, and natural & home birth. Men are much less prominent in the movement, and most male intactivists are gay or damaged by circumcision. Fierce bun fights amongst American break out all the time on the internet, essentially between foreskin haters and women who say that a male has the right to remain as he was born.

    Are you aware that every child born in Dunedin in 1972-73 is being followed closely lifelong. The circumcision rate in this cohort of 500 males is about 40%. Absolutely no difference has been found in the STD rates of the circumcised and intact populations. Prof. David Fergusson has been following about 500 Christchurch men born in 1977, with a circumcision rate of 25%. He claims that the circumcised bunch are healthier. I argue that the problem is that in 1977 Christchurch, circumcision was an upper middle class thing. Upper middle class boys catch fewer STDs because they have more careful sex lives. The Dunedin circumcisions were more evenly distributed across the social ladder.

    Do not hesitate to message me if you wish.

  4. I'm a Kiwi intactivist, It started when I was 15 in Wellington NZ. An older friend of mind told me that he almost died from circumcision as a baby when the doctor amputated the glans. I asked to see it and what he showed me was just a stump and flat on the end with 2/3's of the glans missing.

    All my NZ friends are intact and don't have or ecver had any of these things that circumcision is claimed to prevent (yes I can talk about that openly with my friends)

    I'm just glad rates were almost 0 when I was born and my parents protected me from my pro circumcision family doctor.

    When I first went to the US I wondered why a lot of guys don't like to wear condoms so I asked them, and they said lack of sensitivity down there. Of course they were circumcised and as they got older started losing feeling due to keratinization.