Re: Male Virginity EXPLANATION
David Stites (dstites@ncia.com)
Sun, 15 Oct 1995 04:00:53 GMT
nakis@ix.netcom.com (Michael Nakis ) wrote:
>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!
I am an uncircumsized male. I first had sex with a girl when I was 13.
There was some bleeding from the underside of my penis, where the skin
attaches on the underside of the glans. That is about all I remember.
Hope it helps you.
David Stites
dstites@ncia.com
Don't tread on me
|