The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

A place for guys to discuss why they love being circumcised or wish that they were cut.
FollowersFollowers: 0
BookmarksBookmarks: 0
Views: 708

The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

Postby snoman » Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:15 am

Hi Folks

I've just had this discussion with a friend of a friend who was asking me about circumcision in Australia and the US (I'm in Germany). She was curious but had not had her son done. Lots of questions though. She wasn't strongly anti (although she wasn't planning on having her son circumcised) - but she did throw out the "But the foreskin must be there for a reason" argument.

I'd like to know if you've ever discussed/argued this point with people? If so, what was your response?

I know it's easy enough to name all the other bodyparts we don't use or need anymore, but I once read something from a medical anthropologist that made perfect sense to me. I've been kicking myself ever since for not saving the reference.

The argument he presented is this.

Foreskins make climax easier when the woman is not prepared to have sex and is not lubricated.

In times gone by, we needed to mate quickly, (and probably with as many partners as we could find). There was no concept of romantic love or companionship - just a primal urge to reproduce. Having a foreskin meant that the penis was more easily anchored inside a dry vagina and only had to move in and out of itself (and not the woman per se) to achieve climax. It meant, basically, that women didn't need to be willing participants in the sex act.

I offered this explanation to the lady I was speaking with and watched (with some amusement) as her eyes grew very wide. She said to me "You mean - like raping women?". The irony is that she is somewhat of a feminist. I don't know if I left her reevaluating her belief system, but it's certainly an interesting argument to present to people, especially the more militant 'his body his right' women.

It's not a theory I've heard or seen very often but it certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than the "it was there for protection' point we often read about.
snoman
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 03.2016
Gender:

Re: The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

Postby andreamegina » Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:06 am

haha i've never made the argument to anybody before, but i have thought in the past that foreskin probably did come about to make it easier to rape

though it's my understanding that foreskin evolved a long time ago on the mammal path, way before people came around. almost every mammal has a foreskin, and humans really don't need them anymore (not only because of the rape thing but also because we walk on two legs, so dicks don't need to be protected from dragging through stuff near the ground), but there also hasn't been any evolutionary pressure for us to lose foreskins and be naturally circumcised
andreamegina
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 02.2016
Gender:

Re: The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

Postby Gemlt » Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:09 pm

I have to admit that this topic is somewhat interesting to me. As I understand it, most to all mammalian males have a prepuce that covers their glans when flaccid, however humans are the only males in whom the prepuce can cover the glans when erect. This anomaly has prompted some evolutionary biologists to propose theories for this difference. The one that you're referring to, Snoman, seems to be based on Donald Taves' article "The Intromission Function of the Foreskin," which describes the physiological concept behind why foreskin would make rape easier while only devoting a few sentences specifically to this hypothesis in the conclusion. That rape, while obviously atrocious, would have an evolutionary advantage for the reasons you cite should be fairly obvious. While this theory certainly seems plausible, I'd definitely be wary of when and how you bring it up. Foreskin and circumcision are already tense topics as it is without bringing rape into the dialogue. I have to admit that although I heard of this theory a couple years ago, I've avoided bringing it up (even in forums up to this point), because I don't want to come off as anti-foreskin.

For what it's worth, there are a few other theories I've heard for the evolutionary development of the human foreskin. One is that it is adhered to the glans tightly until puberty in order to lengthen the period during which females can develop before subjecting them to the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Another theory is that the positioning of the foreskin at the tip of the penis, rather than the base, during sex, would make it good for scooping out the semen of reproductive competitors. Ironically, the flared glans of the circumcised penis has been proposed to possess the same reproductive advantage (although we're obviously talking about social, rather than biological evolution in that case).

Along those lines, perhaps one further theory that might interest you can be found in Leonard Schlain's book Sex, Time, and Power. He has an entire chapter in this book in which he describes his theory for why circumcision arose, despite it's relatively paltry benefits compared to risks (in a society conducting the practice with rudimentary tools, and at an older age when the blood vessels in the foreskin are more developed). Schlain basically suggests that it would have been the women of the community that would have embraced this tradition because of the improvement in sexual performance (at least for the woman) that circumcision provided. I would give you the caveat that, while Schlain's books are extremely interesting reads, he has a tendency to be pretty selective on the research that he presents; and it's always going to be the articles and books that support his theories.

I think that all of these theories have to be taken with a grain of salt. Let's be frank, none of them have much relevance in modern culture where we aren't trying to out-impregnate the next guy in a social system where everybody's fucking everybody. Still, as long as you're tactful about what audience you present it to, it could definitely make for some interesting cocktail party banter.
Gemlt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 01.2016
Gender:

Re: The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

Postby snoman » Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:27 am

Awesome stuff Gemlt - thank you.

You're right, of course, It's always going to be a loaded topic. I bring up this idea only because I'm so tired of the "it must be there for a reason" argument which, once presented, never goes any further. If you're going to make definitive statements like that, which so many people do, at least make some sense.

"It must be there for a reason' is not an argument, yet it seems to be the final answer for a lot of people.

I propose the intromission idea just to get people thinking about 'why' a foreskin has a reason for being there. I don't mention rape but if they draw the parallel themselves I don't dissuade them either.
snoman
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 03.2016
Gender:

Re: The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

Postby Gemlt » Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:37 pm

Ah yes, the Naturalistic Fallacy ("nature makes no mistakes"). That reminds me of an old Robert Anton Wilson bit where he questions how intelligent "intelligent design" would be if all creatures were in fact designed by God. Wilson says something like "If I were God, I would have put the testicles on the inside."
Gemlt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 01.2016
Gender:

Re: The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

Postby savenger » Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:27 pm

There is still a reason, the foreskin also like you said in your OP keeps the vagina lubricated longer and doesn't potentially push all of the fluids out and to my knowledge and reasoning it's probably that sensitive to: 1) Feel really good so the human wants to do it again and again 2) Fortunately or unfortunately climax quicker in order to reproduce a lot (Just look at Genghis Khan ;) ) 3) Because of the 20,000+ nerve endings in the foreskin. But most of those are mostly primal and instinctual purposes for having foreskin.

Nowadays in a modern world, we don't need to fuck a lot to survive and in order to have our genes go through multiple generations in a short period of time. So, as much as I'm fine being uncircumcised and all of that, having foreskin isn't a 100% must, it just has some benefits. That being said the fact that most females are attracted to the head/glans, circumcised or not is probably a natural thing so in today's world being cut isn't a death blow per say in terms of a "reason".
savenger
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 08.2016
Gender:

Re: The "It must be there for a reason" argument...

Postby Cufflinks » Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:52 pm

One aspect that is never discussed is "how much foreskin is needed?" I keep hearing "foreskin or no foreskin", but it's not that simple. It's like saying "teeth or no teeth" or "eyes or no eyes". People do get orthodontic braces to adjust their teeth, and people do get eyeglasses to adjust their eyesight. And I believe people have been cutting off excess foreskins the same way ever since they knew how - because from a certain point onward, it's just too much material, and impedes functionality.

So, if I were asked that question by anyone, my response would be "if it sits behind the glans when erect, and goes there by itself, it's as it should be." That is why I had mine cut off. I hated having skin in the way all the time during sex, and I simply believe nature does not intend it to be there then, either.

So, if it slips back behind the glans when erect, where should it sit when flaccid? I think I have discovered something else that's pretty amazing and nobody talks about: Even though my scar is behind the glans, albeit with fairly loose and wrinkly shaft skin, I can actually pull all that skin forward and close it in front of the glans, where it will then contract, using the ring muscles. And it will stay that way, all day long, giving my thing a look that would leave me undetected as a spy in any Russian sauna. I use this when I go running in cold weather.

Long story short, I think if I can do this with technically no foreskin forward of the corona, imagine how easily someone with a bit more than that would be able to cover the glans to go tree climbing and crawling to ambush yummy djungle beasts in primeval grass. According to my math then, any foreskin which covers more than a third of the glans when flaccid would have to be redundant in length.

And that's where I stand on this.
Some people’s opinion one simply cannot change. Mine, for example.
User avatar
Cufflinks
 
Posts: 106
Joined: 01.2017
Location: Sweden
Gender:


Return to "For the Guys"

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest