Selective American Women

[savethechildren]

Selective American women prefer circumcised men, as they are accustomed to them. But being circumcised has a meaning, what it is, what it isn't, and a man who has successfully restored his foreskin to the point where he resembles an intact man would definitely not meet her aesthetic preference of a circumcised man. So to refer to restored men as though they are circumcised makes no sense, if one thinks about it. If the aesthetic outcome is lost, the circumcision no longer marks the person, and is at that point, null and void.

[forescore]

Women can 'select' all they want. They can select to have their own genitalia mutilated...because that is their choice. To say that a mutilated penis or vagina is better than what our creator gave us when he created us, to me, means that God's creation, when it came out of the womb was flawed. IT DOESN'T MAKE LOGICAL SENSE. IT NEVER HAS AND IT NEVER WILL. So selective women can think whatever they want. Circumcision does not improve a man in any way. And we uncircumcised will always have the scar of circumcision....that can't be changed either.

[forescore]

I sure do wish that a surgeon's knife blade had never mutilated my penis before I had a chance to JUST SAY NO for myself. In that scenario 'selective women' would just have to search for their better pecker because my pecker in that situation is perfect and I would consider 'the selective women' misguided. I wouldn't care because if my penis were whole as God intended, those women who would want me cut can just keep on looking. Their choice.

[greg_b]

Selective American women prefer circumcised men, as they are accustomed to them. But being circumcised has a meaning, what it is, what it isn't, and a man who has successfully restored his foreskin to the point where he resembles an intact man would definitely not meet her aesthetic preference of a circumcised man. So to refer to restored men as though they are circumcised makes no sense, if one thinks about it. If the aesthetic outcome is lost, the circumcision no longer marks the person, and is at that point, null and void.

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say that is not already obvious? Yes women can select their partners based on various things. Some prefer a circumcised guy, some prefer an intact guy. some change their preferences through education and experience.

Yes, in the US, many women only have experience and knowledge about circumcised guys. And there is a surprising number of guys who do not even know that they are circumcised.

How one thinks about circumcision, and how much value they put on the foreskin, is an individual matter, potentially changed by education and experience.

Men have reported fooling their doctors under exams after restoring their foreskin.

How one wishes to refer to themselves is up to them, and depends heavily on who their audience is and what they are trying to communicate. Whether to call yourself (or others) circumcised, intact, restored, uncircumcised, or otherwise, is worth thinking about,

the words you use suggest that there is more than what the words say that you may be trying to get across? As it stands, most is widely known already...

[SylLec]

Selective American women prefer circumcised men, as they are accustomed to them.

What is the argument exactly? It is not just about being used to...

What is the point?

[Ben15aussie]

So I think there's a few factors at play in the U.S. circumcision phenomena: firstly, like the unhinged gun obsession, it's big business. So there are financial special interests involved in maintaining the system. Secondly, the circumcised penis is glorified in American porn and thus in the minds of many males in general through social conditioning. Thirdly, many people lack or are unwilling to engage in independent thinking, which takes effort and risks adversity when you realise what everyone else is thinking is wrong, so you get a echo chamber bias effect whereby a lot of people just go along with a given narrative, because "it's what's done" or "it's always been like that" or "tradition", even although the narrative is based on flawed premises and does not have any sustainable arguments. When you get a narrative reach a threshold level, whether it is true or false, you will get a large number of people just believe it to be valid and assume things should and will be that way. Hence many American women would be surprised if a guy was not circumcised as they have been conditioned by the flawed social narrative all their lives to believe circumcision to be the default given position. But it will eventually change. History shows us that all falsehoods eventually fall, it just takes time. But in the meantime, a lot of damage is caused and a lot of injustices occur.

[savethechildren]

What is the argument exactly? It is not just about being used to...

What is the point?

Seeing an intact or restored man is likely to surprise her given the fact that they may have never seen an intact male. Women have told me more than once I am the first uncircumcised man they have ever seen.

[Frizzen]

Well savethechildren, then in your scenario your "selective women" would have self-selected themselves out of being worth a second glance.
Why would you want, or even settle for, a person with a Mutilation Fetish?

Bringing back the overall Intact appearance does NOT undo the Genital Mutilation. I don't get back all the original nerves and specialized structures that were crushed and hacked off. It doesn't reverse anything i've had to go through irritation, pain, anguish, frustration, disappointment...

I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this conversation, this and a few other of your topics really seem to be pro-mutilation?

[SylLec]

Seeing an intact or restored man is likely to surprise her given the fact that they may have never seen an intact male. Women have told me more than once I am the first uncircumcised man they have ever seen.

At one time, and depending on the nation, this may have been unusual indeed. It was the opposite in some European countries such as France, whereas the context in Canada was similar to the United States. But what is the point: the fear of difference? This is a matter of ignorance that can be overcome by education. In fact, it's a piece of skin that they don't give a damn about, but that makes all the difference in the world to a man. And yet, many women will say that they perceive and prefer the contact of the glans of an uncircumcised penis during vaginal penetration.

And yes, I have experienced many more circumcised penises due to my age and North American origins. Yes, it could have been surprising and unusual. My reaction: « Finally, an intact penis! ».

And yes, most men of my generation have been circumcised, unfortunately. And yet, I prefer intact penises.

[admin]

Selective American women prefer circumcised men, as they are accustomed to them.

Aesthetics are culturally learned. The monstrous preference for a partner with surgically diminished sexual response can be UN-learned by good-hearted fair-minded folks. There are plenty of women who are saddened by encountering a cut male partner. "So much less to play with" is a typical complaint.

a man who has successfully restored his foreskin to the point where he resembles an intact man would definitely not meet her aesthetic preference of a circumcised man

Bimbo repellent is a term I've heard. But I'd say these "selective" women are very rare. Most women have very poor discernment regarding cut vs intact. For one thing, both cut and intact vary all over the map. I've twice met women who claimed their first penetrative straight sex was with an intact man, but that they DIDN'T KNOW THAT until several partners later.

to refer to restored men as though they are circumcised makes no sense, if one thinks about it. If the aesthetic outcome is lost, the circumcision no longer marks the person, and is at that point, null and void.

I'm de-circumcised, if anybody's asking.

[savethechildren]

I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this conversation, this and a few other of your topics really seem to be pro-mutilation?

I'm not? Anyone who performs cosmetic surgery on the genitals of a minor should be penalized.

[Ben15aussie]

Yes... I would go with criminal terms like "Aggravated Physical Bodily Assault and Abuse Unconsentual" and to recognise the emotional impact...because so many posts on this forum read like victim impact statements... "Aggravated Psychological Assault and Abuse Unconsentual". It should be illegal and they are guilty of the two terms I just described and they should be doing serious time, that reflects the serious victim impact of their Unconsentual actions.

[Ben15aussie]

In my terms, "assault" recognises the timely act, but "abuse" recognises the recurring impact on the victim of the initial assault.