Re: Male Virginity EXPLANATION
17 Oct 95 02:02:11 -0300

There's a reason that you have gotten no positive responses!

(That's a clue)


In article <45ipa6$>, (Michael Nakis ) writes:
> I came back 24 hours after posting my original "Male Virginity
> EXPLANATION" message, and I do not see it on the newsgroup anymore.
> I know for sure that it was on the newsgroup for a certain period of time
> because I have already received replies, (btw, POSITIVE replies,) but the
> message does not show anymore. It may be netcom's fault, or there may be
> some guy out there who found some way to censor my message because he
> found it too embarassing for his male image. Whatever the case is, here
> is a repost. If you have already read it, please excuse my persistence.
> Here is the moment you have all been waiting for. In this posting I am
> actually going to be making myself somewhat clear!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> First, I would like to let you know that I have received a whopping THREE
> more replies:
> One is from, who posted in the newsgroup.
> He examined the issue from a culrural rather than anthropological
> perspective, which means that he completely misunderstood me.
> Another is from a lady who sent me email. She majors in sociology /
> anthropology, and she says that she knows nothing about the issue but she
> finds it very interesting.
> Yet another is from a gentleman at NYU who also sent me email. He is
> asking me whether I am trying to say that "circumcision was begun as a
> way of mimicking female virginity" or as a "fertility symbol", which
> means that he also misunderstood me.
> {:-P <-- indifferent/cynical whistling smiley
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am astonished that nobody has given any positive answer to my inquiry
> yet. It seems like science knows absolutely NOTHING about this issue, or
> perhaps that scientists prefer not to know anything about it.
> I do not feel ready to post a full-blown description of my theory, but in
> order to become a bit more specific so as to perhaps invite the comment
> of an expert, here comes a summary:
> I am trying to suggest that THERE IS INDEED some sort of hymen which
> holds the foreskin attached to the tip of the penis. This hymen prevents
> the foreskin from fully retracting, and it thus constitutes an obstacle
> to copulation. Inevitably, it gets torn, resulting in some minor pain
> and considerable bleeding. Once the hymen has been torn, the foreskin is
> free to retract about two to three times further back than it could when
> the hymen was in place.
> Circumcised males (and wifes/girlfriends thereof) would not know anything
> about it, since circumcision removes the hymen together with the
> foreskin. I am also trying to suggest here that circumcision was
> invented precisely in order to CONCEAL the fact that there is such a
> thing as male virginity, so as to preserve man's macho image. In my
> opinion, this is the ONLY plausible explanation for this ancient ritual.
> Some uncircumcised males (and wifes/girlfriends thereof) may not
> necessarily know anything about it, either, since the rapture of the
> hymen is not guaranteed to happen during a man's sexual life.
> Uncircumcised males who have not experienced this rapture can at least
> examine themselves to find the hymen that I am talking about, (it is
> really obvious when you know what to look for,) and try to imagine what
> would happen if their wife/girlfriend happened to be especially "narrow"
> one of these nights...
> Please, tell me what you think.
> I am all ears!