Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network

Go Back   Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network > INTACTIVISM > General Intactivism Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendars Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 6th, 2010
cobra's Avatar
cobra cobra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 1,362
Default Question for Intact Guys

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!"
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 6th, 2010
mewpokemon mewpokemon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra View Post
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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 6th, 2010
cobra's Avatar
cobra cobra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 1,362
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 6th, 2010
Joseph's Avatar
Joseph Joseph is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,796
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

1) No, never. REPULSIVE things.

2) Not even close. This is why I'm here in support of this movement. "Duh..."



No contempt to restored guys at all. Also, it's SO not about comparing dicks either. It's simply about keeping things real.

Uh... the broomstick accusation does not apply to me. Though circumcision should not be called anything else but what it is; forced genital mutilation.

It's not about making guys feel "ruined," it's about not sugar-coating the truth, that people see the reality and that the forced circumcision of children actually stop.

Obviously, some guys WANT to be circumcised. Are they "ruined?" That all depends on what your definition of "ruined" is. I think the question is similar to asking, do tattoos "ruin?" Different strokes for different folks. Some chicks dig tattoos, others don't. Bottom line; it's fucked up to tattoo your kids.

And it's not all about how much "better" one dick is or the other. Well, at least to me. To me, it's the same as above. For better or worse, circumcision disfigures a person's body from what was already perfect.

It's one thing to give a kid a plain ice-cream cone; it's completely another to get an ice-cream cone "with all the trimmings" and make it a point to bite off all the trimmings before giving it to jr.
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 6th, 2010
mewpokemon mewpokemon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 6th, 2010
Joseph's Avatar
Joseph Joseph is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,796
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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."
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 6th, 2010
Joseph's Avatar
Joseph Joseph is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,796
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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...)
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 6th, 2010
mewpokemon mewpokemon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 6th, 2010
Joseph's Avatar
Joseph Joseph is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,796
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewpokemon View Post
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.
Let's not equivocate.

While demanding that the needless mutilation of children end, and that the Declaration of Human Rights are absolutes, what kind of circumcision a man ends up with, and how much "damage" he has suffered, real or imagined, are not.

You think you "understand" why we "achieve nothing" and slowly "drift backward?"

Is it that we don't lie, exaggerate and blow out of proportion the "harms" of circumcision?

Or is it that people are turned off by the fact that quite a lot of vocal intactivists DO?

I wouldn't go as far as to say our cause has "achieved nothing" and "drifts slowly backward," as if you look at history, the movement has come a long way!

From 90% to about 50% in the US... that's quite a lot!

This last year the MGMBill actually managed to get heard in the state of Massachusetts, the closest any bill's ever gotten to actually becoming law.

Once again your information is inaccurate.

BOTTOM LINE: I can see what you're trying to say, mew.

Exaggeration undermines our credibility.

But remember that this statement can apply to both intactivists and restoration advocates alike.
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old April 6th, 2010
Tally's Avatar
Tally Tally is offline
Wholesome seeker
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1,027
Default Re: Question for Intact Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra View Post
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.
__________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

See my other profile at RestoringForeskin.org and my blog at RestoringTally and my Facebook page and Celebrating Foreskin Tumblr.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.