Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
like cheating because it involves other women: MAKE HIM SOME PORN OF YOU. After just finishing two years of a long distance relationship, I
credit the homemade porn I made with keeping our sexual connection alive when we were thousands of miles apart. (Now that we live together, I still surprise him with additions to his collection sometimes.) Sure, it was awkward to make at first at first, but I got more comfortable with it over time. I loved the idea of him watching me when he was horny, he loved having a large and continually updated stash of personalized porn, it was super hot and made our sex life even better, and if I had felt like watching other women was "cheating", well, he wasn't watching anyone else most of the time. Wouldn't this be a win-win for women who are insecure/uncomfortable/upset about their boyfriends' porn watching? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Although I have no problem with my
boyfriend watching as much porn as he likes, as long has he still wants me, so maybe I just don't get it.
Of course there is something wrong with your boyfriend's dick--it is circumcised. He has lost the majority of his penile nerves.
The O'Hara study showed that cut men have to thrust and pound away to get off.
The only remedy for this, and it is only a partial remedy for his damaged penis, is to restore--Google foreskin restoration.
I've heard two simultaneously contradictory things from rabid anti-circumcisionists: that circumsized men lose sensation and have difficulty ejaculating; and that circumsized men are more prone to premature ejaculation. It all seems to boil down to "if you are cut, your sexuality has been permanently damaged."
I call bullshit on that. My experience, and I bet it is the experience of the vast majority of circumcized men, is that I have a healthy and satisfying sex life, as does my partner.
Does this mean I support routine circumcision? Not at all. Times have changed, medical knowledge has advanced, and the supposed benefits that were touted to support routine circumcision have, I believe, been debunked. That is why I chose not to have my son circumcized. So before you get all huffy, remember that as far as doing away with routine circumcision goes, I am on your side.
Where I am not on your side is with your contention that I - and every other circumcized male - must have been terribly damaged by my own circumcision.
Remember that a common justification for circumcision today is people wanting their son to "be like his father." I believe that it is important to persuade these parents - all those circumcized fathers out there - that this isn't important, that circumcision is an unnecessary medical procedure. Calling people who you need on your side damaged and dysfunctional is a pretty poor way to persuade them.
When I don't have a lover, I watch porn. There was quite a stretch there for a while, so when I met a hot man interested in getting naked with me I gasped gleefully while he fucked me, "This is so much better than watching porn!"
"Fuck porn," he grumbled softly but very distinctly, pulling harder. Sexiest thing I've ever heard.
Glad your sexual experience is satisfying. And kudos to you for not circumcising your son! It takes a big, big man to keep his son intact when he himself has been circumcised. However, circumcision does indeed damage and cause varying degrees of dysfunction. (Note: I said varying degrees. Not everyone is as affected as others. But every circumcised man has lost something, at least the self-lubricating gliding action and the 20,000 stretch and fine-touch receptors. See Adrian Colesberry for description of why even a mutilated cock can give unimaginable pleasure.) Sorry if it makes you feel bad, but I call a spade a spade. Sexual dysfunction, especially of the type HOT describes, is an incredibly common side effect of circumcision. What good would it do to pretend it is not?
Hey, people have lost legs and gone on to win marathons. Do we say that because they are such amazing athletes, losing a leg is actually not damaging at all? No, we admit that losing a leg is damage. Many people can do amazing things in spite of that, but that doesn't make it okay to go around cutting people's legs off.
Interesting and pertinent analogy regarding athletes with physical disabilities. That is something I have thought of myself around this, as I do a lot of volunteer work in that area, particularly with people who have had spinal cord injuries.
While none of them would consider themselves physically "whole", none of them would take kindly to it if I called them "mutilated", or "crippled", or any of the other loaded terms that people sling around in circumcision debates. And this is a group of people who have lost a lot more, physically, than any man who has merely been circumcized.
Seriously; I know lots of guys without legs, and lots of guys without foreskins (and even a few with neither). And I am pretty sure there is a big difference.
Because the alternative is that she makes SOMEBODY ELSE conform to something so she won't be so upset -- when the real answer is, mind your own damned business. It's not like her boyfriends are making her look at their porn.
Either that, or she gets to find somebody who already feels the same way she does about it. But, given the topic, good luck with that. Maybe she should start her search for that guy (or, as she suggests, that girl - but it's not like girls don't like porn too) in a monastery.
She doesn't have to be comfortable with porn, or enjoy it, or view it. But that isn't what she wants: she insists that any man in her life also not enjoy it, or view it.
Liver makes me uncomfortable. So do canned peas. I don't enjoy them, I don't use them. But my wife does. I occasionally have to leave the kitchen if she's cooking them. But I would never insist she not enjoy something she enjoys.
My preference: my problem.
Sure, "mutilated" is a loaded word, but accurate. Especially accurate given that it doesn't happen by accident, it is INFLICTED on the non-consenting person. There is a a person wielding the tools, pre-meditated and systematically clamping, crushing, and cutting at the baby's penis. If you've ever got reason to be in a hospital nursery, watch a circumcision (they do them right out in the open at the hospital where I had my daughter.)Or watch a video. Watch what they are doing, look at the penis when they are done, then tell me it is not mutilation. It certainly doesn't feel flattering, but they aren't just "doing a little snip" on babies. They are mutilating them. Pretending it is hunky-dory means allowing to continue.
For instance, if a U.S. soldier were captured by Taliban operatives, and was held down while body parts were cut off him, the media would report that he had been "mutilated" by his attackers. If a woman was walking down the street and attackers hit her knees with a tire-iron such that she couldn't walk again, we would say that her attackers "crippled" her. Now, no one wants to call themselves "crippled" or "mutilated," but is indeed an accurate description of what their attackers did to them. Also, while they will no doubt go on to overcome their injuries and have a full and satisfying life, there is no denying that something was taken from them and that the way they function afterward will be different.
Oh boy. I applaud your tolerance, but couldn't she at least switch to fresh produce?
Your comment in #115 is way off target. Fundamentalists don't deal with facts, they deal with belief, and pretend it is is a fact.
Intactivists deal in facts, and the facts are on our side. We don't have to get all wiggy about it. Typical American circumcision does remove 15 sq inches of sexual tissue from an adult male. That tissue is has highly concentrated amounts of touch and stretch receptors. (For touch receptors compare the fingertips and pads with the back of the hand for an idea of what a difference this can make. - Stroke each of them slowly and lightly.) For men, this sensitive nervous tissue is about 3/4 of the sexual nerve receptors, some 20,000 or more, about 2.5 times the number of nerves in the clitorus.
Nearly all the stretch receptors are in the foreskin. The majority are Meissner's corpuscles.
Definition: Meissner's corpuscles (or tactile corpuscles) are a type of mechanoreceptor. They are a type of nerve ending in the skin that is responsible for sensitivity to light touch. In particular, they have highest sensitivity (lowest threshold) when sensing vibrations lower than 50 Hertz. They are rapidly adaptive receptors.
So, that is what they are medically and anatomically. It is not about our beliefs. YES there are people opposed to forced amputation of sexual organs, yes, this is properly called a mutilation. We are an informed, vocal group with the facts on our side and we have the high moral ground. We do think individuals should have the right do decide for -themselves- how they wish to have their body altered. Pretty Fundamental idea, -Human Rights for Everyone.
We are fundamentalists, but in a "back to fundamentals" sort of way, based on the facts of the procedure, and the (lack of) ethics that usually surround it.
Not many folks know the specific anatomy and structure and function of their genitals, it is quite impressive to discover. If you do take the time do research it, I think you'll find it productive. And you can thank a "Fundamentalist" for pointing you in that direction.
Lastly recognize that "medical knowledge" is fairly conservative and limited about our sexual organs. Examples? The anatomy of the male prepuce or foreskin was only described in ~1976 and again in ~1996. Similarly, the existence of the female G-spot is still debated by medical doctors. I have to laugh at this, -but I feel sorry for their female partners! That damn thing is real!
Thanks for your feed back..it's fair enough and made me laugh, although I wouldn't necessarily compare liver and peas to porn! I just feel that there is room for everyone's feelings..I know that if something were to be so upsetting to my partner, I'd have to look at what is more important to me.. my partner, or that something that makes them upset. If porn is just a casual part of your life, what's wrong with giving it a miss or making a compromise? I don't believe this is a black and white issue. Just sayin'.
opinion about porn and we are not all religious
fanatics who live in the Bible Belt. I'm a straight
male who thinks looking at porn is cheating and I'm an
agnostic who lives in California. It doesn't bother
me one bit that different people have different
feelings about this issue.
-Prudes Really Understand Dan's Exaggerations
No one has commented that some women and men (ny no means all, or even most) like to be "hammered" at least once in a while. Let's just say aggressive sex instead of the loaded term "hammered". Maybe the woman and her BF, are just somewhat sexually incompatible and may be better with off with more compatible partners. Just a small maybe, but the BF has been considered "bad" in most responses, MAYBE he's not really so bad
I'm KIDDING, sort of, but in my opinion tastes in erotic/romantic/sexual material are kind of like music (which can of course be its own aphrodisiac). Yeah you can each put in your headdphones and secretly sit in seperate corners and pretend you dont listen to shit eachother loathes, and a lot of couples do that, but it's probably a better sexual match if you feel good about what the other gets off to. This macho attitude of SHE DOESNT HAVE TO WATCH IT SHE CAN STICK TO HER LADYNOVELS HEUH HEUH HEUH is really fucking annoying. of course people fantasize about different things, but very mainstream porn, the facial of porn if you will, is sort of designed to be repugnant to the girly "subjects" in the same way that chick lit is designed to be repulsive to anybody with good taste. Femmey girls have to do a lot more mental somersaulting to feel comfortable with it than dudes do, fact, and that just doesn't have to be the way it is.
sure men like porn, eaaaasy statement, but it's not so easy to make the flip side, women like romance novels, which are a very specific aesthetic and fantasy. the earlier definition of pornography is truer for both sexes. people are incredibly complex. your typical erotic story site online (geared towards the ladies amirite?) has shitloads of snuff, pedophilia, bestiality and incest on it, stuff that makes me feel like puking when i stumble across it, sorry. similarly, there's a lot of men who like quite softcore porn that would probably be a lot easier to imagine yourself the subject of as the chicky counterpart ( i think that's a lot of womens' problem - do my partners all secretly want to viooooolate me? shitty feeling)
i know women fantasize about being raped, objectified, treated like filthy sluts, "violated" as well etc to whatever degree (as men do), but the point is that a lot of porn denies women the agency in that fantasy, and that makes them feel weird about their partners regularly taking pleasure in it. there are ways to make those fantasies available to both parties while making them clearly fantasies. there are ways to be sexy where everybody can feel sexy about everyone's sexuality. it isn't necessary to polarize and compartmentalize, and women are as freakin visual as men, just as men could probably get off to a more "total experience" kind of deal.
EVEN within a personal, private realm, people can be sensitive to the desires and feelings of the people theyre fucking (or even people they wish to fuck). that doesn't mean sexual material has to be all wuvvvy-dovey, just that it could go a long way to be appealing rather than apalling to everybody. women and men are closer in sexual mindset than people believe. i regularly fantasize about violating as well as being violated, about making out, about watching people, about getting hurt, about sensuous threesomes, about fucking hard, about things where people aren't even naked, about past experiences, about potential ones, while bearing in mind that the subjects are total fucking people and catering to their particular sexual aesthetics. ive gotten off to images, text, listening, feeling, smelling... fuck... people need to compromise and not have so much insistence about WHAT I LIKE IS MY OWN BUSINESS AND DOESNT AFFECT ANYBODY BUT ME. who thinks that about anything they consume? and who can be so nutso cavalier about something so emotionally crazy as sexuality. some women make up a character for men who watch porn, that theyre these unfeeling maniacs who want to nut all over the biggest tits and then spit on the girls' face, and porn plays this up. but it's equally unfair for men to make up this virginal girl who just wants a guy with a big wallet who will tell them nice things and ravish them. maybe these extreme characters exist, and like i said earlier, they deserve eachother.
it's not innate, and you can be sensitive about what you masturbate to. you can adapt your basic fantasies to be kinder, sexually. you can be sweet and tender even if your thing is hard nasty rape. you can analyze why youre into hard nasty rape, or even why youre into brunettes, for that matter, and it might be a worthwhile activity for everyone. just saying. deconstruct and try to be empathetic.
One of the few things to like about people is the sheer variety of their natures; neither the Tory's nor the libertine's assumption of a single, human, nature is accurate: name any combination of common traits and their absence, and I feel safe to say that there is at least one example of it walking (or rolling, or lying in a pitiful heap) around.
To be otherwise is to be blinkered.
It is true that a lot more uncircumcised guys get used to the masturbatory movement of skin vs. shaft, and the foreskin allows enough "play" in the skin to allow for that sort of movement. This means, among other things, that as I get a bit older and dryer, some gentle tucking allows a comfortable and stimulating level of "tug" between vagina and penile skin, and a comfortable and stimulating level of "rub" between skin and shaft. Having figured this out when there was no lube around, I now do this on purpose--it's good fun. Without the extra skin, there's less movement for the guy. To get reasonable equivalent stimulation for an uncircumcised guy, I'd probably have to do a fair amount of vaginal clamping and unclamping (think Kegels).
But I've played with enough foreskins to know that they are not necessarily, in practical terms, strikingly stretch receptive (though the frenum often is). Nor does possession of an intact foreskin stop guys from getting extra stimulation from thrusting before orgasm. (Clamping your legs together and thrusting works on women too, BTW--try it sometime--or go do those gym exercises.)
Nor could I find any strong correlation between foreskin status and overall sensitivity to stimulation. Both groups have some guys who are slow to arouse, and some who are in the "jizz in my pants" crowd. It's easy to blame all your perceived sexual inadequacies on a few square centimeters of flesh. But really, for the time and effort and pain that goes into surgical foreskin restoration, you could do a lot of retraining on habits and technique, and probably come out ahead (pun intended).
Best suggestions I have are a) tie him down with you on top, so that you can rise up as he thrusts. You should be able to get enough resistance on his pelvis that he gets that "exercise orgasm" effect, but you can rise up so he doesn't hit too deep. Or b) practice your kegels and do it doggie style with him standing, but a bit precariously, so that he can't thrust (WARNING: it REALLY hurts if he pounds at an angle that presses your ovaries) and instead "pull" him off with vaginal squeezing. Or c) get a leash on his balls, so that you have good control on his "out of control" movements. This may take practice, but it may actually enhance the overall experience.
Oh, and "mind porn" isn't porn because no people are involved except your own brain. Duh.
Oh, and if someone has a hangup about porn, the LAST thing they should do is make porn, for anyone--especially someone whom they don't trust to make his own decisions, and whose life they are trying to run. Because when he busts loose, if not sooner, that porn is going right to the internet.
I'm one of the "progressive" guys you mention, who thinks that prostitution should be legal, but wouldn't want a girlfriend who was in it, or in porn. It's not about how society views sex for me, but about my own feelings about it.
But I don't think it's a contradiction: I would like to be monogamous with the person I sleep with, but I wouldn't suggest everyone has to be. In a similar way, I find the idea of threesomes or open relationships totally fine for others, but I probably wouldn't want to be in one myself.
In all of these cases, it's up to the individual(s) to decide for themselves. But of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't fight exploitation - that's quite a different thing.
On one hand, you have anti-circumcision activists insisting that every circumcised man is a mutilated, crippled freak. I don't support routine circumcision, but good God, it's hard to envision a more pathological reaction to the practice. Especially considering the considerable number of men who have been circumcised after puberty and claimed that the difference in sensation was either minimal or non-existent. (And while there are some who say it was significant, there aren't very many claiming their sex life was ruined by it.)
It certainly sounds to me like someone was made fun of in the locker room for his turtleneck, and is now trying to "get even" with every circumcised man on the planet.
And then we have 131, who - if he isn't a troll (the part about the overweight wife certainly makes it sound that way) - is apparently horrified at the prospect of being in the minority among men in his claim that watching porn does nothing for him, and somehow finds this emasculating. So now he's now insisting that every man who watches porn must not be getting any from his significant other. Sad.
A fortune to be made here in the self-help book market with tasteful illustrations of the many positions and techniques which spring to mind. Even for those who don't get off, many might find it arousing. "Sexometrics for increased pleasure and muscle tone at the same time!" Charles Atlas eat your heart out...
cheating is only as bad cheating as looking at porn.
Is that what you want your boyfriend to think?
("Might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb")
I have to admit, the idea of watching some skinny, big-boobed bottle blond half-heartedly fake an orgasm while bouncing up and down on the cock of a man who has no respect for her is pretty repulsive to me. As a female, most porn really is a total turn-off. But GOOD porn... That's another story.
Dan, how about some suggestions for some good couple-porn? I think women are far more likely to enjoy a video if they feel some kind of connection between the performers, and if the women genuinely look like they're enjoying themselves.
As for porn...Simon Louis Lajeunesse is the professor who could not complete a study about men and porn because he could not find a control group of porn free men. He ran another porn study mentioned here.
It would be cool if Dan or his youth staff got an account for bookmarks. Dan mentions a lot of great stuff, but not all of it is easy to find with google.
Networked bookmarks are anonymous, great for research, and great for finding porn.
Oh, really? I heavily doubt this. My boyfriend and I are madly in love and screw whenever we get the chance, but we both watch porn. We both feel it caters to fantasies that we wouldn't really care to act on in real life but are hot to watch, and we don't consider it cheating in the slightest. And how does your significant other being overweight have any bearing on porn? Answer: it doesn't.
Are there men who don't watch porn? Probably. It's a big world out there, and there's a bit of everything in it. Unfortunately for the parroting minority of all these "good" guys, most men watch porn. And these men aren't wrong for it, as long as they aren't neglecting their partner's needs.
@135 There are different degrees of cheating. Having sex with someone who is not your spouse or significant other is obviously much worse than looking at porn, even though both are cheating in my opinion.
Just like it would be foolish of me to say that it's impossible for a man's foreskin to be so tight as to cause pain during sex, just because I've never experienced that.
As an argument in and of itself, sexual deficiencies tied to circ are muddied because everything with sex is so personal and subjective. But that doesn't mean you can poo-poo the whole thing away. It means EVERYONE'S stories count, even the ones you may not agree with.
Don't believe it? Even science couldn't find guys who hadn't checked out porn before: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/12/02/S…
You perform an important civil service here, helping the sexually clueless of the world!! And also: very entertaining, so win-win!
Can we please talk cunnilingus at some point and how you do NOT use your tongue as if it were a blender all over that very, very sensitive bundle of nerves? Or use your fingers as if you were ringing a doorbell?
Thanks and you rule!
Restoration may help him achieve more sensitivity.
And not circ'ing baby boys may help prevent this kind of damage for tomorrow's boyfriends.
(If you want your OWN dick to undergo surgical reduction, that's fine. But there's no justification for doing that to someone ELSE who can't consent.)
So that is great your circumcision didn't detract anything from your own experience, but it isn't accurate to conclude that no circumcised guy can have sexual problems stemming from the particular way they were cut.
And if I had claimed that, you'd have a point. But I am not the one claiming that every man who is circumsized has the same result - good or bad. That claim would be from those who describe all men who have been circumsized as "mutilated", and those of us whose subjective experience is different as being "in denial".
So those guys are out there. I hope they find the women who feel the same way.
Am I to conclude that you never, ever, pop open a bag of chips, or a soda, or a Snickers bar? Never?
"People that use porn without their partner's permission are junk food junkies and cheaters in my opinion.
The operative word being "opinion." My opinion is there is no practical difference between using porn and using nothing but your own fingers and brain, or using a vibrator. In either case, there is nobody in the room but me.
To continue your analogy, you need your partner's permission to consume junk food? You've just described a total control freak.
Most guys get off on the idea of ravaging (not raping)their SO. Have your BF try this. Have him pinion your arms above your head with your hands behind your head. Have him exert pressure on the inside of you elbows and then fuck you while staring at your face. I don't know if it will have the same effect for you that it does for my wife and me, but we find it to be one "kick ass ride". Even if he is pounding away, you may be to far gone in the throws to care.
Sex is more a function of the brain and brain chemistry than physical stimulus. Having your head in the right place is more important than whether you are cut or uncut. I'm cut and my head gets so sensitive after ejaculation that I can barely stand the sensations.
Women have every right to demand that their partners not watch porn, just as their partners have the right to refuse to discontinue on pain of breakup. Guys who say they will, but don't, are being dishonest. There may be virtue to that, but women have a right to ask for better behavior, deeper commitment, better intimacy.
Lately Dan Savage reminds me of tech geeks who think they are complimenting women by saying they're surprised a woman is smart at tech stuff. the kinda guy who thinks he's too smart to be sexist. "why is it that women don't understand these feminist issues that are so obvious from my male gaze?" I used to admire Dan Savage as a crusader against anti-sex attitudes and the harm caused by phobias, but his position on porn--which encourages the literal abuse of women, not only in comments, as well as a host of other bad male behavior that is simply not justifiable--is a huge disappointment.
"Sex is more a function of the brain and brain chemistry than physical stimulus." Hmm. Cutting on the girly parts of unconsenting minors is illegal in the US because it causes damage. Damage that "the brain and brain chemistry" sometimes can't overcome. The same is true of boy parts. You may have been lucky and had relatively little taken from you, but others are not so fortunate.
"my head gets so sensitive after ejaculation that I can barely stand the sensations." So why don't you cover the glans? Oh, wait. Your "cover" was taken from you, probably before you even knew you had one.
If YOU want your OWN parts to be altered, that's completely up to you, once you are of age to consent to surgery. But cutting on infant - boy or girl - is abhorrent.
There are 2 major difficulties with circumcision: One that it takes 40 years to show enough effect from the damage and loss that the "owner" pays attention. The second difficulty is that "circumcision as a topic" has little to do with the facts, and LOTS to do with how men FEEL about the facts. The facts are simple, but dealing with them emotionally... not so simple. We have been a penis mutilating culture for some time now!
Yes, sex feels good enough to reach orgasm and ejaculate, but that is not all there is. And how logically can you evaluate sex with an intact, complete penis -if you have never had experience with one? This is a "Duh!" if there ever was one.
It is like a color blind person, arguing they can "see", sunsets and trees and faces, so they are not missing anything. Missing sensation, nerves and receptors, means only a partial experience of sight or sex. That is straightforward and simple.
The cultures that mutilate little girl's genitals apparently do so, to control female sexuality. At least that is the way the culture looks "from the outside". Our culture actually started mutilating little boy's genitals and little girl's genitals to reduce sexual pleasure. Other cultures that do MGM have similar concerns, observations and results. -Despite official claims that "it does not matter", the physiology is what it is.
The 20,000+ severed nerves do apparently atrophy, some all the way back to the spine, this according to a Jewish neurologist, -one who admires circumcision. He can't deny the physiology of amputation - he knows it professionally. (See "Cut" a documentary film by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon.)
The greatest loss of sensation is immediate but other effects accrue. I knew something was wrong when I realized my fingers were substantially more sensitive than my penis, in making love. That was my early 40s. My penis had become keritinized, meaning calloused.
Beginning foreskin restoration was an eye opener. 4 weeks after I began I had not grown any new skin, nor lost the callousing, but my shaft skin was now mobile. That little extra bit of mobility made me aware, - that nerves that had been dormant, were now functioning again. They had been overstimulated and numb. EVERY millimeter of intercourse motion was now exquisitely pleasurable. Little stretches and touches, now were very pleasurable. Before that those nerves were not functioning the same way. So I no longer had to thrust deep and faster, to feel something, anything. I am a considerate lover, certainly no jackhammer, but the difference between circumcised (at 40) and "4 weeks restored" was significant. Exquisite even.
Now I can also enjoy sex much longer, -I can control my approach to orgasm better. There is much more pleasure in the "road to orgasm", compared to before. Approaching orgasm, the "on-off" switch is now a "knob". Orgasm is nice but the "path there" takes longer (by my choice) and is hugely interesting compared to before. Go Figure. And we don't need lubricants anymore. Everything feels better and works better.
A foreskin is man's sexual birthright, plain and simple. Anybody that takes it from him is a thief, equally plain and simple.
ALL have lost the specialized nerves of the ridged band:
Those who have lost their frenulum have lost thousands more:
The rest have lost more --depending on how much mucuosa was removed...
Total loss, up to 3/4 of their sensation and sensitivity:
"A new study in the British Journal of Urology International shows that men with normal, intact penises enjoy more sexual sensitivity — as much as four times more — than those who have been circumcised. Circumcising slices off more of a male's sensitivity than is normally present in all ten fingertips. "
This loss was objectively measured by the Sorrel's study:
So, regardless of any belief that being circumcised does not cause sensation and sensitivity loss, the reality is-- there is loss, and the amount of that loss is determined by what and how much tissue is removed.
And finally there is loss over time by the process of keratinization of the mucuosal tissue that covers the nerves by a "callous".
One cannot rationally and logically try to pretend that circumcision has no adverse effect.
Would Dan tell the guy that there is probably nothing wrong with his girlfriend and to just work around it? Or might he suggest that they check out resources to see if there is anything that can be done to help correct the damage and give her some increased sensitivity back so that their sex is more mutually satisfying?
Dan missed the boat on this one. And many of the posters here show ignorance of their own anatomy (well, the one they were born with, anyway). Denial does not decrease what they lost. It only continues the myth that male circumcision does no damage.
I don't think circumcision automatically means a gimped cock that can never please a woman perfectly, BUT it is true that circumcision can cause this problem in some cases, and that HOT's boyfriend just may be one of those cases.
Tell him to work on slowing down his technique when he is by himself, so that he can train his body not to need it so intense in order to come when he is with you.
Removing the majority of penile nerves cannot have any effect other then detrimental--and he should consider this for HIMSELF and other males before trying to simply tell circumcised men to try different techniques to compensate for this loss.
A simple Google search provides TONS of sites and information on this procedure.
No, we can't really discriminate.
What gets you off, gets you off, and the thoughts of a person in a high state of arousal are very different from the same person's thoughts when they aren't aroused. You CAN get off on hardcore ass to mouth and still be a loving man who respects his woman as a person. The thoughts you think when you are aroused are focused on no goal but getting off. They don't represent what you truly believe.
You owe it to yourself to think about it, WWDD: has this happened to you before in relationships, to different degrees? Does the prospect of having more than one love relationship (or a relationship open in any other way to another sexual partner - as Dan suggested, a relationship open to threesomes, or where each partner holds friends-with-benefits relationships with others) sound like something you would like to access, but don't see the feasibility or right? There are so many books to aid your personal inquiry into this possibility; the first that I read that helped me in this questioning was Redefining Our Relationships by Wendy O-Matik. (This list is another good resource: http://www.polyamorysociety.org/page17.h…)
I'm not saying that everyone who finds themselves powerfully attracted to someone outside of their monogamous relationship actually prefers polyamory and hasn't realized it, but I feel it's important to mention as a very viable possibility - one that could make WWDD very happy. Of course, her partner would be equally involved with this possible new development, and that may be difficult, but whose life are we living, and with whom are we in relationships, if we're not pursuing our own genuine happiness? The essential focus of polyamorous advice/scholarship/thought/whatever is how to communicate, how to ensure your partner's safety and security, and others' experiences in making open relationships work for them.
Even better then that one you posted: