About 80% of men in the US are circumcised, so basically it's relatively uncommon to find someone who isn't. I had the 'luck' of finding someone who isn't. I don't have anything against people who aren't and I know it's the real 'normal.' But being raised in a society with circumcision as a normal, people who aren't strike me as unfamiliar and to be honest, it's just not my thing.
I've always made accepting me and everything about me a large deal, as well as accepting everything about him just the way he is. I do believe he is perfect and I do truly love him. But after finding this out, I feel largely like a hypocrite for even being slightly upset.
So do I:
1) Selfishly tell my significant other to get circumcised [I'm aware of pros/cons], portray that I don't accept everything about him, ultimately making him feel worthless just so I can be sexually/physically attracted to him. And to add on, he admitted he's not 100% sure about doing it, but he offered if I preferred it.
Or 2) Tell him not to, which is basically lying to myself to spare his feelings, and stay uninterested to him sexually.
Originally I'd say 2, but I'm aware that problems in attraction cause intimacy problems, which.. also tend to seep into other parts of the relationship. Advice?
Well, circumcision of a woman is completely different than men and incomparable. It's mutilation (which I know to males, it is as well), but it does not hinder the sexual experience for a man. It's only aesthetic. I understand where you and DrewDad are coming from, though. I've decided against asking him, so indirectly, I'd like to thank you two.
but it does not hinder the sexual experience for a man. It's only aesthetic.
Actually, this is incorrect. That skin is there for more than aesthetics. There are apparently lots of people who get circumcised later on in life, and sensation can be greatly reduced...so, yes, it would be a sacrifice of more than just some skin.
After my post, I'm to the point I don't care anymore. Hearing other peoples' opinions helped me change mine, but thanks for your time. It's just something that anyone has to get used to regardless. I'm extremely fragile with how I handle personal matters like this with him, so he knows it's not a personal attack.
Advice noted. I would never intentionally insult him. Thank you chai2.
It's in several studies and is, as far as I'm aware, still accepted as true. I could be wrong, given that I haven't went in depth into the subject.
A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
I don't find uncircumcised penises unappealing because the flock follows circumcision. I just personally find circumcised penises more appealing for me as an individual. Call it what you want.
But are 80% of babies still circumcised in the US? I thought that was changing- or at least it seemed to have been the trend when I gave birth - I know my pediatrician didn't push it one way or the other.
Well now I'm totally confused because I remember reading somewhere that if a man is NOT circumcised he can go longer (during intercourse) because the head of the penis is not exposed as it is in circumcised males- but I don't see how that could be true if overall it is more sensitive in the uncircumcised male.
drewdad, they really do keep asking that?