Question for Intact Guys

[cobra]

Okay, you never-been-cut intact guys. I have a few questions for you that I am curious about.

1) Have you ever seen/touched/experienced a restored penis in real life?

2) Do you consider restored penises more similar to intact (never-been-cut) or do you consider them more similar to cut dicks?

I applaud your dedication to the intactivist movement and all that (blahblahblah) but it seems to me that some of you harbor a bit of contempt for restored guys, that you are of the opinion we are just cut guys with a bit of extra stretched skin, and that our restored dicks can't measure up to your perfect weenises.

Before you cry foul, just let me remind you that some of us don't like to be called ruined broomstick dicks or mutilated or all the other things I've been seeing lately on this forum. Some of us are of the opinion that cut dicks are ice cream, and restored or intact are ice cream with all the toppings. In other words, we don't feel we were ruined, we only wish to improve what we have and enjoy it more.

There's no denying that circumcision is stupid and damaging and that sex feels better with a nice, long, rolling shaft of supple, sensitive foreskin, but being a bi guy, and having had sex with cut guys and as a cut guy, I can assure you that it was good. It's just better with the skin on. (Yes, I have been with intact guys, too!)

There's just a point where I start feeling like "Come on! Give it a rest!"

[mewpokemon]

Originally Posted by cobra

Okay, you never-been-cut intact guys. I have a few questions for you that I am curious about.

1) Have you ever seen/touched/experienced a restored penis in real life?

No, though I know I would prefer it ("uncut/restored") to "cut" because of the dekeratinisation and release of excessive tension. Note that I call them intact (those with), mutilated (those without) and uncut (those that have but didn't used to).

Originally Posted by cobra

2) Do you consider restored penises more similar to intact (never-been-cut) or do you consider them more similar to cut dicks?

More similar to intact but they aren't. There still seems to be a legacy of all that exposure, to me but that doesn't matter in my decision to play. Oh, I realise reading this back that my use of commas is going to be a little strange to the american reader, I write in "proper" english... Take your time with it and try to remember I mean no offense.

Strangely enough, at this point in time, I'm more likely to get involved with someone who tells me they've restored. I doubt I'd be able to tell without closer investigation. The lack of frenulum (which connects the prepuce to the glans) and lack of frenar band (rings of muscles in the prepuce), even the damage to the mucosa would give it away to my eyes and fingers. The awareness of the situation we are forced to live with would be a strong deciding factor, knowing to do something about it somehow erotic.

Originally Posted by cobra

I applaud your dedication to the intactivist movement and all that (blahblahblah) but it seems to me that some of you harbor a bit of contempt for restored guys, that you are of the opinion we are just cut guys with a bit of extra stretched skin, and that our restored dicks can't measure up to your perfect weenises.

I haven't said that. I only have "contempt" for those that would mutilate their children; a hatred for those that perform it.

I think this "perfect ween[ies]" thing is part of your dissatisfaction with what was done to you. Remember, there is psychological harm involved, too. Honestly, before you get too cranky, think about it. I'm not and haven't said anything that you shouldn't have read before. That mutilated guys are at only 25% statistic is not mine but from a study that is crucial to the intactivist movement.

I personally think that the difficulties are greatly under-rated. It can't be easy waking up to the truth and seeing that your "manhood" has been so greatly damaged. Most guys don't even see the scars nor keratinisation. I applaud you in your progress to recovery. I just can't lie about the situation.

I think it is essential that all mutilated males should restore their "foreskin". Resoration is a psychological _and_ physical process. I think mutilated males who are restoring are more "men" than the ones that aren't. Does that make you feel any better at all about how I feel about it?

Originally Posted by cobra

Before you cry foul, just let me remind you that some of us don't like to be called ruined broomstick dicks or mutilated or all the other things I've been seeing lately on this forum. Some of us are of the opinion that cut dicks are ice cream, and restored or intact are ice cream with all the toppings. In other words, we don't feel we were ruined, we only wish to improve what we have and enjoy it more.

*Sigh*

I realise that its difficult to face but when the chips are down, these are the facts we're going to have to educate people about if we are ever to stop this abuse: 1, "circumcision" (and I _HATE_ to use that word) _IS_ routine male genital mutilation, you were _mutilated_; 2, RMGM ablates the most sensative parts of the penis, no denying it, they are gone (and this is from a number of studies that intactivists rely on, both physical and functional); and 3, RMGM impairs the proper function of the penis - studies have shown they are more like a "broom stick".

Look, I know it makes you cross. It probably makes you sick or just plain furious. I'm here to tell you that I feel the same! There isn't a single time I've seen a mutilated penis that I didn't wish death upon the butchers that did it; not a single time.

I know you need to feel that you are okay with yourself and that you are working to improve things - you will survive and you will improve things. Unfortunately, if we are ever to stop this babarity, we need to draw a hard line. We're up against the wall without a hope otherwise. You know its wrong, I know its wrong, we all need to understand just how wrong it is.

If you continue to deny the significance of studies like the fine-touch test then what hope do we have of convincing the pro-mutilators? They are simply going to say that all a mutilated child needs to do is restore and they've got everything they need and that is the position you are encouraging.

There is a world of difference. It is the most villanous and brutal evil that we have to acknowledge and heal ourselves of. We live in a world that tolerates routine torture and mutilation. It pretends that everything is okay and lies to us that we are free. Don't think you are alone in being affected by this ignorance, it has struck us all and even hopes to be sure of this.

Originally Posted by cobra

There's no denying that circumcision is stupid and damaging and that sex feels better with a nice, long, rolling shaft of supple, sensitive foreskin, but being a bi guy, and having had sex with cut guys and as a cut guy, I can assure you that it was good. It's just better with the skin on. (Yes, I have been with intact guys, too!)

There's just a point where I start feeling like "Come on! Give it a rest!"

The sad fact that the intactivist movement relies upon is that it just _isn't_ as good. Not for either partner, not ever. Like I have said, if you continue to propel the view that there is no difference, then we have lost; the pro-mutilators will refuse to see there being any difference also.

If we are to win then we need to make people see that it is true, that they have been forced to accept only 25% of what they had. I know it is difficult but I think coming to terms with this, the psycological aspect, is something you have yet to complete as part of your restoration. In fact, it is something you are going to have to manage for the rest of your life.

I'm going to state that restoration _is_ important. It is important because it gives back to you a great deal of the mobility functionality that you have lost. It reconditions what you have left so that it also functions as well as it can and protects against further wear. I'm just _not_ going to lie to you by pretending that the ventral scar is anything other than what it is, for example.

If the intactivist movement continues, we are going to find more and more reason to show how RMGM is an incredible harm, you are going to have to work through that with us. This is all a part of what was "accepted" when you were mutilated and what you chose to see when you began to restore.

I'm not your enemy. The enemy is the butchers who would have you believe that you have lost nothing of importance. I know that at the very least, you know that that is not true.


PS:

I'd like to add, just quickly, that I used the term "broken broomstick" in relation to all males in our society. It is how I feel our society expects males to be. I definately did not mean any specific offense by it. I refer to the "average" female (the expected behaviour) as a "meaningless chattle-hole" if it makes you feel better to know that I view them poorly, equally.

[cobra]

Do the ends justify the means?

You condemn the medical establishment for breaking their oath of "doing no harm" while at the same time, commiting the same crime yourself on a psychological level to men who have already been victimized.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it.

Cut men can be perfectly satisfying and exciting lovers. They can be satisfied and enjoy their sex lives. The remarkable thing is that circumcision does not destroy the man and it does not ruin the penis. If it were truly as you think it is, circumcision would have faded long ago, an unbearable and awful yoke. The crux is that most circumcised men are perfectly happy being circumcised, even when they are educated and understand what was done. My experience is that sex was good before and it is better now.

I hate circumcision as much as you-- perhaps more so, for actually having suffered it-- but don't lecture me about coming to grips with my losses or whatever nonsense. How condescending! I have had to deal with all these issues on a very personal, painful level. For you, it is just a mental exercise. You have not experienced it on a personal level, and judging from some of your posts, you obviously do not know everything there is to know abstractly either.

I think it is a mistake to draw a hard line. You are going to alienate alot of people who simply don't buy into the whole ruined forever thing and never will. Except for some extreme cases of Frankenstein dick, most circumcisions are pretty much 90% reversible with some dedicated restoration.

But that, in a nutshell, is the conflict between restoration and intactivism. "If it can be reversed, why not cut them? They can always restore later if they don't like it." Well, the answer is, it's not COMPLETELY reversible, and it takes a long time to do it... but let's not go overboard, overcompensating for this conundrum, because it is very easy to dismiss "nutcases" and the old saying still holds true, "You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar."

When I first started restoring, years and years ago, I was horrified by the "lost list" and the extreme negativity that the intactivist movement showed toward cut men and restoring. In their zeal, they didn't bat an eye throwing cut and restoring men under the bus. Whatever their motives, it is not right to victimize one set of men to save another. I guess they figure we are already "ruined" so why bother with us... but it's just not right. It's not the reality and it makes them just as bad as the pro-circers, in a way. Both are doing harm, one to the body, the other to the psyche.

I hope you take my message to heart. Don't be a victimizer. A spiritual injury can be just as painful as a physical one and is often much more cruel.

This is a website devoted to healing and repairing the damage of circumcision. It is not your personal soapbox, nor are you the most educated or experienced member here. I have already made note of several factual errors you are trying to disseminate as gospel. You need to do less reading on the intactivist websites, interact with us real guys here and get a broader view of the whole issue. This is shades of gray, not black and white. Not all dicks are created, circumcised or restored equally.

[mewpokemon]

Its a very different battle, those of us in the infirmary (the mutilated) and those of us on the front line (intactivists).

I'm glad you're fighting for yourself. Unfortunately, there _is_ absolute and having it recognised is the only thing that will win this war.

[Joseph]

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

Its a very different battle, those of us in the infirmary (the mutilated) and those of us on the front line (intactivists).

I'm glad you're fighting for yourself. Unfortunately, there _is_ absolute and having it recognised is the only thing that will win this war.

Oh mew, don't overdo it.

No, there is NOT absolute.

Not recognizing THAT is shooting yourself in your intactivist foot.

Now go do some research on circumcision, synechia and the frenulum kid, you're botherin' me.

(And I think I'm not the only one...)

[mewpokemon]

Demanding an end to RMGM is demanding an absolute. The Declarations of Human Rights are a series of absolutes.

I think I understand now far better why year after year, our cause achieves nothing and we slowly drift backward.

Around and around and around. Blind in the fog.

[Tally]

Originally Posted by cobra

Cut men can be perfectly satisfying and exciting lovers. They can be satisfied and enjoy their sex lives. The remarkable thing is that circumcision does not destroy the man and it does not ruin the penis. If it were truly as you think it is, circumcision would have faded long ago, an unbearable and awful yoke. The crux is that most circumcised men are perfectly happy being circumcised, even when they are educated and understand what was done. My experience is that sex was good before and it is better now.

Cobra, you started restoring as a young man. When I was in my thirties, I would have said the same thing. But, being in my 50s and circumcised, I had all but given up on vaginal sex. There was no satisfaction. It was a lot of work for very little return. I even noticed that I was having difficulty keeping an erection during vaginal sex because there was not sufficient physical stimulation. The years had taken their toll on my penis. Sure, I could still masturbate with no problems, but that is a poor second to having an earth shattering orgasm during intercourse. Before restoring, all I had were memories of those.

Circumcision is perpetuated because its ill effects are not that common among young men. At the age when men are starting families, the likelihood is that they think as you said, there is no harm in circumcision because sex is good. There are exceptions, as can be seen by the young guys in this forum, but generally, young guys are happy with sex, cut or not. By the time men reach the age where the harm of circumcision really kicks in, it is too late for the next generation.

Your reality is not my reality. I accept that I lost a lot by being circumcised. I have experienced tremendous improvements by restoring my foreskin. I am looking forward to even more improvements as I continue to restore.

[cobra]

There is a big difference between 30 and 50. Thanks for pointing that out. I can only relate my own experiences and opinions. Even now, closing in on 40, I still jack it and have sex like I did ten, even twenty, years ago... is that thanks to restoring? Probably. I don't know what might have been if I had not restored. Your post really made me stop and think. What would I be like right now if I hadn't restored my foreskin? I never really considered it before. I have gotten so used to restoring and having a foreskin. Maybe I have forgotten what it is like to be tightly cut. Maybe I'm being just as presumptuous as mew, but in a different direction. Food for thought, definitely.

[Dasher]

"If it were truly as you think it is, circumcision would have faded long ago, an unbearable and awful yoke."

Even in the U.S., where Jewish doctors have been promoting circumcision like snake oil, the circumcision rate has dropped precariously. Worse for them still, there has been an influx of both legal (40 million?) and illegal (20 million?) aliens to this country, almost none of whom have been circumcised. Add to that the power of the truth spreading on the Internet, and it may be said that RIC's days are probably numbered in this country.

That's why you're going to be bombarded by phony studies (in Africa) of how circumcision prevents AIDs and, very possibly, the common cold. Why not? The time has come to find out just how stupid the American people really are. Just how badly they can be suckered. Like being conned into thinking that having a handful of banks that are too big to fail will be good for the country, instead of inviting its economic fall. Like being conned into thinking that gasoline at $4.10 a gallon was the result of supply and demand, instead of Wall Street manipulation of the commodities markets. Oh, and did I mention the Iraq War? If the American people can easily swallow these frauds, why couldn't they be tricked again about circumcision?

All you have to do is play the fear card. Instead of saying, "Your son's chances of getting penile cancer are only 3 in 5 if he isn't circumcised," the helpful doctor will instead say, "Your son's chances of getting AIDS will only be 85% greater if he isn't circumcised, but the choice is totally up to you."

The stupidity and lack of information of the American people is just one reason the unbearable and awful yoke of circumcision didn't fall long ago.

[Joseph]

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

No, though I know I would prefer it ("uncut/restored") to "cut" because of the dekeratinisation and release of excessive tension. Note that I call them intact (those with), mutilated (those without) and uncut (those that have but didn't used to).

No offense, mew, but you're simply talking out of your ass.

How exactly would you know about what you've never experienced? And who cares what you call them?

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

More similar to intact but they aren't. There still seems to be a legacy of all that exposure, to me but that doesn't matter in my decision to play. Oh, I realise reading this back that my use of commas is going to be a little strange to the american reader, I write in "proper" english... Take your time with it and try to remember I mean no offense.

What in god's name are you talking about. Explain your illogical use of commas. If you write in "proper [E]nglish," why didn't you capitalize the proper noun?

Completely irrelevant. ON with the discussion please...

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

Strangely enough, at this point in time, I'm more likely to get involved with someone who tells me they've restored. I doubt I'd be able to tell without closer investigation. The lack of frenulum (which connects the prepuce to the glans) and lack of frenar band (rings of muscles in the prepuce), even the damage to the mucosa would give it away to my eyes and fingers. The awareness of the situation we are forced to live with would be a strong deciding factor, knowing to do something about it somehow erotic.

Weren't you going to write in "proper English?" Sounds to me like men are just objects with dicks to you. Ick.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like you know anything about penile anatomy, as not all circumcised men have lost their frenulums, and not all have suffered the same damage to the mucosa. From an aesthetic point of view, some circumcision jobs are actually better than others...

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

I personally think that the difficulties are greatly under-rated. It can't be easy waking up to the truth and seeing that your "manhood" has been so greatly damaged. Most guys don't even see the scars nor keratinisation. I applaud you in your progress to recovery. I just can't lie about the situation.

From the looks of it, you can't tell the truth without blowing it out of proportion either...

You shouldn't assume every guy out there is going to be devastated that they were circumcised.

Again, some guys don't actually have it all that bad. But then, you couldn't tell because you're intact, could you...

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

I think it is essential that all mutilated males should restore their "foreskin". Resoration is a psychological _and_ physical process. I think mutilated males who are restoring are more "men" than the ones that aren't. Does that make you feel any better at all about how I feel about it?

I don't think cobra was looking for your sympathy.

It's not "essential" that circumcised males restore their "foreskin" as you call it, anymore than it is "essential" that intact males go circumcise themselves.

No, that a circumcised man "restore" doesn't make him a better man; it's realizing what has happened to him, decide it's not going to phase him and realize it's a fucked up thing to do to children. What he decides to do, whether it be to restore or remain in his state is secondary.

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

I realise that its difficult to face but when the chips are down, these are the facts we're going to have to educate people about if we are ever to stop this abuse: 1, "circumcision" (and I _HATE_ to use that word) _IS_ routine male genital mutilation, you were _mutilated_; 2, RMGM ablates the most sensative parts of the penis, no denying it, they are gone (and this is from a number of studies that intactivists rely on, both physical and functional); and 3, RMGM impairs the proper function of the penis - studies have shown they are more like a "broom stick".

I know what you're trying to say mew, but your making some very stupid assumptions.

Circumcision IS mutilation, and studies "show" all the damage that is done. But all "studies" can do is give you perspective. Studies don't show the degree of damage each male tested underwent. They study different men and then come to a generalization.

Just like female circumcisions, not all male circumcisions are the same, and not all circumcised guys have the same loss of sensitivity. Some guys have, others haven't.

You're also assuming EVERY man out there was mutilated as a child; some men chose circumcision for themselves. Regardless of what "studies say," is that really "mutilation" if a man was circumcised and OK with it?

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

I know you need to feel that you are okay with yourself and that you are working to improve things - you will survive and you will improve things. Unfortunately, if we are ever to stop this babarity, we need to draw a hard line. We're up against the wall without a hope otherwise. You know its wrong, I know its wrong, we all need to understand just how wrong it is.

If you continue to deny the significance of studies like the fine-touch test then what hope do we have of convincing the pro-mutilators? They are simply going to say that all a mutilated child needs to do is restore and they've got everything they need and that is the position you are encouraging.

I know what you're trying to say here too. However, you're missing the point.

Who on this board are you trying to convince that circumcision is wrong and causes damage?

I've said it on another post, but people here ALREADY know it's wrong. The choir doesn't need preaching to.

People don't want to know their losses, what they can't restore, they're already aware of that.

They're here to find out what they CAN restore and how.

They don't need someone reminding them of what they already know.

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

The sad fact that the intactivist movement relies upon is that it just _isn't_ as good. Not for either partner, not ever. Like I have said, if you continue to propel the view that there is no difference, then we have lost; the pro-mutilators will refuse to see there being any difference also.

Not ever? Really? You know this HOW?

That "that the intactivist movement relies upon is that it just _isn't_ as good" IS a sad fact. But you know what is ALSO a fact, but since the intactivist movement can't rely on it, they prefer not to think about it?

That no, not all cut guys have lost all that sensitivity. Circumcision may harm, and the damage could be really "bad," but not always.

If this were true, then circumcision would have ended a long time ago.

I think it's a waste of time to preach to anyone about how much bad sex is for circumcised guys. The truth is, you don't really know! Sensitivity tests can only tell you so much. But how can these tests actually test for satisfaction?

I think it would be better for us to focus on the crux of the matter, and that is that circumcision IS disfiguring, it is non-medical cosmetic surgery and it is unethical to impose it on children.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere trying to convince circumcised males sex just isn't that good for them.

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

I'm going to state that restoration _is_ important. It is important because it gives back to you a great deal of the mobility functionality that you have lost. It reconditions what you have left so that it also functions as well as it can and protects against further wear. I'm just _not_ going to lie to you by pretending that the ventral scar is anything other than what it is, for example.

You wouldn't know the difference between a scar and a frenulum either, mew.

It's one thing to pretend to know what you're talking about, another one to actually know.

The more self-righteous you portray yourself, the less respect people on this forum are going to have for you.

Originally Posted by mewpokemon

If the intactivist movement continues, we are going to find more and more reason to show how RMGM is an incredible harm, you are going to have to work through that with us. This is all a part of what was "accepted" when you were mutilated and what you chose to see when you began to restore.

I disagree. I think how much "harm" is important, but more important than that, is how circumcision is medically unnecessary, and it is unethical to be imposing irrevocable cosmetic disfigurement on a non-consenting child.

You go to far to assume you know what cobra "accepted" and what he "chose to see."

Mew, you need to do further research. Before you present "facts" that restorers need to accept, they need to be correct first.

Also, don't assume you know what cobra is thinking. In American English, we call that "pretentious."