Restorers vs. Intactivists

[Joseph]

I think this thread might also be appropriately called "intact men vs. circumcised/restoring men."

There was another thread called "restored vs. intact" which dealt with the differences between a restored and intact foreskin.

However, inevitably, the conversation shifted from the differences between a restored and intact foreskin, to someone who is restoring, versus someone who is an intactivist.

Since this post concerns activism more than it does restoration, I decided to put it here.

I was under the impression that both of these movements were one and the same, if not two factions of the same movement.

However, it has been brought to my attention that there are some men who in fact believe themselves to be part of a different separate movement. That restoring men aren't necessarily intactivists.

Furthermore, I am disconcerted because I seem to have drawn fire from at least two people (and you know who you are) for whom it is a point of contention that I am intact and not restoring.

For those of you who do not know, I want to help end circumcision in America, though, I was never circumcised.

So to get right down to it, I want to ask, are there two separate "restorers" and "intactivist" movements? Or are they not one and the same?

If you are a restorer, don't you do so because you want to change the status of your member? It is possible to argue that you aren't necessarily disgruntled or discontent because you were circumcised. But then, why the effort, time and trouble to restore?

Those who are active in trying to bring about change in the US concerning the circumcision of newborn males have chosen to call themselves "intactivists." They want to help bring about the end of circumcision. Restoration exists for those who want to gain something back, but men shouldn't have to go through this, as they are entitled to the bodies that they were born with.

I have been made aware of the attitude that a man who restores, doesn't necessarily identify with "intactivism," even though effectively both are part of each other. This attitude is disconcerting, as it implies that although these men are restoring, they could give a crap that children continue to undergo the mutilation that necessitates restoration in the first place, and the people who are trying to bring about a halt in this practice. To me, it seems very selfish, and kind of condescending and self-elevating, this attitude that "we are above you people."

Another attitude that I've encountered is one to the effect of "You're uncircumcised. What are YOU doing here? Since you have a foreskin, don't know what it's like to be missing it, and aren't restoring, you couldn't possibly have anything relevant and/or useful to contribute to this group." And furthermore, the attitude that "since you are intact, it is illegitimate for you to have any feelings of disgust for circumcision. Only those men who are circumcised can have legitimate feelings againts circumcision, because they alone know what it feels like."

I find the first attitude hateful and resentful of intact guys. I sense a bitterness, such as the bitterness that an amputee might begin to harbor for men who have their whole bodies, such as the bitterness some men who are of short stature might have for tall people (Has anyone read "Of Mice and Men?").

And in light of the fact that probably the most vocal activists against FGM happen to be intact women, I find it peculiar that some men have a "this is OUR movement, you don't belong" kind of attitude. The peculiar thing is that the stereotype is that "circumcised men are happy they are circumcised" and that intactivists are just "angry uncircumcised guys."

So it boils down to these questions:

1. Are restorers, in fact part of a different movement? Or are restorers effectively part of a greater intactivist movement?

2. Is restoration a realm of restoring men in which intact intactivist men don't belong? Or is this a sentiment of only a few bitter men who have found a niche to belong to who feel invaded?

3. Does intactivism in general "belong" only to those angry disgruntled men who were circumcised? Does intactivism concern only circumcised men? Or are all men qualified to protest by mere virtue that they have a penis? (Doesn't intactivism concern humans of any sex, as it is a human rights violation?)

I have been made to feel out of place in these forums. I have been compared from a jogging man flaunting his ability in front of an amputee, to a virgin trying to teach about sex, to a "strange uncle" who has never had a girlfriend. I've been made to feel like I'm encroaching on others' territory.

I was under the impression that I would be more than qualified on speaking on the penis and the foreskin, seeing as I have both.

I was also under the impression that men who are restoring, as positive as they would like their outlook to be, would also want that the mutilation that necessitated their restoration to stop.

Furthermore, I was under the impression that intactivism concerned anyone with a penis, or anyone who believed in human rights in general.

So am I out of place?

Does having a foreskin exclude me from talking about restoration?

Is the restoration movement really not that concerned with stopping the procedure that even necessitates such a movement?

Is it not in my place to think that taking an unwitting individual and needlessly mutilating his genitals, because the same has not happened to me?

Would it be better if I moved on outta here?

[Nate67]

Joseph,

People are so variable. Who should be here who should not? Who, besides maybe Ron, can say, or rather has the authority to decide that.

There is that ignore function, and for those with such disgust for your thoughts, they can chose that option .

My OPINION about restore-ists and intactivists, is that they are not mutually exclusive, but they are not one in the same. With restoring men, it is personal. We, the unhappily circumcised, want to change our situation. We are against circumcision, because we feel that we are victims of this (of which I agree)on a personal level, therefore we are pro-restoration. If we did not believe in "restoration philosophy" that restoration brings at least improvement, and possibly as some advocate, near total recovery, we would not be engaging in this! We have to believe that restoration is real and will work, otherwise what are we doing this for? To what degree we "believe, hope, wish..whatever" that level of recovery is possible, is different between each of us, and fact is nobody really knows how much can be restored because it remains essentially unquantified.

Restoration-ists are primarily focused on themselves, we have to be. We are restorers for ourselves. That is okay, nobody is obligated to be more. Then there are men like Ron, who are restorers, but intactivist too, and very good intactivists. These guys became aware of the reality of what circ had done to them, but did not limit there response to this with personal action only. These guys took it further to speak up for those who cannot, and take an activist stand to try and instigate change. Perhaps it is not so altruistic though, for in helping others we help ourselves too.

Then there are intactivists who are intact. Why should they care? I think I understand the scrutiny and distrust by the circumcised, of these men. What is their *real* motivation, is it sinister? Is it vile and disgusting? It might be..who knows. I tend to doubt that, personally though. Again, this is my OPINION and I am not stating this as fact. My gut reaction to intact intactivists is gratitude. I feel the intact intactivist, who has no apparent reason to give a shit about who's prepuce is sliced, do in fact seem to care on some basic human empathy level. Maybe since it is too common these days for most people to have the "its all about me" attitude, we are highly distrustful of those whom seem to not exhibit this attitude.

It is unusual, that is for sure. Is it sinister though to care about other humans when you have nothing to personally gain from it? Are intact intactivists genuine?

Is there are place in a restoration forum for intact intactivists? That is something I don't know. Perhaps not, if the majority does not appreciate or value those men, then perhaps they should remain in the realm of pure intactivism and stay out of the personal realm of restoration. I hope not. I believe we can gain knowledge from their insight.

Should restoration-ists stay out of the realm of intactivsm? Again, I hope not.

Maybe we should concentrate on what we have in common instead of what we have in difference.

It seems none of us believe that babies should be circumcised as a matter of routine. It seems we are all for the most part, sympathetic to men who are unhappy being circumcised and wish to restore some measure of form and function to their penises.

Do we all agree about that?

[imahokie]

Joseph,
I am very sorry you have had this experience. You have been one of my favorite people on this board. As a restorer and an intactivist, I welcome the support of everyone and anyone. Having a good mix of circumcised and intact people is a good thing.

In a way I think I might be more of an intactivist than a restorer. I have more of a "Well its already too late for me" feeling. I feel that as its too late for me the least I could do is save someone else. As there is no real way to get back what was taken, I am not as serious about restoring as I should be. Don't get me wrong I do it every day, but if I could end circumcision tomorrow at the expense of me never restoring I would do it in a heartbeat.

[Joseph]

Notice I don't really engage on restoration forums much. When it comes to technical questions, such as the sizes of cones, restoration devices such as the "pud," TLC-X etc., tension levels etc., those are areas that only actual restorers can address. Every once in a while, though, a question concerning how intact people live with their foreskins, IE urination, masturbation, what's "normal" arises and I feel I should chime in.

I was thinking that was an appropriate level of involvement, though after my recent encounters I was left not feeling too sure.

[imahokie]

It certainly sounds reasonable to me. They are probably just bitter beyond belief. What I wouldn't give to spend one day in your shoes(as long as it involved sex) I wouldn't pay them much attention. My guess is the vast majority probably love to have you around. I know you were a great help for me gathering info. I don't think Ron has ever called you out either.

[Joseph]

Well thanks.

I really wish you didn't say you'd like to spend a day in my shoes though... it only works to perpetuate the myth that I'm here to thrive on people's envy.

That is simply not true.

In wanting people to "envy" me, it implies that somehow on an unspoken level, I'm glad that circumcision exists, because without circumcision people wouldn't envy me.

I don't WANT to be an object of envy. Men shouldn't have to envy normal body parts every man is born with. I'm working to END circumcision, not "thrive" off the envy it might produce in some men.

What a sad, twisted way of seeing things.

[Tally]

Notice I don't really engage on restoration forums much. When it comes to technical questions, such as the sizes of cones, restoration devices such as the "pud," TLC-X etc., tension levels etc., those are areas that only actual restorers can address. Every once in a while, though, a question concerning how intact people live with their foreskins, IE urination, masturbation, what's "normal" arises and I feel I should chime in.

I was thinking that was an appropriate level of involvement, though after my recent encounters I was left not feeling too sure.
Joseph, I value your contributions. As you point out, you offer a perspective that I, and many others, can never know: what it is like to have a natural foreskin. From the posts of yours that I have seen, I did not think they were inappropriate.

[cobra]

Let me be as clear as I can. Please do not look for ulterior motives or secret feelings in what I am about the say. Take it at it's surface value.

I am not a bitter person. I am an emotional person at times, but more often than not those emotions run on the mild side. When I stated I disliked you, it was not hatred I was referring to, simply distaste, mainly to do with the way you phrased some of your opinions in that "other" thread. It was also to get your full attention because I knew that it would distress you. Your comments struck me as somewhat arrogant and condescending, and I am not alone in thinking that. However, you did not enrage me. You simply put me into a confrontational mode. I was hoping through our debate that I could make you see your own mild bias and maybe get you to think about how you word certain things in the future.

I am not envious of your intact status. In fact, I am glad you are intact and that you were lucky enough to escape the sad fate most of us suffered. If we met in real life, we might get along, who knows? Even then, if you acted condescendingly to me, I would call you to task for it. I am almost 40 years old and when you get older, you demand a little more respect from others. I also have a genius level IQ and can see right through most of the people with whom I interact.

What I see in you is a genuine desire to help better the world and a sharp mind that has absorbed alot of knowledge concerning circumcision and restoration. You want to do good and help people. That's a noble thing. I commend that. You also have some set ideas and you don't seem to be willing to think about them too closely. In our debates, I set forth several reasoning exercises designed to make you reexamine your beliefs and maybe open up to some possibilities you had not previously considered. Your response was to sidestep these exercises and attack me personally by calling me bitter and envious.

I enjoyed our interactions and even engaged in some mild teasing. I can't even say I dislike you really. You're just annoying me a little.

To address this thread, intactivism and restoration are two totally different things. Intactivists are trying to stop the practice of circumcision on a social level. Restorers are trying to reverse the damage of circumcision on a personal, physical and psychological level. That is not to say that one cannot be both a restorer and intactivist... but sometimes one has to choose one's battles, and I simply choose to concentrate on restoration issues at the present time. It engages my interest more, and not just on a selfish level. I am fascinated by the whole physiological and psychological process.

I do not think you should "move on", but I do think you should rid yourself of some annoying habits should you choose to stay and interact with us. You need to stop pointing out the inferiority of a restored foreskin to an intact foreskin. It may be, in some situations and on some small levels, correct and true, but it is also hurtful to more sensitive men and detrimental to their recovery. Better to point out the differences in a positive and encouraging manner. Positivity keeps men going. Negativity can make men give up.

I know you want to help people, but help them by giving them something good to work for, help them heal themselves. There are alot of new restorers coming in every day, and an enormous amount of "drop-outs"-- men who register and make their introductory posts with high hopes and excitement-- then promptly disappear never to be heard from again. Have you been responsible yourself for making some give up by pointing out (with good intentions and blunt honesty) that no matter how hard they try and how long they tug, they will never have a "real" foreskin... that no matter how much energy they invest in this process, it will always be a "fake"? You're not being honest, you're being a dick, for whatever reasons motivate you.

I honestly feel that an intact penis is functionally and cosmetically far superior to a circumcised penis. If I did not, I wouldn't have invested so much of my time and energy restoring. Where we differ, I believe, is in the way we view a restored penis. I view a restored penis as intact, with some minor deficiencies that don't really make much of a difference in the long run. You view the restored penis as a cut cock with an "add-on"... in your own words, "a fake".

If you're speaking out of thoughtlessness or misplaced good intentions, then you should try not to say things like that because they hurt the people you say you're trying to help. If you truly feel that way, then you should take your show on the road. It's hurtful, insulting and simply not true. It is, to be perfectly frank, kind of bigoted.

I'm not being hateful, bitter or jealous, just honest about my feelings. I think your almost unique perspective here as an intact man can be a valuable resource for this forum, but it wouldn't bother me if you stayed or left. When you post helpful articles, I'll be right there behind you, patting you on the back, but you keep talking trash, I'll give you a piece of my mind... in the nicest way possible, of course. :)

[Joseph]

Cobra, If you wanted to "get my attention," you got it. I mean it really was insulting to be compared to a flaunting jogger etc. It did distress me. It made me actually question why I'm actually here. It made me quite angry and frustrated and I started thinking "If this is what restorers think of me, then fine, screw em. What bitter bastards..." Then I calmed down and realized it was just you and Tao. I got many positive responses on here and in private. It still stings that ANYONE would think that about me though...

To be clear, no comment that I make is made with the intention of looking down on the oh-so-lowly restorers that can never be magnificent intact me. I feel distressed that I could be perceived this way. But I think that feeling comes from a human desire of not wanting to be misunderstood. I'd rather die than be misunderstood, especially on such an important matter to me as this.

I'd like to meet some of the people on here in person. Even yourself. And, if I acted in a condescending way, I'd say PLEASE. Beat me over the head. Actually, to be honest, my friends often do. Without going too much on a tangent, I recently had a verbal scuffle with another friend, over something similar. Perhaps when I speak, I inadverdently sound like I'm talking down. They say that trying to ammend a fault begins with admitting it. And I must say, that if more than just one friend is telling me the same thing, there must be a problem. Please forgive me if what I say is condescending. It is not my intention at all to look down circumcised/restoring men, esp. since for the most part, it's not something most men choose.

In our debates, I set forth several reasoning exercises designed to make you reexamine your beliefs and maybe open up to some possibilities you had not previously considered. Your response was to sidestep these exercises and attack me personally by calling me bitter and envious.

If you would like, I'd like to ask you to give me those reasoning exercises if you want in a private message. I was blinded by anger about your jogger comment. Really, it was all I could see.

To address this thread, intactivism and restoration are two totally different things. Intactivists are trying to stop the practice of circumcision on a social level. Restorers are trying to reverse the damage of circumcision on a personal, physical and psychological level. That is not to say that one cannot be both a restorer and intactivist... but sometimes one has to choose one's battles, and I simply choose to concentrate on restoration issues at the present time. It engages my interest more, and not just on a selfish level. I am fascinated by the whole physiological and psychological process.

I'd have to say this is totally different than what I understood. It seemed to me like all you cared about was restoring and screw intactivism.

To top it off Taoist came in with his boob-job analogy, and it seemed like both of you had a myopic view no different than any schmuck, circumcised or intact, obsessed with "penis enhancement" or "penis enlargement."

To me such a mindset seems unhealthy, because it seems such men will just never be happy. That route goes on forever. They'd never be satisfied, and they'd never have a "conclusion" to their restoration process. They'd be on that endless quest for "the perfect dick" that even intact men engage in. I think it's one thing to encourage and cheer men who are on their restoring journey on, but it's quite different to think the only reason to want to restore is to be working towards that "Penile Fitness Magazine Dick". (If such a publication existed.) No doubt that past restoration, some men may want to take that route. And who am I to tell them they shouldn't? But I just think that that is something quite different than restoration, and not really a healthy thing to be gearing new restorers toward.

Cobra, if you want to focus on restoring and prefer not to be a vocal intactivist, I think that's quite respectable. It's just that when you talk about intactivists, you do sound kind of judgemental and condescending. Intactivists can be "sensitive" too, you know.

------------------------------

On to "pointing out inferiority." I really wish you'd stop using this word, because when I point out the difference, it's not to make restored men feel "inferior."

I think Nate put it better, but perhaphs...

I'm going to try to explain it differently. I really want to be understood. Please keep in mind that I don't mean to be hurtful, detrimental, or to discourage men, I just can't find a better way to express myself. I would like your help in finding a better way, but here goes:

When putting both experiences side by side, keeping one's foreskin one was born with from birth, and taking those long years to restore, I think it should be more desireable to allow a boy to keep his own foreskin. It shouldn't be preferable, the experience of having been cut to have restored, over having the skin you were born with.

To my ears, saying "this restored foreskin is better than that other intact one" indirectly legitimizes infant circumcision; that it is GOOD that men are being circumcised as defenseless children because this means they can grow back something "better." In that context, no, nothing can be better than having allowed a man to keep his foreskin, ever. Having a restored foreskin should NOT be preferable to having had your human rights violated.

Perhaps being an intactivist skews the way in which I hear things.

Cobra, how can I rephrase this to make it sound better?

I don't want to discourage men from restoring that's for sure. I want them to believe that they can get something back. And, if the circumstances are correct, something that could match, and possibly maybe even surpass some inact men who didn't take care of their penis. But I don't want to ever hear a man utter anything close to "thanks to my circumcision, I have a better foreskin than any intact man ever had.", and use THAT as a reason to think that they're "better" than anyone.

I understand what you mean about using my intactness to feel "superior" than restoring men. I hope you now see that that is far from my intention. The opposite, being restored and feeling "superior" to an intact man, I think, is just as bad.

In the last thread, you said something to which I said I agree whole-ly and completely, and that is that cut, uncut, or restored we are all "complete" men. And hopefully that also means that on that level, no one is "superior" and that we're all the same.

I honestly feel that an intact penis is functionally and cosmetically far superior to a circumcised penis. If I did not, I wouldn't have invested so much of my time and energy restoring. Where we differ, I believe, is in the way we view a restored penis. I view a restored penis as intact, with some minor deficiencies that don't really make much of a difference in the long run. You view the restored penis as a cut cock with an "add-on"... in your own words, "a fake".

Not so much "fake" as I meant to say "created." "Worked for." I think the fact that a restored foreskin was attained as a result of hard work is a very important difference, and I don't mean to use this descrepancy to look down on a restored man as "inferior."

If you're speaking out of thoughtlessness or misplaced good intentions, then you should try not to say things like that because they hurt the people you say you're trying to help. If you truly feel that way, then you should take your show on the road. It's hurtful, insulting and simply not true. It is, to be perfectly frank, kind of bigoted.

I hope you can see by now that I don't ever want to think myself "better" than anyone else. On forums, and even in talking to men in real life, men have tried to use their circumcised status to do just that. In America, there is an attitude that intact men are "inferior," and I've been at the receiving end of it. In no way would I ever want to do the opposite, to use my intact status to "look down on" circumcised or restoring men.

I'm not being hateful, bitter or jealous, just honest about my feelings.

I hope you understand I feel the same way.

[greg_b]

Joseph: I think you are a valuable contributer and have a unique perspective that is well worth sharing. So I hope you stay and continue to contribute.

To answer the questions you raised here, restoration and intactivism are two independent activities in my mind. Of course, they tend to get associated, and certainly RIC breeds strong activists. But lumping the two as you are presenting here is likely to just muddy the waters, in my mind. Categorizing people can be a useful tool, but it can also force people into boxes that just do not fit.

In the thread you are referring to, my perspective is that someone asked a question about how similar restored foreskins were to original equipment foreskins. Note they were asking how similar. Sure it is the flip side to ask how different they are, but how a question is phrased can be subtly important.

We were not given any info on exactly why they wanted to know. From my perspective, this question is frequently asked by those who are uncertain whether restoring is worth it from that perspective. So a few of us answered in a restoration supprtive way.

You came at it from a different perspective. Valid too, but a different perspective. From what I got out of your posts, you felt it important to emphasize the differences as a way to make the intacivist argument stong. All well and good, but from a different perspective.

From there it went to a debate about which side of the coin was a better side, based on ill defined and fuzzy words. Perhaps it would be helpful to step back a moment, reread the posts from this perspective and see what you think.

You focus on intacivism, and seem to be very sensitive to anything that could be interpreted to weaken the argument. Others may not be so focused on this aspect, but may be very focused on encouraging people to restore becuase it will allow them to gain personal insight and sex will be a whole lot better. Both stances can be considered intactivism...

I welcome you and hope you stay.

Regards

[Joseph]

greg you bring up an excellent point

The question "how similar" does not necessarily mean "how different."

I realize that one may want to restore but not be too involved in intactivism.

We must also remember, too, that as much some people would like it, not all intactivist men will want to restore.

Some may start out and just feel it's not for them, but still remain strong intactivists.

Restoring men should also not be discouraged in this, and just respect other men's decisions.

Perhaps different things are important to people of both camps.

For restorers, it's important that every man find joy and reclaim what is theirs in restoration.

For intactivists (well, at least for me...), it's just enough that men realize circumcision is wrong, whether or not they choose to restore.

[zahnmann]

Joseph,
I for one value your contributions. I have some doubt in my mind that circumcised men can even have orgasms. I mean, orgasms on the level that females do. If intact men have a sexual response on the level that I do, then males are truly vastly inferior sexually to females.
I have no way to know what the normal male sexual response is.
I cannot answer that question since I am both circumcised and not restored. Further, I have lost my frenulum completely, not a trace of it is left. Until I realized what actually happened during my circumcision as an infant, I did not even know I had a frenulum at one time, and did not even know it is considered the male g-spot.
I feel that only an intact male can tell me if this is indeed possible. I remember a movie from years ago called "The myth of the male orgasm."
My ejaculations are accompanied by a feeling that is similar to urination. Would you please shine some light on this for example?
Further, I do feel that intact males are not necessarily intactivists. There is no way they can know for sure what it is to be circumcised 40+ years ago. How can they know what will happen to their son if they have him cut? I know of a sad story where an an adult male had a circumcision on the advice of his urologist. The surgery was so traumatic for him, he had both his sons prophylactically circumcised so they would not have to go through the procedure. It goes without thinking that there would not be circumcision of intact males in the past placed value their foreskin.
I for one am glad you are here to shine light on what we can never know except on an intellectual level.
Thank you,
-zahn

[Joseph]

Joseph,
I have some doubt in my mind that circumcised men can even have orgasms. I mean, orgasms on the level that females do. If intact men have a sexual response on the level that I do, then males are truly vastly inferior sexually to females. I have no way to know what the normal male sexual response is.
I cannot answer that question since I am both circumcised and not restored.

Zahn, just know that circumcised females have spoken about this, and they can indeed and do have orgasms. That women are deprived of orgasms is a myth that FGM activsts use. For a good cause, but yes, a myth.

Circumcised males can have orgasms too. Fact is, that if men are circumcised as children, they really have no yardstick with which to measure how much they've been desensitized.

Know that in restoring, you will be better than you are. The men on here can tell you about it! :-)

I remember a movie from years ago called "The myth of the male orgasm."
My ejaculations are accompanied by a feeling that is similar to urination. Would you please shine some light on this for example?

I think that for this, only someone who was circumcised in adulthood and restored later can shine light on this. There are a couple of guys on here who can tell you about it.

Further, I do feel that intact males are not necessarily intactivists. There is no way they can know for sure what it is to be circumcised 40+ years ago. How can they know what will happen to their son if they have him cut?

The answer to that question is easy; just look at all the men on here? There are plenty of videos on circumcision where men can see exactly what happens to their sons. I am of the belief that very few men actually stand in the room while this is happening, and if it were obligatory, circumcisions would be reduced dramatically.

Keep in mind, Zahn, that a great majority of activists against FGM happen to be intact females. You don't necessarily have to be circumcised yourself to be an objective observer of circumcision, restoring men etc. and believe that it is a violation of human rights.

Could you imagine the slave liberation movement if it was only angry black people who fought for freedom? Would you seriously believe that there wasn't a single white person who thought that slavery was wrong?

I hope you believe that intact males can be intactivists... I mean I'm here aren't I?

[zahnmann]

Right, I know this. I just have noticed in my years that there are cases where intactness does not impart intactivism.
I am hoping that with the freedom of information and the anonymity of the internet, we can expose and get rid of this cancer on our society.
Like I wrote, I am glad you are here contributing and hope you don't go away.
Thanks for your input.
Please take a look at my intactivist web site
stopthecut.org
-zahn

[1Taoist]

Gee whiz, let's start a thread fishing for acceptance. Let's get real. Cobra...this is exactly what you called to task- looking to feel better about one's self. Totally. All the intactism/restorer details aside, this is a rediculous attempt to round up positive sycophants for one intact guy cuz a couple of us hit on his raw nerve.

Yeah, sure, all you guys like reading his informational posts...yadda yadda yadda...that's all well and good, but this is as clear as liquid crack. Joseph, you are insecure. And now I really feel every bit of what Cobra said. This is one big exercise in ego-validation and who knows what.

What need is there for any of this? But hey, it worked...got a few predictable yes-men on here to rush in with fauning support. Joseph, your factual reporting is fine and even well-presented- it's your personality and motivations that tilt you into wactivism. I love that word. Can apply to all sorts of causes.

We don't need personal attacks around here, but you are very personally offensive and anyone with any spine says so. But a lot of guys aren't tuned for that sorta thing. In fact, they just don't even hear or see this sorta thing cuz it ain't on their radar. Hell, there's plenty of people out there that'll tell pro-circ people to keep up the good work. Some people are selective in what they hear, and they want what they want. Some people like people that present mountains of literature and strong, sensational posting...without ever considering the psychology of such people. Many like it simple. They don't care and don't wanna engage in that way.

I now get this weird High School Musical feel here, like you guys are all gonna break out in a dance. WTF? Why do people need so much personal drama. I'm actually for less bull shit. All this crap about us bein bitter? No. We just get the wrong vibe from you sometimes. Who knows why some of these other guys don't pick up on it. But this is a small group. This thread is just an infantile gathering of placators. Nobody knows anybody. This is all written anonymity. Anybody who says "don't listen to them, I like you" is the type who'll go on eharmony to find the love of their life by emailing. Fuuuuhhk.

Let's drop this attention-whoring and get back to real discussions, k?

[1Taoist]

Zahnmann: cut men can't have orgasms?? First of all, take a physiology course. Even eunichs have orgasms. And men having orgasms like females??? Why exactly would that be, hmm, considering we have completely different hormone boards and equipment physically. We're different. We ain't supposed to have the same kinds of orgasms. And females ARE superior to us sexually...that was well established about 10,000 years ago.

[1Taoist]

And I believe the male G-spot is the prostate, not the connector of foreskin to the meatus. But who knows.

Myth of male orgasm? Now I've heard it all.

[imahokie]

Jesus Tao, I haven't been here that long, but the only person I see spouting off angry posts is you. Where has Joseph ever gone wrong? Tell me that and I'll apologize. Until then the problem is with you.

[1Taoist]

You think I'm going to go out of my way to prove something to just you? You're just provin my point above.

Like the joke- you needed to be there.

And for clarity...I ain't angry. This ain't angry. This is just bee ess.

[Joseph]

It was only a matter of time before Tao got on his vitriolic high horse.

This was PRECISELY a thread "fishing" for acceptance. I don't want to be at a place where I'm not wanted. Way to point out the obvious. Bravo Tao. You deserve some sort of prize.

Let's not forget that the whole point of these threads is for guys, circumcised, restoring, and intact alike, can come find validation in a country that endorses, advocates and facilitates infant genital mutilation, and where they are most likely to find ridicule. Validation and support. It's what these threads are about. Not for someone like you to come bask in their conceited self-importance. If you're "all done" and are "sooooo" past your circumcision and restoration and above "wactivists," what the hell are you doing here then?

I've come to the realization that you just can't please everybody every day, and I'm going to meet bitter assholes like yourself wherever I go. But then there will also always be sane people with cool heads. You don't represent all restorers, you're just one person.

I've decided to stay.

To all of you who have shown support on the threads and in private, THANK you.

YOU, Tao.

You've got some nerve to come on here and get on a soapbox and talk about "presonal attacks," especially since you've already racked yourself up a little reputation on these forums.

"Wactivists?" What the hell is this "a lot of guys aren't tuned to that sort of thing" bullshit? Did you hear that fellas? You're not as smart and alert as ol' Tao here. I believe that "wactivist" is an insult to the very creator of TLC and the administrator to these threads.

I think a lot of guys ARE tuned to this sort of thing. Guys like Americut. imahokie. Bral. greg. Nate. Myself. We're all tired of your bitterness and personal insults, and I'm pretty sure we're not the only ones.

"Personally offensive." Just who are you trying to fool?

Nobody knows anybody?

Speak for yourself. A lot of us have known each other for quite some time now, and even have some rapport in private since before you found this place.

You've got some nerve to talk about getting back to "real discussion", when there was "real discussion" happening before you decided you'd come in here and go on a personal tirade.

If you've got nothing constructive to add to the debate (by the way the name of this thread is called restorers vs. intactivists), then do go post somewhere else. Your vitrolic personal attacks are not wanted here.

[cobra]

I'm not going to comment on Taoist's replies. They are hilariously in-character for him and something you should let roll off your back if you are going to stay. Tao is just pointing out that this thread has a bit of sissy drama in its genetic makeup. Admit it, it does. It's okay tho. We all have a bit of sissy drama in us. Even me. I watch shows like River Monsters, Survivorman, and Deadliest Catch... but I have one sissy sweet spot, and it's for Project Runway. I don't know why I like it, must be my inner drag queen... but there it is. I kid myself that it's Heidi Klum, and it is a little, love that German accent and long tan legs. My wife doesn't comment, bless her. Just don't cry foul when someone is being bluntly honest with you. You've used the same excuse to call restored foreskins "fake".

I'm more concerned, rather, with zahnmann's posts.

I have some doubt in my mind that circumcised men can even have orgasms. I mean, orgasms on the level that females do. If intact men have a sexual response on the level that I do, then males are truly vastly inferior sexually to females.
I have no way to know what the normal male sexual response is.
I cannot answer that question since I am both circumcised and not restored.

The simplest definition of orgasm is "the moment of most intense pleasure during sexual intercourse." However, the amount of pleasure varies from fuck to fuck. Nothing is as simple as its simplest definition. I have to think that you are not very experienced with women or have never had an honest conversation with one about their orgasms, because any woman will tell you that there are different kinds of female orgasms. Inside ones, outside ones, little ones, big ones and fake ones. Let's cast aside this notion that women and intact men have "the perfect orgasm" each and every time they have sex. That's just as silly as saying circumcised men can't orgasm.

Further, I have lost my frenulum completely, not a trace of it is left. Until I realized what actually happened during my circumcision as an infant, I did not even know I had a frenulum at one time, and did not even know it is considered the male g-spot.
I feel that only an intact male can tell me if this is indeed possible. I remember a movie from years ago called "The myth of the male orgasm."
My ejaculations are accompanied by a feeling that is similar to urination. Would you please shine some light on this for example?

This is what I am talking about when I go on a tirade about the "lost list". Not everyone has a big, frilly frenelum. Some have a large elaborate accordion of fren tissue. For other men there are just a few thin strands of tissue coming down from the frenar delta of the penis. Zahnmann, did you know some intact men are even born without a frenelum? Circumcision generally damages the frenelum when it is pulled away from the frenar delta, leaving the tissue unrecognizably stretched out on the bottom side of the penis between scar line and pee-hole. The frenelum is rarely "completely cut out" although it does happen from time to time, and the doctors who do that do it on purpose for whatever sick reason they may have, knowing they are purposely removing the feel good spot. If it feels good when you touch and massage the area between your pee hole and scar line on the bottom side of the penis, then you have some fren tissue remaining. If you restored, you could pull your foreskin open and look inside and see how the fren connects from inner foreskin to glans. Restoring cannot reattach the fren to the glans like it is supposed to, but it can expand it in size and increase its sensitivity. Mine has become extremely sensitive through restoring-- enough that it makes my ass come off the bed when my wife licks and plays with that spot.

I have heard the frenelum called the male g-spot, but the reality is there are several intense erogenous zones on the penis, and different men report different areas as being "the most pleasurable spot". For some it is the ridged band, for others the glans, the coronal ridge or the inner mucosa. Did you know that the eyes, lips, nipples, butthole and prostate are also considered erogenous zones? Me personally, I find my most sensitive areas being my lips, the coronal ridge of my glans and my frenelum. Sometimes my wife will massage my prostate by rubbing the area under my balls during oral and it feels good. Not mind-blowing, but nice. I do not find my nipples, butthole or inner mucosa to be particularly sensitive.

I can relate when you speak of your ejaculations feeling like urination. This is how orgasms felt for me before restoring. Better than urination by a small degree, but not "all that". Your orgasms have been affected by circumcision. You need to restore. Your orgasms will improve if you create more erogenous tissue and by putting some slack in your shaft so that the stretch nerve receptors can function properly. Many of the sexual nerves of the penis are stimulated when the skin is tugged, pulled, stretched and compressed. That can't happen if your skin is drum tight when erect.

When you have restored to a certain point, your orgasms will feel much more intense. There will be a warm, concentrated pleasure in your groin area as orgasm approaches. It will build up and up and then explode. As you cum out your penis, you will feel waves of pleasure rippling out from your groin throughout your body. You will experience it through your body and your mind. Sometimes I see stars, literally. It's almost like having a sex seizure. After restoring, the orgasm will last longer, there will be more spurts, and then a big, relieving rushing feeling throughout as all kinds of sex chemicals are released into your bloodstream. You will feel completely satisfied and have a kind of sexual buzz feeling, kind of like being high.

Sounds great compared to the good kinda pee feeling, right? I'd guess you are cut pretty tight, correct?

So get to tugging. What are you waiting for? The foreskin fairy?

Well... gotta go. There's a Project Runway marathon on FemTV. "Make it happen, designers!"

[Joseph]

I've decided that not all restorers on here share Tao's view.

Whereas you and him try to act like you're "above" and "beyond" everyone else, most of the people here are down-to-earth folk.

Whoever said that "men don't cry?" Pro-circumcisionists who look down on intactivist men, intact, circumcised, or restoring, that's who. I don't subscribe to the attitude that men are supposed to "man up." This "macho-sissy" crap is a myth that perpetuates circumcision in the first place.

Do not confuse blunt honesty with the audacity to hurl direct personal insults at someone.

If I ever used the word "fake" to describe a restored foreskin, I apologize. I think I've addressed this already though.

You and I have differing opinions on the restored and congenital foreskin. I'm willing to leave it at that and respect each others' opinions if you are.

-----------------------------------------------------

Cobra, THANK you for reeling this thread back on topic.

[greg_b]

Great post Cobra! I especially like the ending, it captures several things very well in my experience and mind.

Cheers!



When you have restored to a certain point, your orgasms will feel much more intense. There will be a warm, concentrated pleasure in your groin area as orgasm approaches. It will build up and up and then explode. As you cum out your penis, you will feel waves of pleasure rippling out from your groin throughout your body. You will experience it through your body and your mind. Sometimes I see stars, literally. It's almost like having a sex seizure. After restoring, the orgasm will last longer, there will be more spurts, and then a big, relieving rushing feeling throughout as all kinds of sex chemicals are released into your bloodstream. You will feel completely satisfied and have a kind of sexual buzz feeling, kind of like being high.

Sounds great compared to the good kinda pee feeling, right? I'd guess you are cut pretty tight, correct?

So get to tugging. What are you waiting for? The foreskin fairy?

[1Taoist]

Now who really is the bitter asshole?

Don't answer that, anybody. Cuz I'm sure all of you who put up with this crap are gonna say me, and completely overlook people who call people assholes.

That's partisanship, people. Cuz callin people assholes ain't cool, and shows how weak you are. But you'll justify it.

Funny how blind, deaf, and dumb people are to their own bad behavior, and that of people they "like".

[1Taoist]

Hi. I've been following these threads and I'm confused...I don't know if I'm intactivist or restorative. I mean, I'm restorational, but intactness is something I think is hot. Some people think I have problems, so sorry ahead of time if this sounds offensive. I'm in my forties and I live with my mother, so I don't know that much about relationships. I had sex once and I think I had an orgasm. I think. Well, maybe I didn't. I don't know.

I think fake boobs are immoral, as is touching anybody's asshole, no matter how good it feels. I get angry at young women who wear skirts up to here dish towels for shirts when their nipples are harder than trigonometry. But then again, I think I like it.

I'm sure that what I'm saying will be misinterpreted and I'm afraid I will be called pro-circumcision cause I like to slap my penis when it's hard. I don't know what the best way to have an orgasm. How can you tell if you've had one?

I'm not an asshole, or a dick, or a pussy, but I do cut people off in traffic, sometimes don't call women back after I've told them I love them, and once in a while a dying-dog movie makes me tear-up a bit. I guess I'm ok with the term "man-down", as long as that's not gay. Not that I'm pro-anti-gay, just anti-pro-circumcision. I believe a child should have a say in who touches his penis. Wait a minute, that came out wrong.

Anyway, one more question: is a wactivist somebody who likes to masturbate. If so, I'm one.

Thanks for all the support.

[Nate67]

You think I'm going to go out of my way to prove something to just you? You're just provin my point above.

Like the joke- you needed to be there.

And for clarity...I ain't angry. This ain't angry. This is just bee ess.



Now who's gone and self destructed.

Are you on the inside looking out or the outside looking in?

How petty of you, and we (excepting perhaps your one supporter) see you for exactly what you are. Bullshit indeed.

And this ain't angry either.

-Nate

[Nate67]

The simplest definition of orgasm is "the moment of most intense pleasure during sexual intercourse." However, the amount of pleasure varies ...

...much more intense. There will be a warm, concentrated pleasure in your groin area as orgasm approaches. It will build up and up and then explode. As you cum out your penis, you will feel waves of pleasure rippling out from your groin throughout your body. You will experience it through your body and your mind. Sometimes I see stars, literally. It's almost like having a sex seizure.
S


Excellent post. Very descriptive, on topic and encouraging.

[Nate67]

Now who really is the bitter asshole?

... Cuz callin people assholes ain't cool, and shows how weak you are. But you'll justify it.
.

Try to take your own advice, perhaps.

[Joseph]

Actually, to get back on the subject, as I've said, I realize that restorers don't necessarily have to be involved in intactivism. Some would rather just concentrate on restoring, and really, I guess there's nothing wrong with that.

Now, I also realize that people could be restoring for different reasons. Some are interested in the phychological aspect of it, in which they are symbolically getting back what was taken from them, still others have had problems with their sensitivity and are trying to improve their situation. And still, others are interested in the "cosmetic look" of having a foreskin. Maybe some guys are interested in all three.

Now, something that is, TO ME a bit disturbing (and I'm just being honest, please don't take it pursonal), is when people are not only restoring, but they're interested in "penis enlargement," possibly part of a "pumper's group," penis dumbells, and other "penis enhancement" activity that isn't necessarily limited to restoring, and isn't limited to circumcised men.

To each their own, but are these men restoring for the right reasons? Or are they on a completely different level?

The reason I ask is because, though restoration is supposed to help people gain back a lot, specifically sensitivity, a lot of these other activities are known to actually be detrimental to a man's penis. (IE, pumping isn't supposed to be too healthy.) And it just seems to me that if people are doing these other things, that the lack of a foreskin is probably not their only problem.

This could be kind of discriminatory of me, and I'll admit that I am being so, even though I think this forum should be a beacon of support for all restoring men. But this is also supposed to be a forum where we could talk about things and discuss things so that things are clear. One, I'm purposefully trying to destroy prejudices in my head, and two, I thought it would be in-line with the intactivist/restorer topic.

I hope I'm not crushing too many eggshells...

[1Taoist]

Nate...take a step back and fuck your own face.

The rest of this is a waste of time.

[zahnmann]

Tao,
I am a doc. OK, let it rest.
The rest of us will have to just ignore you now.
-zahn

[1Taoist]

You are as full of shit as the rest. And so is this forum, really.

[1Taoist]

I'm gonna leave all you sad cases to your ways. If this is your idea of a forum, I want nothin to do with it. I don't even wanna contribute. To all of you who PM each other all day and complain about what a dick 1Taoist is...I'm fine bein hated by you. Pllllllease ignore me. IDGAF. I'll go smoke a cigar. And I'll give each one of you one to shove up your ass.

Buh bye.

[Joseph]

My.

For being "suuuuch a waste of time," and being "sooooo full of shit," you sure do come here a lot.

Somehow I'm not sure you want "nothing to do with this forum" and you're going to keep coming back anyways.

As long as you do, why don't you do us all a favor and spare us your cute little smart remarks?

I've already had someone privately send me a message about how bad this board is getting and I don't even know him.

You're scaring away Ron's customers!

STFU already!

[freddys]

Joseph,

I am sorry that some persons felt the need to insult you. Since I first logged on this network, I have obtained much satisfaction from your point of view, your understanding, and your support. Some of us put more emphasis on restoration, others on intactivism. But don't we all want to stop infantile circumcision? Why can't we all stick together on what is really important for future generations of boys and respect our individual differences? Please, don't leave this forum, you are helping too many of us.

Best regards,

Freddys

[cobra]

I also realize that people could be restoring for different reasons. Some are interested in the phychological aspect of it, in which they are symbolically getting back what was taken from them, still others have had problems with their sensitivity and are trying to improve their situation. And still, others are interested in the "cosmetic look" of having a foreskin. Maybe some guys are interested in all three.

I would be one who is interested in all three. I philosophically do not like the idea of not having my foreskin. It was mine. No one had the right to take it away without my consent. As such, it is a human rights violation. A person's body belongs to that person and that person alone. Cutting off someone else's foreskin is no different than tying them up and raping them in the butt, or cutting off their fingers, or poking out their eyes. No matter how you try to pretty it up with phony medical reasons or lame religious beliefs, it's simply a rather hideous form of physical oppression. I am also restoring due to problems with sensitivity. Those problems are very much resolved, but not completely. I also like the cosmetic look of an intact penis. Anyone who thinks a circumcised cock is sexy with parts missing and that visible scar is kind of demented, in my opinion. I do not even like watching porn with circumcised men in them. I was raised around intact men and that is how dicks are supposed to look and that's that for me.

Now, something that is, TO ME a bit disturbing (and I'm just being honest, please don't take it pursonal), is when people are not only restoring, but they're interested in "penis enlargement," possibly part of a "pumper's group," penis dumbells, and other "penis enhancement" activity that isn't necessarily limited to restoring, and isn't limited to circumcised men.

I think this falls somewhere in line with women who think they need to starve themselves to skin and bones to be attractive. Or have breast implants, or collagen injected into their lips. The media perpetuates a certain ideal standard of beauty, male as well as female, and one of the standards of male beauty is to have a large penis. It wasn't always that way but it is now, and a man wanting to increase his penis size is not very different than a woman who throws up every time she eats so that she doesn't go above a size 3. The real question, however, is when does this striving for the ideal standard become unhealthy. There's nothing wrong with someone exercising and eating healthy to maintain a slim appearance. There's nothing wrong with someone engaging in exercises to make his penis larger and healthier. The line is drawn, I think, when the pursuit of the ideal consumes their lives or damages their bodies, and leads them to feel inadequate if they fall below the standard. There's nothing wrong from wanting to improve oneself, so long as it is done in a psychologically and physiologically healthy manner.

On a personal note, at one time I was interested in enlarging my penis. I know I am not small. My measurements are around 6.5" in length and 6" in circumference. I knew that, according to surveys, this was well in the average range lengthwise and very large on the scale of thickness. Still, I persistently believed my penis was way too small. I did the exercises, tried penis pumps and pills. It really bothered me sometimes. After restoring for long enough to regain sensitivity, I found that my penis felt larger and I began to lose interest in being bigger. I realized that my penis was just fine size-wise and that lack of sensation had driven me to perceive that it was too small. I wasn't missing size, I was missing skin and sensitivity. It makes me wonder how many other men who are pumping their dicks and popping enlargement pills are doing so for the exact same reason. Their dicks FEEL small because 15 square inches of its surface are missing.

[admin]

I wasn't missing size, I was missing skin and sensitivity. It makes me wonder how many other men who are pumping their dicks and popping enlargement pills are doing so for the exact same reason. Their dicks FEEL small because 15 square inches of its surface are missing.

So true. Thanks for saying it.