Male Virginity EXPLANATION
Michael Nakis (nakis@ix.netcom.com)
12 Oct 1995 10:05:58 GMT
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 ggraham@minerva.cis.yale.edu, 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!
|