circumcision, yay or nay; and subsequent prejudices for women's sexuality


I'm not really a fan of the practice, and to be honest, I've read a lot of stuff about how it doesn't desensitize, and I think it's bullshit. If you take the clit hood off a woman, it's very sensitive for a little while, and then loses a lot of sensitivity. How would it be any different for a man?

Both types of penises look pretty to me. But then, I've been exposed to both growing up, seen both in porn and in person, so I never preferred one over the other. As long as they're clean, it's go-go-go!

I remember reading that the #1 reason people circumcise their kids is because they want them to look like all the other little sheep kids in school. I think that's a stupid reason to cut off a foreskin. When people do that with women's genital cutting, it's a huge outrage, so...?

But whatever. Different strokes.

What really struck me going to Jewcy to read their comments on the subject, pro and con, via Calico's blog, was the attitudes people had about the women who were writing. While the pro-foreskin one only had one comment suggesting that she was perhaps a bit slutty ("Judging from your sexual tone, you had definitely seen some jew dick before this gentlemen"), the girl who was anti-foreskin got a lot of comments focusing, not on the foreskin debate, but on her sexual behavior.

For example, she mentioned in passing how she gave a hand job to a stranger in an airport, and she got judged about that. Told how it was unsafe, offering herself up to "any schmoe on the street". Never mind the implication that she should be a hooker instead, cause then she'd be paid, right? Cause women being slutty for the fun of sex is just WRONG, you're either being paid for sex or you're not doing it with strangers.

As someone who has done something very similar (ok, he jerked off on my tits in an elevator instead), I object. A hand job or a tit job is fairly safe sex. In fact, I might argue that a hand job with a stranger is safer than unprotected sex with a partner who may or may not be cheating on you. I don't see how that's dangerous, really, especially in a public place. I certainly don't see how that would indicate that she's mentally unstable (" Hand jobs for strangers in airports says more about your emotional issues than it does about your cock preferences"). To me, it just says she likes a little unattached play with strangers. So what? People go to sex clubs and swinger clubs for a similar rush.

Now, when I decided to let this hot stranger on a train seduce me with kisses and calf massage on the rainy streets of Boston, I decided with a few things in mind.

-Someone knew where I was, and I was due home at a certain time.
-It was public, so if it went too far I felt I could get help.
-I was wearing flat boots, so wasn't worried about a) running or b) kicking ass.
-I was in an area I knew very well.
-I decided if it was safer sex play, that was ok with me, but not anything involving fluid exchange.

This wasn't any schmoe on the street. This was a really hot guy I enjoyed chatting with. There are lots and lots of people I pass every day that I don't want to engage in hot stranger safer sex. Why do people assume if you play with a stranger you're open to everyone at any time? Or that if you do it once, you're playing with danger? Every sexual encounter should be negotiated in some way, whether it be flirting with a partner or saying "this is ok, this isn't" to a stranger in a glass elevator.

I'm going to have to post a bit some other time about sexual women being viewed as guaranteed eventual victims of sexual assault. For now, let me just say that's ridiculous.

But the point is- they were discussing MALE FORESKINS. Why does it matter if she saw 3 penises or 33? It's a personal piece on personal experience, yet a lot of people jumped on her sexual practices instead of the issue at hand.

That's just... grr!

Be the first to comment

Post a comment